Author Archives: Tom Liberman

USGA and Anna Nordqvist Grounding Club Rule

Posted on by

Optimized-nordqvist-grounded-clubThe United States Women’s Open golf tournament was held this weekend and it was shaping up as a very exciting finish before something terrible happened.

Two players were involved in a three-hole playoff to determine the champion and one of the players, Anna Nordqvist, hit her ball into a sand bunker. This is in golf parlance a hazard. When in a hazard it is against the rules to ground your club. This rule exists for a very good reason. It is entirely possible to altar the condition of the hazard by pushing down with your club and easing the eventual path to the ball.

Nordqvist took her shot and grounded her club every so slightly dislodging the smallest of clumps of sand. No one noticed it at the time. The two women parred the hole leaving them tied going to the third and last hole of the playoff. Both women hit their first and second shots to the par 5. That is when a video review noted the infraction. Both women were ready to hit their third shots but Nordqvist was further away so she hit hers without the knowledge that she was actually two shots behind. Her competitor, Brittany Lang, was informed of the infraction before hitting her third shot.

I’ve written about golf infractions in which the penalty was assessed after the fact in regards to Tiger Woods and Dustin Johnson if you wish to see my earlier thoughts.

This latest incident brings into even greater clarity the problem of reviews after the fact. Everything that happens after the incident in question is subject to change. Both Nordqvist and Lang would not have played the remainder the 17th hole and the start of the 18th hole in the same fashion if they knew about the infraction. The fact the USGA informed Lang of the penalty before her third shot but not Nordqvist until after her third shot makes it even more egregious.

In all other sports replays must be adjudicated before play continues. It is clear this is necessary. Everything after the incident is subject to change.

It’s my opinion that once the next shot is taken, even if a penalty has occurred, it must not be enforced. If the player does not call themselves on the infraction, their fellow competitor does not call it, and the official charged with watching the group does not call it, then it cannot be enforced; no matter how obvious the violation.

I know people won’t like that. You will say, “But Tom, what if the player knew they broke the rule but rushes to make the next shot before anyone notices?”

I say that is exactly what happens to replays in the NFL and NCAA all the time.

I also completely understand wanting to get the call correct in the end. I’m a big believer in replay and getting the call right. But it’s vital to stop the match immediately if there is a question. It’s just unfair to everyone else if you allow people to continue playing with the actual result subject to change.

Nordqvist is showing great sporting spirit by not blaming anyone or complaining but the reality is this win is unfortunately tainted. Lang did nothing wrong and is a deserving winner but if both players knew of the infraction before continuing the result might well have been different. What happened is unfair to both.

For my knowledgeable golf fans I know you are going to mention the Craig Stadler towel incident. In light of recent events I now think he should not have been penalized.

Tom Liberman

Made in America is Meaningless

Posted on by

make-america-great-again-hat-minI just read an interesting article that is a mix of clickbait and excellent writing. At the heart of the article is the idea that products available to consumers around the world are almost impossible to define as Made in Wherever.

The headline attracts readers who are eager to learn that Donald Trump hats proclaiming Make America Great again and sporting a Made in America label are, in fact, at least partially produced abroad. Once you get past the political nonsense there’s an important and interesting message in the well-written article.

The problem is tracing the origin of all the materials needed to make a single product is not easy and in most cases simply impossible. Oil is used to make many things besides gasoline and certainly gasoline is used to transport the products from the factory to the store. The origin of this gasoline is impossible to trace. The oil came from the ground but it was shipped, refined using chemicals, shipped again, and eventually arrived at the pump. The same is true for virtually everything you purchase.

The article goes into detail about how even with microscopic examination of the threads used in the Trump hats its pretty much impossible to tell where they came from. It’s possible to rule out certain threads and one of the Trump hats was made from thread not in the lots it reportedly came from. But that’s totally beside the point.

The point is that we have a global economy. There’s no way around it. Raw material is mined or produced all over the world. It is then shipped to another location to be processed. Then parts are shipped somewhere else to be assembled. The assembled parts then go to a warehouse somewhere and are eventually shipped to a store where you purchase it at a low price. That low price is absolutely a product of the global economy. Without it prices go up and you cannot afford the things you currently enjoy. That’s reality.

Made in America is meaningless. There’s no way to ensure it is accurate nor should we care if it is. Is the product in the store the one I want at a price I can afford?

Made in America doesn’t keep jobs in America, it doesn’t improve the American economy, and it most certainly does not get you a better price on the goods you desire. Products largely produced in China create and maintain many, many jobs here in the United States.

If you want to pay $20 for a Trump hat supposedly, but likely not, made in America or $5 for a Trump hat supposedly, but not completely, made in China, that’s your business.

I’m saying I want the best product at the best price and the global economy provides that far better than any local economy.

You may not like it, but it’s true.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

How Yasir Salem will Make America Great Again

Posted on by

yasir-salemI made my weekly (sometimes more) trek down to the corner bar and it was a slow sports day. The Cardinals won an afternoon game and France defeated Germany in the Euros early in the day. So what was showing on the television? Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest.

The contestants were brought to the stage with all the fanfare of a NFL game and one of them caught my eye. Yasir Salem.

Mr. Salem is clearly of Arabic descent and was decked out in the stars and stripes as he ran to the stage and preened before the adoring crowd.

Yasir didn’t finish in the top four but that’s ok by me.

What made the United States of America great in the first place is everything Mr. Salem represents.

What is your religion? Who cares.

What is your skin color? Who cares.

What is your sex? Who cares.

Can you eat more hot dogs than the other guy, hell ya. That’s what matters. That spirit represents exactly why this country achieved greatness in the first place.

Let’s try not to forget it.

I’m telling you now and I’ll tell you tomorrow. Everything Mr. Salem represents is what will make America Great Again far more than any politician you will vote for in November.

Well done, sir. Well done.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

 

Zack Hample and the Baseball Game at Fort Bragg

Posted on by

Fort-Bragg-BaseballThere are a lot of people angry at a man named Zack Hample this morning because he attended a baseball game held at Fort Bragg.

The game was held on July 3rd as a tribute to military personnel and they and their families were given tickets. Hample is an avid, to understate it, collector of baseballs. He’s traveled all over the United States and collected over 9,000 of them from various different stadiums. He was eager to get a ball from this unique event and presumably paid someone to get their ticket. He was offering $1,000 for such a ticket.

People are angry that Hample got a ticket, attended the game, and collected a ball. They argue that he “stole” the seat from a military person and thus the ball as well.

I disagree. Whoever sold their ticket to Hample got something more valuable than a souvenir, $1,000 presumably. We don’t know what Hample ended up paying but we do know that whomever sold him the ticket wasn’t much interested in baseball or the souvenir. I understand that there was a child somewhere who is interested in baseball and would have loved to get a ball. But there was also someone interested in a thousand bucks.

No one forced the soldier to sell his ticket. From reading the comments on Twitter the soldiers were told not to give or sell the tickets to anyone except active duty military personnel and family. Yeah, good luck with that. There are going to be plenty of soldiers who got tickets who have no interest in baseball. There are going to be plenty of them, like me, who have no interest in souvenirs. They should be able to sell their ticket to the highest bidder. I’m willing to bet that many soldiers will sell tickets and other items they got at the game. That’s their business.

That’s life.

I certainly understand people don’t like it. I’m just suggesting that such people are living in a fantasy world.

Hample wanted a ball and was willing to pay for the opportunity to get one. A soldier wasn’t much interested in a ball or the game and sold him the seat. Two adults completing a transaction.

Was there anything wrong with Hample attending the game and getting a ball?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Topless Photos of Little Girls a Problem or not?

Posted on by

kids-play

*Small Correction, the girls were his daughters, not nieces*

I just read a Dear Abby question in which a young woman was upset by a man who had a picture taken with his six and two year old daughters who were topless. He posted the photo on his Facebook page. The letter writer claimed to be concerned that pedophiles might now have access to the pictures although it seemed clear to me that she thought a man posting a photo with topless young girls was somehow wrong.

Abby replied that the writer should talk to other relatives about approaching the man and telling him what he did was inadvisable. What? What? What?

The problem here isn’t with the father. It’s with a society that thinks there is something wrong with six and two year old girls being topless. There isn’t anything wrong with it. Yes, there are pedophiles but the problem is with them, not the father and not the girls.

I am unaware of evidence that pedophiles browse the internet looking for victims. Every case I’ve ever heard about involved a pedophile exploiting a young boy or girl who they were in contact with in their daily affairs. A neighbor, a family member, a member of the church, or something of that nature.

That’s not really my point here. My point is that if we make taking a non-sexual, family, friendly, fun, picture with a couple of topless young girls a sexual thing, we are feeding the idea that girls of that age should be viewed as sexual. They shouldn’t. Girls and boys of that age running around topless is not sexual. It is simply girls and boys running around topless. Little kids used to be allowed to run around naked all the time and nobody much thought anything of it.

I’d like to find a link to prove that point but I’m afraid to do an internet search about naked little kids. That’s a problem! I’m afraid to take pictures of kids at birthday parties. That’s a problem. The problem isn’t the kids. It’s not the uncle, aunt, family friend, mother, father, brother, or sister. It’s a society that allows criminals to guide our behavior.

A criminal might buy a gun. Ban guns.

A person might abuse drugs. Ban drugs.

A person might gamble away all their money. Ban gambling.

A person might get drunk at work. No drinking at work ever.

A person might drink too much soda and get fat. Ban large drinks.

A person might be sexually attracted to a child. Ban pictures of young children.

Responsible people should do what they want and face the consequences if they are irresponsible. They shouldn’t have to modify their behavior because someone else is a criminal or an idiot.

Is an Uncle Posting Pictures on Facebook of his Nieces Topless a Problem?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Radishes Grown on Mars – Martian Soil – Martian Like Soil – Misleading Headline

Posted on by

martian-soil-experiment-minScientists are About to Eat Radishes Grown in Martian Soil blares the headline.

The implication is that we’ve grown Radishes on Mars or at the very least that we have Martian soil here on Earth that we used to grow some radishes. The reality, not so much.

The radishes were grown in a nutrient poor soil designed to be similar to Martian soil. I’m guessing it wasn’t grown under the same conditions we’d find on Mars.

Interesting experiment, no, not even that. There are all kinds of people working on growing crops in nutrient poor soil. Pure click bait. The experiment itself, the story, and the headline especially.

I do love me some radishes though!

What do you think about the Radish Story?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Dustin Johnson and the Fear of Making a Mistake

Posted on by

Dustin-Johnson-US-Open-putt-minThere is a huge controversy going on right now in the U.S. Open.

The Rules of Golf state that if you cause a ball to move you are assessed a penalty. If the ball moved through some other agent it is not a penalty. Dustin Johnson was leading the U.S. Open when his ball moved. It was determined he did not cause it to move and thus he played it from the new position. Then, after watching some video, someone at the USGA, the organization that runs the U.S. Open got scared. What if Johnson did cause it to move? People will blame us!

Fear then ran through the organization much like poop through the proverbial goose. We have to make sure we’re not blamed if that happens. Panic spread like wildfire. In that panic someone made a very, very bad decision. They decided to inform Johnson that he might be assessed a penalty. This while he is still on the course!

His competitors know nothing of this although it’s likely word has filtered to them through the crowd. It changes the way everyone plays their remaining holes. It changes everything. It’s a disaster.

Would we expect any other sporting event to do as much? Well, St. Louis Cardinals. It looks like that run you scored may not count but go on and keep playing anyway. We’ll tell you what we decided after the game? Idiocy!

I’ll lay it out for the cowards at the USGA. Make a decision and stick with it. If it turns out to be wrong later, take the heat.

Today is Father’s Day and the USGA is acting like a scared child. Shameful!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Shania Clifford Bumped from Competition – Misleading Headline

Posted on by

masonry-shania-cliffordI just read an interesting story that is generating lots of outrage based on, in my opinion, a misleading headline.

A young woman named Shania Clifford from Scioto, Ohio was the first of her gender to win the SkillsUSA Ohio masonry competition. She was then bumped from the competition as the headline blares: First female teen to win Ohio masonry competition bumped from national contest.

A reading of the story indicates that Clifford actually finished in third place but was given the gold medal because of a transcribing error from the judge’s sheet to the spreadsheet which calculated finishes.

Clifford was not notified but instead the competitor who actually won was told. He then posted the news on his Facebook page and that is how Clifford found out.

The organization certainly failed in a number of ways. The transcribing error was unfortunate but mistakes happen. However, not notifying Clifford of the mistake and explaining in detail what happened was dead wrong. There’s no excuse for that. It’s rude and also gives the impression they are hiding something.

They owe Clifford a much better explanation and I see no reason why they shouldn’t invite her to the finals in any case. But the bottom line is this isn’t sexism, it’s a typo. That is if the explanation for what happened is true. I do think the lack of communication on the part of those who ran the competition has opened them to questions. They should provide the original judges scorecard and the faulty spreadsheet calculations.

Even with that I’m going to call this a misleading headline.

Also, good job, Shania! Keep up the hard work. Even if you don’t get to the finals you’re on your way.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

If We Expect Businesses to be Villains they will be

Posted on by

good-corporate-citizenI’ve gotten emotional and interesting reactions to the blog post I made yesterday, Jun 15, 2016, about Mars Candy and that reaction is quite fascinating. I’m going to talk about what I think it means today.

First off let’s look at all the places from which I got reactions.

I made a comment on the original story, posted the blog here, reposted at Liberty.me, and linked to it on Facebook and Twitter.

Across the board people have reacted in one way. They don’t believe Mars acted in the interests of their customers. People find it impossible to imagine that a modern business would do something that benefited its customers, particularly if that action seems to cut into profits. I’ve been laughed at. I’ve been given all sorts of explanations about how Mars was actually engaged in better business practices that had nothing to do with the customers. I’ve been called stupid.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not whining. People can laugh at me and call me stupid all they want. I’m comfortable being me.

What I am doing is sitting in astonishment that the public’s opinion of a business has changed so dramatically in my lifetime. I think businesses are still quite often excellent corporate citizens but the expectation that they will be so has changed, and that’s not good. If the executives of a business are expected to be selfish and self-serving with no interest toward their community or customer, it is only a matter of time until they become so. Why be a good corporate citizen when you get no credit for doing it and there is no expectation you will do it?

One thing that I think is completely lost in the modern world is that a business cannot be good or evil. It is the executives and employees of that business who make policy decisions. Those are the people who are good and evil and they are us. If Victoria Mars runs a candy company it doesn’t mean it is impossible for her to be worried about the well-being of her customers. Cutting down the size of candy bars for the health of customers doesn’t have to result in more sales immediately. If the customer lives longer it can be both a good corporate decision and a good health decision for their customers.

I’m of the opinion that too many decisions are made looking only at the short-term benefits and not the longer lasting effects. Decisions made that benefit the employee, customer, and business are often the same thing. What is good for the corporation is generally also good for the customer. Decisions that harm the customer can be beneficial in the short-term but often have negative effects down the road.

It concerns me tremendously that there is such a negative opinion about business in this world. I even got negative comments at my Libertarian website!

Businesses and capitalism provide me with almost everything in my life. I’m happy to pay money for particular goods and services. I think there was a time when almost all businesses felt they wanted to provide those things for me and make sure I was happy. I think that’s changing and at least partially because our expectations of a business have been warped to assume they are simply out to maximize their profit. When we expect business leaders to go for as much profit as possible and take advantage of the customer, they will eventually do so. That’s a recipe for disaster in the long run.

Remember, a company is run by people.

Greed is not good. What is good is making a profit, employing people, helping the community, and providing a desired product or service. When you purchase something you should be looking for companies that behave in such a manner.

When we expect the worst from someone, we often get it.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Mars Candy – Doing What’s Right Just Because

Posted on by

mm-candyI just read an absolutely fascinating article about Mars Candy. It states that Mars is looking to reduce the presence of their world famous M&M Brand candy in third party products like McDonald’s McFlurry because of concerns that people are eating too much sugar.

It’s why they are doing this that makes this Libertarian beam with happiness. You see, Mars is a privately held company. They are not beholden to stock holders. The reduction of sugar is not being done because the government is forcing them to do it. They are doing it because they are concerned about their customers, as well they should be.

Mars has a history of this behavior so it’s not a one time publicity stunt. Mars was the first candy company to put sugar amounts and calories on the packaging of their product. Not because the government told them to do it but because they wanted their customers to be aware of how much sugar they were consuming!

In 2013 Mars voluntarily removed “King Sized” candy bars from their product lines and limited the amount of calories to any single bar at 250. Again, not because any politician made them do it. Because they are concerned their customers are eating too much sugar and adversely effecting their health. From a candy company!

These sorts of moves cannot be easy for a company like Mars to consider. Too often we look at short term economic strategies. Mars wants their candy loving customers to live longer and buy more product during that lifetime! They have a long-term strategy that is not only good for the company but good for their customers, which makes complete sense.

Mars advises customers to consume their products modestly and as a treat!

Mars has promised to match health guidelines for sugar intake by limiting sugar in their products.

By golly, three hearty huzzahs for Victoria Mars and those who work for her company!

I urge all my friends to go out and buy some Mars candy remembering to consume it as an occasional treat. Live long, my friends.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Jordan Spieth and Professional Autograph Sellers

Posted on by

Jordan-Spieth-signing-autographs-PGA-ChampionshipThere was an interesting story from the United States Golf Open this morning that I think gives us a fairly keen insight into the nature of capitalism, both good and bad.

A professional golfer by the name of Jordan Spieth refused to sign autographs for two adults while signing for a child who was being “smooshed” by said adults. Spieth determined, and I absolutely believe he was correct, that the adults were what are called Professional Autograph Seekers. Such people collect autographs for resale at such outlets as eBay.

This practice has angered quite a number of celebrities from politicians to athletes to actors and beyond. Many of them have instituted policies to try and ensure their autographs only go to those who want them as a souvenir rather than as a money generator.

There are several thoughts behind this line of thinking.

One of the main arguments is that the celebrities can and do make a great deal of money by selling their own signature. That professionals are simply stealing profits that are legitimately the celebrity’s.

Another is that time spent signing for professionals takes away from available time to sign for legitimate fans who want a personal souvenir.

Both reasons are legitimate and I certainly don’t have a problem with Spieth, or any other celebrity, who tries to limit their signature when it comes to professionals.

But now I’ll come to the point of today’s blog. The economic reality is that there is a ready-market of people willing to pay fairly significant sums for those signatures. Where there is a market there will be suppliers. Suppliers will find a way to meet demand. Professional Autograph Seekers pay children to collect signatures. They seek autographs through the mail. There really isn’t much a celebrity can do except stop signing altogether. That, of course, deprives those who want a souvenir both at live events and at auction sites.

It’s a situation that brings to light the full gamut of capitalism. Good and bad.

The selling of signatures makes money for the celebrity and the Professional Autograph Seeker. It means that many people who want a signature as a souvenir get it despite never being in close proximity to the celebrity. Those are both good things.

It also means that the amateur is often pushed out of the way. That a child who wants an autograph is smooshed. Let’s not mince words. Celebrities don’t sit and sign until the last person is gone. They have limited time and every professional means one less signature for an actual fan.

There really is no villain here. Spieth wants to give his signature to people who value it for personal significance. Professional Autograph Seekers are simply making money from a ready market. Those buying on eBay or other outlets are spending their money freely knowing full well who is selling the autograph.

A politicians might try to outlaw selling signatures that are not your own and thus create a giant black-market with all the violence and fraud such illicit underground situations always bring.

The world ain’t always pretty and many times there just isn’t an equitable fix. Striving to find political fixes for things that cannot be fixed leads to bigger problems than the original issues. Don’t do it!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead – Libertarian Movie Review

Posted on by

Christina-Applegate-in-Dont-Tell-Mom-the-Babysitters-DeadI was out and about the other night and an attractive woman sat next to me with her date. During the course of their conversation, to which I was listening vaguely, she mentioned a Christina Applegate movie about babysitting and it reminded me of an underrated gem. Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s dead. So, of course, it’s time for a Libertarian Movie Review.

The Story

In the movie Applegate’s character, Sue Ellen, is the eldest of five siblings left home under the care of an elderly babysitter while her mother takes a summer vacation to Australia. Trouble ensues when the babysitter dies and the teens have no money to support themselves. Rather than call their mother they decide to try to make it on their own.

Sue Ellen has aspirations of a career in the fashion industry but takes a minimum wage job in fast food. She soon quits because she is being treated horribly by a manager. She then creates a false resume hoping to get a job as a receptionist at a fashion house. Impressed by the resume, a company executive hires Sue Ellen as an assistant.

Sue Ellen excels at her job and impresses her boss although also gains the enmity of a jealous co-worker. Meanwhile her marijuana obsessed brother is forced to feed the family on a small budget and finds that he loves cooking.

Eventually Sue Ellen ends up hosting an important fashion party for the struggling company. Her stoner brother provides an elegant dining experience while her younger siblings help as best the can.

In the end she is found out by her conniving and less competent co-worker and also the return of her mother. Rose, the executive played by Joanna Cassidy, is not dismayed and offers Sue Ellen a permanent job. Sue Ellen refuses but is promised by her now former boss help in gaining admittance to a prestigious college.

Meanwhile her brother and other siblings all gain by the experience and become the better for it.

Why it Works

From a Libertarian perspective there is a lot to like about this movie. Sue Ellen wants a career in fashion and refuses to settle for a fast food job with a terrible manager. She lies on her resume and aims high. Once on the job she solves problems creatively and effectively despite sabotage from a co-worker. Her brother is wasting his life smoking marijuana but stumbles upon a career that peaks his interest and goes for it with as much gusto as Sue Ellen. When Sue Ellen is discovered she admits her guilt to all and is willing to accept the consequences.

Finally, and I think in one of the most important scenes in the movie, when Sue Ellen is found out by Rose all is not lost. Certainly Sue Ellen did wrong by writing a false resume but once in the position she achieved astounding success. Rose recognizes this and does not punish Sue Ellen. She instead rewards her.

Had Sue Ellen failed at her job then punishment is certainly deserved but, in this case, she did not. Sue Ellen took a chance, broke a rule, and found tremendous success in a field she loves. She also helped her brother find his way and her younger siblings as well.

Five Freedoms

I give it a rating of Five Freedoms. A hidden gem worth watching by everyone, not just Libertarians.

Tom Liberman

Online Poker is a Life of Hard Work and Little Money – so Why do it?

Posted on by

jason-sommerville-pokerI’ve been watching people play poker on twitch.tv lately it’s got me thinking about some things.

I started watching a fellow named Jason Somerville and then also began to follow two other players, Lex Veldhuis and Parker Talbot. All three are extraordinarily good players and also entertaining personalities who explain their decisions in an informative way. Somerville in particular is a highly watched streamer who does an exceptional job teaching the game and also entertaining the audience.

So why the blog? Good question. After watching all three of these very strong poker players play for many hours I realized they aren’t winning much money and on many days losing money. That’s not to say they aren’t making money by the end of the year but what I saw was them playing for many, many hours in long tournaments with thousands of players (called Grinding in poker vernacular) for a small return on their hours of investment.

Then, for a change, I watched a few other plays who clearly did not possess the skill or temperament of Somerville, Veldhuis, and Talbot. Not only were they spending hours and hours playing, they were largely losing money! And quite happily I might add.

The first lesson I took from all this is that I have no business sitting at an online poker table. Even if I’m at a small stake tournament, some can be entered for as little as a dime, I’d merely be spending a lot of time and losing money. I have literally no chance to win against more skilled opponents. The more I would play, the more I would lose.

It quickly became clear to me that the vast majority of people playing poker online are either losing money or earning money at a rate far below any minimum wage job. So why are tens of thousands, if not more, people gleefully doing so?

I think it can be argued that the allure of riches plays a part but I don’t think that’s the primary reason so many people are attracted to online poker. While the riches are certainly there it is not the same as purchasing a lottery ticket. In order to get the riches hard work is required.

What I think is going on is much deeper. It taps into why I’m a Libertarian and also into very nature of what it is to be human. We want to be free. We want to work hard at something we enjoy and be rewarded for doing so. Those things bring us happiness and joy.

After watching Somerville, Veldhuis, and Talbot for many hours some things became very clear to me. All three are not simply dolts who happen to be good at poker. All three are highly intelligent and thoughtful. They spoke of subjects beyond poker with strong words and rational logic. It is clear to me that all three would be successful in whatever endeavor they chose, they just happened to have picked a field they enjoy and at which they excel. Wise choices, my friends.

And a shining example for the rest of us.

Do what you love. Work hard at it. Be pragmatic in your decisions. You’ll be happy, perhaps rich or perhaps not.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Wisconsin Prison Bans Dungeons and Dragons

Posted on by

Dungeons_and_Dragons_MiniaturesA story that hits me in my proverbial breadbasket just came across the wires. The Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin banned playing Dungeons and Dragons (no word on Pathfinder) by inmates.

I’m a role-playing game enthusiast to say the least. I love playing such games. I think it’s ridiculous that those in power think playing the game might encourage escape fantasies among the inmates. I imagine the escape fantasies are already on their mind. A fellow named Kevin T. Singer is incarcerated at that institution and had a regular Dungeons and Dragons game with fellow inmates.

Let’s cut to the chase. Prison officials do not believe that playing Dungeons and Dragons constitutes an escape or violence risk. They just wanted to make life more difficult for Singer. They found a ridiculous rational for doing so, implemented it, and laughed as they took away his books and homemade material. Ha, they said, we’re in charge and we get to tell you what to do.

The courts agreed. Even though there is no evidence that such games cause troubles in prisons (because they don’t), the court sided with the prison.

Sadly, I agree with the courts. The removal of role-playing games is something the prison can enforce. The inmates have been duly convicted of a crime. A particularly brutal murder in this case. The authorities run the prison and unless they are taking away a Constitutionally guaranteed right, they can do as they will.

My message today is for the prison officials. You are not making Wisconsin or this nation any safer. By using your power to bully and punish a prisoner, for the simple reason that you can, you actually increase the chance said prisoner will learn to hate authority figures all the more. The prison should run the damned game, if you’ll pardon my choice language. They should encourage inmates to work as a team and learn to appreciate those in authority don’t have to be jackbooted thugs. That they can actually be interested in the well-being of their charges.

Being in a position of authority is a tremendous responsibility. You can influence people in a good way and make this world a better place or you satisfy your sadistic urges to hurt and demean people.

I’m certainly not saying Singer is a wonderful person. The fact remains that he and other prisoners may someday return to society. Isn’t it in our best interest to make sure they return better than they went in, not worse?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Harambe the Gorilla and Lessons to be Learned

Posted on by

harambe-GorillaA tragic incident occurred recently in Cincinnati that is making headlines and evoking passionate debate among many people.

A young boy willfully climbed into the gorilla pen at the Cincinnati zoo and when a male gorilla named Harambe started to become more aggressive, the zoo’s Dangerous Animal Response team shot and killed the gorilla.

Passions are running high among those who think the zoo did the right thing and those who think the zoo handled the situation improperly. One of the positions I see being taken is that the zoo is responsible for the enclosure not being secure enough to prevent entry and they are to blame. That all the enclosures must be designed to prevent anyone from entering. That’s the argument I’d like to look at today.

What I want to talk about today, Memorial Day, is the commonly stated belief that Freedom isn’t Free. I disagree with that idea. I think Freedom is Free. There is nothing more free in this world than freedom. Don’t get me wrong. I well understand that other people desire to take away my freedom. Those other people include both foreign and domestic enemies and my own government. I understand that to protect my freedom people must make sacrifices. I do not disregard the sacrifices made in order to protect me and others.

That being said, Freedom is mostly certainly free. It’s just quite dangerous. It might be possible to make every zoo enclosure more difficult to penetrate but there is no way to have a zoo and also have it so that a determined visitor cannot gain access to an exhibit. It is in the nature of a zoo where wild and dangerous animals are kept that there will be danger. Certainly the zoo should make efforts to keep the enclosures and wild animals separate from the visitors but if we want to have zoos at all, we must face that fact that a determined child or adult might be able to put themselves in danger. That’s freedom.

We could make it more safe, certainly. We could make zoos illegal altogether. We could insist that zoos spend astronomical sums of money to enclose every exhibit in bullet proof glass.

We could remove all traffic signals and thus be more free to drive as we will without restrictions. Or we could pass more and more traffic laws. We could put monitors in cars to prevent any sort of dangerous driving. The choice between freedom and safety is a serious one.

Those who wish to take our freedom often guise their desires with soothing words about only doing it to protect us.

My point is that we must accept danger if we love freedom. We must understand that terrible things can happen. That the government and the zoo cannot completely prevent horrible outcomes. We must mourn the death of Harambe. We must accept the danger if we are to remain free.

The alternative is to be perfectly safe at all times … in our locked and hermetically sealed chamber.

What will you choose?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

The System isn’t Always Rigged – Libertarian Convention

Posted on by

banner_2016_libertarian_convention-minAs many of my democratic and republican friends lament the “rigged” system in which a series of complex rules bind or do not bind delegates to a particular candidate during their party’s nomination process, another system was on display this weekend in Orlando, Florida.

My party, the Libertarians had their convention. You probably didn’t hear much about it for a number of a reasons. One reason is that Libertarian candidates do not generate many votes, they hold no national offices, and precious few state positions. There is another reason and one I’d like to offer up as a contrast between the way the Republican and Democrats do things as compared to Libertarians.

We’ve had a long nomination cycle, which continues, in which voters in each state and territory of the union vote for candidates. Delegates then cast their vote for the candidate. The Republicans and Democrats have complex rules about how delegates can vote and many are bound to the choices the voters made. These rules are changed and modified each year, largely in an attempt to get a particular candidate nominated. Look up the Ron Paul rule for an example.

At the Libertarian Convention a delegate is bound only by her or his conscience. There is no state by state vote. Rules are not arranged to ensure a particular candidate is guaranteed victory or an upstart is shunted to the back of the room. The Libertarian Convention almost always has a Contested Convention. That is a convention in which none of the candidates receives 50% of the vote. Thus diplomacy comes into play in vote after vote until a consensus is finally reached.

In a Libertarian Convention delegates are not barred if they represent a candidate who stands little chance of winning. Delegates feel free to boo the candidates who express ideas with which they disagree. The room is not filled with flag-waving non-delegates designed give the impression of unity and support. Libertarians welcome dissent. Like in life, we embrace opposition for it is only by testing ourselves that we reach our full potential. It is only by listening to alternate ideas that we come to know all our options.

Now you know how we do things. Which system do you think is best?

Is it better to have bound delegates and many rules or unbound delegates who vote their conscience?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

It’s not the Beard, it’s the Rule – Andrew Jones Graduation

Posted on by

Andrew-Jones-beardThere’s a story all over the news this morning about a young man who was not allowed to participate in the graduation ceremony with his class because he had a beard.

There seem to be largely two takes on the story.

1. A rule is a rule and Andrew Jones should have followed the rule. He was given a chance to shave his beard but refused.

2. He was allowed to wear his beard all year long at school but the district decided to enforce the rule only at the graduation, therefore the rule is being arbitrarily and unfairly applied.

I have a third opinion, no surprise. Why is there such a rule in the first place? What does a beard have to do with a public education? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against rules. No running with scissors. Why? Because you might take out your eye or stab someone else in a fall. No talking in class. Why? Because it prevents the teacher from communicating the lesson.

I’m also not pretending there is no reason for the rule. It has a very definite purpose. It is a rule created to show the students who is in charge. It is a rule designed to acclimate young minds to the idea that they must follow pointless guidelines instituted by small people who delight in their trivial taste of power. Who all but masturbate because they get to enforce their will upon a captive audience.

Jones attends Amite High School in the Tangipahoa Parish School System in Louisiana. Tangipahoa Superintendent Mark Kolwe insisted the rule was fine and they would enforce it the entire year in the future rather than selectively at graduation.

Yuck. Petty bureaucrats reveling in their power and enforcing their stupidity.

Mr. Jones. You graduated. You excelled during your time in high school. Small minds stole your moment to celebrate with your fellow students. I have a lesson for you. It won’t be the last time your inferiors try to bend you to their will with useless and petty rules. Sometimes you will be tempted to forgo you principles, to shave your beard, so that you might get along. My advice? Fuck them.

If you must give up things like a graduation ceremony in order to be true to yourself, you have won. You have defeated the reptiles of the world who hope to destroy you for the simple reason that you are better than they will ever be.

Success lies ahead. Keep on your path, Mr. Jones. Stay your course.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Amazon Book Giveaway Clause

Posted on by

Website-Banner-GHI recently released The Gray Horn for purchase on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Smashwords and I decided I might do a Giveaway promotion at Amazon. It’s where you give away a book for free to a limited number of customers in the hopes of getting reviews and generating “buzz”.

I haven’t done it before but I was thinking, what the heck. As I went through the process I clicked on the ubiquitous Terms and Conditions button and gave it my usual cursory glance. Then I stumbled on item 6.

You grant us a royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use, reproduce, perform, display, distribute, adapt, modify, excerpt, analyze, re-format, create derivative works of, and otherwise commercially or non-commercially exploit in any manner, any and all of Your Materials, and to sublicense the foregoing rights; provided that nothing in this Agreement will prevent or impair our right to use Your Materials without your consent to the extent that such use is allowable without a license from you or your Affiliates under applicable Law (e.g., fair use under United States copyright law, referential use under trademark law, or valid license from a third party).

I mean to say …

Holy s***!

Are you kidding me? That’s more than just terms and conditions. That’s some serious rights I’m giving away. I was rendered speechless. Which, if you know me, is no small feat.

I thought I’d pass it along just for general knowledge to anyone else thinking about going with a Giveaway promotion on Amazon. Frankly, you should read all the Terms and Conditions but it’s hard because they make them so long and difficult.

Have a great day!

Oh, and buy my books. Only $2.99. Write reviews! They help, they really do.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

The Gray Horn – Available Now

Posted on by

The-gray-horn-color-2The Gray Horn is now available for sale at Amazon, Smashwords, and Barnes and Noble for $2.99 at all locations.

Volorious is a young mercenary employed in an endless war between two implacable enemies. Or so it seems.

As his company is mistreated by both combatants he slowly comes to realize that the war serves the interests of both nation states at the expense of the people. He along with his friends eventually decide to strike out on their own in search of the fabled Gray Horn that is desired by both sides in the war.

In this quest he comes to examine the nature of the two enemies, Thrimbar the Divine and Jojus the Demonic. Are they truly opposite sides in a conflict with one another or are they actually simply one in the same with a different banner. If the divine and the demonic are equal, then is there a second choice? Does the coin have another side upon which people can choose a different way?

I appreciate everyone’s support and I hope you enjoy reading it!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

 

Two Games for One Date

Posted on by

male-and-female-tinderLately I’ve been using Tinder, without a lot of success, to meet women but I have noticed an interesting sociological interplay. I’m working on a pretty small sample size and if everything I mention in this blog is horribly wrong, please don’t hesitate to eviscerate me in the comments.

What I’ve noticed is the women with whom I make an initial connection ask me a lot of questions. A lot. I, on the other hand, ask a few questions but pretty much spend all my time telling the prospective date about me and my peculiarities. It seems like both of us are playing the same game, for lack of a better word, but we are playing by completely different rules.

Basically I’m hoping to meet the woman for perhaps a drink and a bite to eat. If it turns out we’re incompatible, I’m simply out the price of her preferred drink and a few appetizers. If it turns out she’s an absolute nut, I have a great story for my friends later.

But what about her? What does she have to lose? A quick perusal of any news channel indicates that she has to fear bodily harm, rape, kidnapping, and murder. Those are pretty high stakes indeed.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not asserting that women are completely non-violent and are incapable of meeting a man for a date and doing him harm. I’m just saying that the possibility is so low on my radar that I don’t even consider it when texting on Tinder. I imagine that it’s pretty much the opposite for a woman.

I don’t have any deep philosophical revelations based on this observation. No meaningful insights. Just something I noticed. It gives me a small window into the world of being a woman. An unpleasant reality in some ways.

Maybe I’m wrong. It’s certainly possible.

What do you think?

Are my observation on Tinder interactions accurate?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn