Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Life Ain’t Fair – Just ask Hikaru Nakamura

Posted on by

gary-kasparovI wrote a blog post about a chess player named Hikaru Nakamura who was penalized for breaking a rule in chess a few weeks back and something happened yesterday that painfully illustrates the old adage that life just ain’t fair.

In that case Nakamura moved his piece, took his hand off of it, and then tried to further move it. His opponent, Levon Aronian, immediately called this a violation and Nakamura was forced to put his piece on the original square. This cost him the game.

Tough but fair. Them’s the rules. Or are they?

Nakamura just finished playing in the United States Chess Championship where he finished in a tie for second place. After the match the tournament scheduled a special Blitz Chess match between the top three players in the tournament and legendary chess player Gary Kasparov.

Kasparov is 53 years old and has been largely retired from chess competitions for the last ten years. He is considered one of the greatest players in the history of the game and some consider him the clear best. That, of course, is debatable.

Well, why today’s blog? Because in a Blitz matchup against Nakamura; Kasparov did exactly the same thing as Nakamura did in his match against Aronian. Nakamura saw him do it and a wry expression came across his face. Why? Because he was totally screwed.

If Nakamura called the legendary Kasparov for the rules violation, everyone is going to consider Nakamura a bad guy. While there is a fairly large amount of money available to the winner of the Blitz tournament, it is largely an exhibition for fans to watch one of the all time greats take on some of the best United States players of today. If Nakamura doesn’t call Kasparov then he is throwing away an important advantage.

Well, Hikaru, I don’t have to tell you, life ain’t fair.

That is today’s lesson people. Sometimes you have to give life a wry smile and move on. I feel for you Hikaru. At least this one blogger thinks you made the right call, however, if it happens again, throw down the hammer!!

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

Mistakenly Demoted for Political Beliefs – Hefferan v. Paterson

Posted on by

Constitution of United StatesAn absolutely fascinating case was decided by the Supreme Court this week. This case demonstrates why I find law such an intriguing subject.

A fellow named Jeffrey Hefferan was demoted from his job as a detective in the Paterson, NJ police department after he was spotted picking up a political sign for an opponent of the sitting mayor. Said mayor was friendly with the police chief.

It’s clear this action is unconstitutional. You cannot punish an employee for expressing a political preference for one candidate over another. However, believe it or not, that’s not actually what happened. Hefferan was picking up the sign for his mother. He was not expressing a political opinion as is his First Amendment right. He was demoted not for political speech but by mistake. Therefore being demoted wasn’t unconstitutional, or at least that’s the argument the city of Paterson made before the Supreme Court.

The court ruled 6 – 2 in favor of Hefferan.

I agree with the court and let me explain why. The two justices who dissented, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, agree with the city of Paterson because Hefferan wasn’t demoted for his protected First Amendment rights, he was demoted by people mistakenly believing he was expressing said rights. This is an insistence upon a Strict Constructionism interpretation of the Constitution. If we are to take the Constitution for its literal meaning instead of its intent then Thomas and Alito are correct in this case.

I argue that the point of a law is its intent. The question Strict Constructionists then demand is: Who determines intent?

Judges, that’s who. That’s the whole point. The written word is always going to fall short of the intent of the law. I certainly don’t like judges who interpret in a manner that expands the Constitution beyond what I consider reasonable but I cannot indulge in the intellectual deceit that there is no such thing as interpretation. Every case is based on interpretation of ambiguous words. Alito and Thomas rely on volumes of interpretation of the First Amendment. Is a political sign actually Freedom of Speech? Speech literally is the spoken word, not the written word. It has long been interpreted to mean the written word but that’s not the literal meaning of the Free Speech section of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment reads thus: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,…

Congress is not passing a law of any kind in this case. A local law enforcement agent demoted a subordinate. A Strict Constructionist must agree that any government official can fire anyone for their political beliefs at any time. By this logic a state could pass a law making being a Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian illegal. They could imprison those who dissent. After all it is not Congress passing said laws.

We must always consider intent, even if that interpretation is wrong at times.

It we insist on Strict Constructionism the Constitution becomes a worthless piece of paper.

Of course Hefferan was demoted for his political opinions. His political opinions were mistakenly identified, that’s true, but the underlying reason he was demoted remains clear and unmistakable.

The Constitution guarantees that we can speak our political minds and not be punished by the government for so doing, even if the wording does not explicitly express such. Hefferan works for the government. He cannot be demoted for either expressing his political opinion or by someone who mistakenly thinks he is expressing his political opinion. They are one in the same.

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

Is it Okay to Root for Nazi?

Posted on by
Nazi-Paikidze

Nazi Paikidze, that is.

The annual United States Chess Championships, both men’s and women’s divisions, are being held at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center in St. Louis for the next few days and the aforementioned woman is a leading contender for the title.

Let’s all admit it, when we see the word Nazi certain things come to mind. We cannot deny this bias against the word. It has a meaning far beyond her name. When I heard her name at last year’s championship the first thought I had was: She would be wise to change it. I’m not proud of that thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that she should use her name proudly. She has nothing to do with the definition we generally associate with that word. She is a young woman who is an excellent chess player and, by all accounts, a great role-model for young girls everywhere.

It does get me to thinking about the unconscious biases we have in our daily lives. If I was robbed by a person who wore a red shirt then when I see someone in a same colored shirt I become slightly afraid. If I was in a car accident caused by a someone driving a particular make and model of car then when I see a similar car I immediately become more alert. It’s certainly not fair to the person in the red shirt or the driver of the other car but it is unquestionably true, much as we might like to pretend it is not.

We cannot avoid such biases for we are human and we have lived. Things have happened to us. Events and people harmed us and we associate said events with what the person was wearing, the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, and any myriad of other things.

The reality is that we must judge people by their actions, not the color of their shirts, their names, or any other superficial feature. Such a world is the one we Libertarians yearn to live upon and yet I am as susceptible to such biases as anyone else.

My point? I’m not sure. I guess I’m saying that I’ll be trying to overcome such thoughts and I hope you will as well.

P.S. Go Nazi!

Tom Liberman

Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, and the role of Government

Posted on by

elizabeth-holmes-theranosOverview

There’s a fairly big story in the news about a company called Theranos and its founder, a woman named Elizabeth Holmes.

Holmes founded Theranos based on the idea that they could perform accurate lab tests with a few drops of blood, using a secret test called Edison, when before it took vials to do the same thing. The promise of such tests and the charisma of Holmes was enough to attract over $800 million in investments. The original claims of Holmes, who attended Stanford in an attempt to get a degree in Chemical Engineering but dropped out, were met with skepticism by the medical community but that didn’t stop hopeful investors.

Building the Labs

Theranos built their labs and began performing tests for companies like Walgreen’s. Eventually it came out that the Edison test Holmes and Theranos claimed was accurate was anything but. Their lab conditions did not meet any sort of standards and they were actually using machines built by competitors, not Edison testing machines.

At one point Theranos tried to get a contract with the United States military. Military inspectors found serious problems in Theranos labs and asked the Food and Drug Administration to step in and investigate. This request was denied by Marine Corps General James Mattis. Mattis then retired and took, among other things, a position on the Board of Directors of Theranos.

The latest news is that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is considering banning Holmes and Theranos from owning or operating a laboratory for up to two years. They became embroiled because the company was collecting money from those government services.

Role of Government

That’s all background though. What I find interesting is the role of the government in all of this. What Holmes did was clearly dangerous to many people. Patients and their physicians were getting bad lab results and acting in good faith on them. Investors believed the lies of Holmes and gave her a great deal of money.

What I want to examine is how Theranos was eventually brought down, or at least curtailed.

It all started when the Wall Street Journal published an article back in October of 2015 citing many problems in Theranos labs and also numerous inaccurate statements made by Holmes. She claimed partners that did not exist and regulation approvals from the government that had not been issued. Later that month the Food and Drug Administration stepped in because they had not tested the Edison equipment (Theranos was claiming it had been approved). Soon after this Walgreen’s, Safeway, and the Cleveland Clinic Hospital pulled out of contracts with Theranos.

Conclusions

This is all good. I’m totally on-board with this. This is government doing what it is supposed to do. It made information available, thanks in no small part to media intervention from the Wall Street Journal, which then allowed businesses like Walgreen’s to make informed decisions.

My anarchist friends will argue that the result would have been arrived at without the government at all. My social democratic friends will argue that with all that money involved it was only the government that allowed the story to come out at all, businesses would have covered it up otherwise.

To my way of thinking it is the combination of the two that offers the best results. Government gives us pertinent information and lets businesses and people make the final decisions.

It’s certainly not perfect but suspect nothing is.

Tom Liberman

Binge Watching and Writing Scripts

Posted on by

binge-watchingProbably a few of you know that I write novels and even fewer that I’ve written a number of screenplays although I’ve never sold any. I was thinking about the changing nature of television viewing habits and how that might effect screenwriters.

Many people binge watch televisions shows these days. The industry has recognized this as far a general content goes, they release entire seasons at once and story arcs that cover multiple episodes and seasons are now common.

What I’m considering is the idea that the script itself, the order in which things are presented, the nature of the Three Act Play and the Five Act Play might be twisted to accommodate and better entertain audiences in this new era.

For example, why do we have a cliffhanger at the end of an episode? If the audience can and does immediately watch the next episode, is it necessary or even appropriate? The entire season and even the entire show run is really just one long episode. On the other hand, cliffhangers keep the audience coming back for more and if we don’t have them at the end of individual episodes and seasons but in the middle of an episode, would that cause people to not start the next episode or season?

Should there even be episodes in the traditional format? Should the season just be released as one long video with chapters like a book? Some chapters might be an hour, others might be fifteen minutes.

Perhaps the chapters could come with delineated break points with links to a website where people could post their thoughts, vote in polls, and otherwise communicate with others who have watched up until that break. If the audience doesn’t know when the episode climax is coming, because the break could be at any point, does this add to their experience?

There would be drawbacks as well. If an episode is of varying length it’s not as easy to plan a time to watch it.

Might inter-season specials be released with audience participation in mind. Perhaps you could release an episode and allow voting to determine the ending. Then go back and film said conclusion.

I’m not saying any of my ideas are good, I’m just saying that it’s worth examining.

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

Chet Hanks and Being Responsible for Someone Else’s Actions

Posted on by

chet-tom-hanks-rita-wilsonA man is suing Tom and Rita Hanks because their son, Chet, reportedly caused a car accident that injured that man. I’d like to examine the idea that a third party can be held responsible for the actions of another person.

Tom Hanks and his wife are the registered owners of the car Chet was driving. Chet has a history of drug and alcohol abuse. The main thrust of the argument is that by purchasing a car and insurance for Chet, they enabled him to drive. Without their intervention he would not have been able to drive a vehicle and thus would not have been in the accident.

The lawsuit brought to my mind the idea of suing someone for what in legal terms is largely called negligence. Negligence law is quite complex and I could get quite bogged down in minutia. I want to avoid that.

There are many situations most people can agree whether a third party is or is not negligent. I’ll give an example of both.

Your friend comes to you and asks to borrow your firearm (or kitchen knife) so they can shoot (or stab) someone else and you give it to them without question. I think most people would say that you are partially responsible for the ensuing murder.

Your friend borrows your firearm (or kitchen knife) to go practice at the shooting range (or cut vegetables) but then shoots (or stabs) someone else. I think most people would agree you did not behave in a negligent fashion.

At what point am I responsible for someone else’s harmful actions? That’s the question. That’s the legal line of negligence. It’s not an easy question. Each case must be adjudicated on its merits. And yet, I think there is an answer.

The larger, and better, answer is that we are not responsible for another person’s actions. They alone are responsible. If I provide that person with the means to commit a crime (the car in this case), there is no way to say they wouldn’t have acquired those means via another avenue. Chet could have purchased his own vehicle and gotten insurance. He could have stolen a car. He could have driven without insurance.

If a friend comes to me saying they want to murder someone and I immediately loan them my gun, I am not responsible for the ensuing murder. I didn’t do it nor did I encourage or manipulate my friend into doing it. I am certainly guilty of being a horrible person. I never should have loaned them the firearm. I should have tried to talk them out of it. I should have called the police to alert them. I should have called the target and warned them. I’ve failed as a person on many levels but I did not commit murder.

And yet there is a victim. Someone’s life was changed or ended. The family and friends of the murder victim. Maybe the victim survived but is in a vegetative state or crippled. Their life has been fundamentally and irreversibly changed. If it was one of my sisters or friends I would be extraordinarily angry at the negligent third party who gave the murderer the firearm. But would that person be guilty of negligence and owe me money?

I say no. I say you can’t be responsible for another person’s actions unless you intentionally manipulate them into doing something. We must all be responsible for our own actions.

It’s a tough concept to swallow and I understand people will disagree. My final argument is to ask if negligence laws prevent people from criminal activity? If Tom and Rita Hanks are held financially responsible for Chet’s alleged mistakes does that make the world a safer place? If parents around the nation who have children with alcohol or drug dependencies stop getting cars for their dependents will it stop the children from driving? Or will it cause more problems as said children need transport and resort to whatever methods required to get it?

What do you think?

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

Chess and the Internet Live Update Controvery

Posted on by

agon-limit-broadcast-chessI know the title of this blog isn’t too exciting but if you’ll put up with me for a moment I think I can show how a controversy that is roiling the chess world might well have a big impact on you.

The situation is this: A company called Agon Limited contracted with the FIDE (World Chess Federation) to have exclusive rights to develop, organize, and commercialize the World Chess Championship cycle. As part of this exclusive control they demanded that no other site publish information about ongoing games in the just concluded 2016 Candidates Tournament. In the past other chess orientated sites have broadcast such events on a move-by-move basis. They didn’t broadcast a live view of the players, just the moves those players made on an image of a chessboard that was updated regularly.

Several sites refused to accept this demand and went ahead with their broadcast. Agon is now moving forward with legal action against those sites.

At this point, if you’re still with me, you’re probably wondering how this effects you.

If Agon is successful in their efforts it means that no one can legally give information about an ongoing event without permission from the original content provider. This is an extraordinarily broad restriction. It means that sports websites like ESPN could not give you updates on the status of current events. It would mean, for example, that the only way you could learn what was going on in the currently running 2016 NCAA Basketball Championships would be to tune into the primary broadcaster. No other outlet could give you so much as an update on the score of the game.

It could be extended to non-sports events like awards shows. No entertainment outlet would be allowed to broadcast the winner of an award until the conclusion of the show.

The benefits for the original broadcaster are obvious. If the only way to get information about an event is to watch said event from the provider, it forces more people to watch the show. The drawbacks for everyone else are likewise apparent. Every other outlet that gains an audience by broadcasting information about the event is out of business. All users that cannot or do not want to watch the original broadcast are left without recourse.

One can certainly imagine if the primary broadcaster has sole rights to updates of an event, they might well find a fee-based structure in order to gain access. They have a captive audience. That also cannot be good for consumers.

Paying attention to what this about yet?

I’m hard pressed to believe the courts will support Agon in this lawsuit but it bears watching.

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

Without Audio who would you believe? Krzyzewski or Brooks

Posted on by

brooks-coachkIt’s March Madness and that means lots of hard fought basketball games. There was an incident after the Oregon v. Duke game that I think might give us all cause for reflection. We make many assumptions in life and, if we are honest with ourselves, sometimes these are completely incorrect.

Near the end of the game an Oregon player named Dillon Brooks took a very long shot as the clock was winding down even though his team had the game in hand. There were actually good reasons he did this including instructions from his coach. That’s not my topic for today though.

Coach Mike Krzyzewski approached Brooks after the game and said something to him. Afterwards people were wondering what was said in the exchange. Brooks responded that Krzyzewski told him, “You’re (Brooks) too good a player to be showing off at the end“.

Coach Krzyzewski, when asked, denied this and said that what he told Brooks was that he was a terrific player.

Brooks is a young man while Krzyzewski is a well-respected and older coach.

When I heard about the exchange I immediately and without much thought believed Krzyzewski. Why would a coach with such a distinguished record lie? Brooks was coming off an emotional win, perhaps he misunderstood, I thought charitably.

Then audio of the exchange was released.

Coach Krzyzewski has now apologized both for his original denial and for lecturing a player from another team.

My point is straight-forward. In a he-said/she-said situation how many times do we believe the person who appears to have more credibility. I think this is natural. The person who has more credibility has achieved that status for a reason. But the reality is far more nuanced. Sometimes the more credible person has more to lose. Sometimes the more credible person knows they can get away with a lie because the other party is less trustworthy. I think we see this situation far more often than we realize.

I’m of the opinion a lot of times the less credible person is not believed and suffers consequences, sometimes severe.

What I hope you take from this incident is while believing the person who appears to have more credibility might be natural, it’s often wrong. We should always dig a little deeper, if possible.

I’m curious. Without the conclusive audio evidence would you have believed Coach Krzyzewski? Would you have labeled Brooks a liar and lost respect for him?

Without Audio what would you have thought?

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

Kicked Out of a Bar for Being Eight

Posted on by

drinking-age-minimumOnce a month we have a company happy hour after work at the tavern downstairs in our building. We drink a few drinks, sing a few songs, eat some pizza, and have a nice time. The owner of the company often brings his eight year old daughter because she likes the pizza.

I just arrived home after said event. Sadly Sophia was unable to enjoy her pizza tonight. My boss and his daughter were removed for the premises. Apparently she’s too young to be in a bar. Yeah, I’m angry. Yeah, we’re not having our happy hour there next month.

I’m of the opinion this incident gives us great insight into why laws generally fail to accomplish their purpose.

Let me say up front that I don’t blame the bar. I blame government. I think the bar was probably under pressure because they had underage drinkers in the past. They had most likely been warned or even fined for allowing underage drinking.

I also don’t want to talk about the general stupidity of drinking laws. I’m going to focus on the abject idiocy of what happened tonight.

Tonight a father and his eight year old daughter were prevented from doing something they loved because the government thinks it knows better than the parent. That’s the long and the short of it and it if doesn’t disgust you, well, there’s something wrong with you.

Let’s imagine minimum age drinking laws make sense (they don’t, but allow the fantasy for the moment). There was no chance Sophia was going to sneak up to the bar and trick the lovely, and I do mean lovely, bartender into making her an Old Fashioned. If my boss wanted to allow her a sip of his drink then he could easily and legally do so at home.

I ask you this question. Who was protected by what happened tonight? Who?

The answer is obvious, no one. No one! A law that protects no one and prevents a father and daughter from enjoying a fun evening together cannot be anything other than evil. Yes, evil. I’ve gone there. Sophia looks forward to this happy hour. She loves spending time with her parents and the other member of our company. She was denied enjoyment. Her parents were denied enjoyment. Most importantly, I was denied the pleasure of my boss, his wife, and Sophia this evening.

The ridiculous application of a law caused suffering. Again, let’s imagine the government has a vested interest in keeping nineteen year olds from drinking. At what point aren’t you allowed to use a little self-discretion? A little judgment? Sophia was not going to be drinking. She was not going to be getting drunk. She wasn’t going to fool anyone into serving her.

I understand people will say that yes, Sophia was hurt, but we must protect the nineteen year olds from the danger of drinking at a bar. That we must have laws. That the laws must be enforced.

I disagree. I think any law that isn’t flexible enough and thus causes absurd enforcement should not be a law at all. What do you think?

Is it proper to prevent young children from being in bars?

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

J’adoube and Hikaru Nakamura

Posted on by

Hikaru-touch-kingThere was an absolutely fascinating incident at the 2016 Candidates Chess Tournament being held in Moscow, Russia. The top U.S. player in the world, Hikaru Nakamura, touched his king but decided against moving it.

There is a rule in chess that if you touch a particular piece you must then move that piece to another square as your next move. The rule is clear. You can adjust your piece without intending to move it, if you tell your opponent of your intention beforehand. This rule is well-known by all the players at such a prestigious tournament and was one of the first rules of chess taught to me when I was a child.

It happened at a crucial moment in the game and Nakamura touched a piece that if moved would almost certainly cause him to lose the game. He had to move another piece in order to achieve a draw.

It’s not so much the incident that I find fascinating as its immediate aftermath. Nakamura’s opponent, Levon Aronian, immediately called Nakamura on the touch. Nakamura’s reaction was just as quick. He claimed that he was adjusting the piece. Aronian didn’t believe it for a moment and called over an arbitrator who agreed with the Armenian. Nakamura then had to move the king, did so, and soon after lost the game.

It is clear from the video that Nakamura was in no way adjusting the piece. He grabbed it in order to move it and then realized his error.

His initial denial of his intentions is understandable but not to his credit. He’s having a poor tournament at a very bad time. The winner of this tournament gets to play for the World Chess Championship, and a lot of money, against Magnus Carlsen. The fact that he knew this loss was going to badly damage his chances to win the tournament certainly went into his knee-jerk denial of his intentions.

However, since that moment he has been exceptionally reasonable, fair, and completely without rancor (skip to about 1:30) toward Aronian and the arbiter. He has spoken about it with reporters openly. And I, for one, find that enormously admirable.

Nakamura could easily have carried a lot of bitterness and defended his position until the bitter end but chose a different and better path. There are many of us, I won’t hesitate to say most of us, who would not be so generously inclined. We would be bitter, angry, we would probably convince ourselves that we were actually adjusting the piece, that we had been wronged.

I get that people will find his initial reaction bothersome but I’m willing to forgive him that because of the immediacy of the situation in the heat of the moment. I find his behavior after the fact to be a far more important indicator of his character.

Good on you, Hikaru!

For full disclosure, Nakamura is a member at the St. Louis Chess club to which I belong but I don’t think that’s influencing my opinion.

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

Banning Bicyclists the Government Way

Posted on by

15-foot-flag-bikeIf you don’t like bicyclists on the road and you’re a Missouri state representative what would you do?

If you are Jay Houghton, the elected state representative from 10th District of Missouri, you try to pass laws banning them, for the safety of the bicyclers of course. The first attempt was an outright ban on people riding on rural roads and the second involves essentially making it impossible for them to ride by having them attach ludicrously tall flags to their bikes.

The first bill failed and I’m certain the second awaits the same fate but their very existence is further evidence anyone in power will do whatever they possibly can to prevent people from doing things that the legislator doesn’t happen to like. Of course Representative Houghton is a Republican. Naturally.

This second attempt really gets my anti-government Libertarian blood to the boil. The idea that this bill is being passed for “safety” reasons is so ludicrous and insulting to every human on earth that one wonders what Houghton thinks about the intelligence of his constituents. He must despise the very people he is supposed to serve to lie so transparently. What sort of person is capable of such ridiculous deception? Certainly not someone I would want as a friend of mine.

I’m sure Houghton has no desire to be my friend so no great loss for either of us.

The very existence of this proposal is proof positive that small-government Republican are merely enormously intrusive government wolves in disguise, bad disguises at that. They want the government involved in every tiny aspect of your life with which they happen to disagree.

Here is the wording of the bill just for those who might doubt that such an abomination has actually been introduced:

Every bicycle. as defined in section 307.180, operating upon a lettered county road shall be equipped with a flag clearly visible from the rear and suspended not less than fifteen feet above the roadway when the bicycle is standing upright. The flag shall be fluorescent orange in color.

The picture I’ve included is a bike with a fifteen foot flag on it although I don’t think such is necessary to convince anyone of the stupidity of this proposal.

And people wonder why I’m a Libertarian.

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

Heineken – Where have all the Good Men Gone?

Posted on by

drunk-guyI’ve been watching a Heineken commercial for a few months now and it’s been bothering me since the first time I saw it.

Basically it is a little montage of women walking out on their incoherently drunk male companions from a variety of locations. They sing of their lament that there are no more good men. Eventually one handsome fellow pushes away a beer and we know that the moderate drinker is the hero for whom they’ve all been looking.

Call me thin-skinned. Call me political correct. By golly I’m offended. I’m not offended to the point where I’m going to boycott Heineken (which I don’t drink anyway, so boycott threat pointless). I’m not asking other people to stop drinking it. I’m not asking for the ad to be pulled. I’m just saying, gosh, it’s offensive. I’m a guy. I drink. I’ve been drunk.

Where have all the good men gone?

What if the commercial asked where have all the good women gone and show trampy looking girls making out with guys in the ally with liquor bottles scattered everywhere? Where have all the good girls gone? Would there be outrage?

Anyway, not that big a deal. Just a quick, informal poll. Let me know what you think.

Is the ad offensive to men or am I overreacting?

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

To Quit or Play – Steven Bowditch

Posted on by

steven_bowditchThere was an interesting situation in last week’s World Cadillac Championship when a golfer named Steven Bowditch chose to keep playing despite the fact he was having a miserable week.

Bowditch had mathematically the worst tournament at a World Golf Championship ever. The reason I think it’s worth discussing is because he kept playing despite the fact he did not have to do so.

Normally at a golf tournament they play four rounds and anyone not in the top half after the first two rounds is “cut”. That is they don’t make any money and they don’t get to play the final two rounds.

This particular event has a limited number of players and there is no cut. By finishing in last place Bowditch earned $48,000. Had he said his stomach was upset or claimed that he hurt his wrist and withdrawn at any point he still would have earned the money. He chose not to do so.

Despite being well out of contention, he finished fourteen shots behind the second to last place finisher, he continued on for all four rounds.

Bowditch is an excellent player who has won twice on the PGA tour and earned over three million dollars last season playing golf. He suffers from severe depression and before getting desperately needed help had some rough times.

I’m of the opinion that Bowditch is to be admired for not quitting despite there being no real reason to continue on. He claims his game needed work and so he decided to keep playing but I think there is more to it than that. Perhaps, perhaps not. Only Bowditch can say.

I know I probably would have quit. Most people will say they too would have continued on despite the misery but I think that’s not the case.

Anyway, I admire Bowditch and wanted to say so. I also have a question for anyone who reads this. Do you think you would have quit?

With nothing to play for and in misery, do you think you would have continued on?

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

Intimidation by Emoji

Posted on by

angry-smileyI just read about an interesting legal case involving the crime of intimidation.

The situation in question involves a young girl who sent a message filled with emoji or emoticons of guns and knives to a school rival. It is not the first of its kind to reach the court system. Emoji of guns next to emoji of police officers and other such missives have been making their way through the court system of late.

Before you think the situation is completely ridiculous consider this question: If you send a message to someone saying “I will kill you” is it much different than sending a message with an emoji that looks similar to the person with a gun pointing at them? That’s what the courts are being asked to decide.

Intimidation is a tricky law to pinpoint and I’ve linked the Wikipedia article on the subject in the opening sentence of this post. Basically you can say something like, “I am going to kill you” but if the other person doesn’t have a reasonable fear that the action will be undertaken there is no intimidation. If they have that reasonable fear then it is potentially a crime.

I think it’s silly to dismiss this idea. We all know that something as simple as a wink or smiley face can completely change the meaning of the written word. These emoji can be used in an intimidating fashion.

My opinion on these sorts of legal tangles is fairly straight-forward. It comes down to a case by case examination. If the threat appeared reasonable and credible to the person intimidated they have some recourse, particularly if the intimidation changed their behavior. Let’s say a kid is afraid to go to school because of credible threats against their life, whether delivered by emoji or words.

Imagine if someone threatened you with death at work. That would be a serious situation and reasonably requiring investigation. The onus is on the person writing the words. Maybe putting a gun next to the head of an emoji of a balding, aging, white fellow that sort of looks like me might seem funny but perhaps I would not take it that way. Particularly if we had a history of troubles. If the goal was to change my behavior in some way we have a legal situation. That’s the whole point of intimidation laws.

I realize people, kids in particular, can say and do stupid things without meaning to threaten at all, I would generally err on the side of having to show a credible theat. I’d say avoid the courts and settle it with a handshake. But there are more serious situations and just because an emoji was used rather than words is no reason to ignore it.

What do you think?

Should Emoji based "threats" be treated with the same seriousness as those written with words?

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

Who is it that Wants to Chop up the Corpse of Justice Scalia against his Spouse’s Wish?

Posted on by

justice-scaliaMy question is relatively simple. What group of people is eager for the police to take Justice Antonin Scalia’s corpse, move it to the coroner’s office, have it chopped up into bits, the organs removed, tested in every way, and stitched back together again for the funeral?

I’ll not leave you in suspense. It’s “small government Republicans” and it surprises me not a bit.

Who is rightfully against this ridiculous overreach of state power into the lives of citizens? “Big government Democrats” and that surprises me not in the slightest either.

Furthermore I can unequivocally and without hesitation say that should it have been Justice Stephen Breyer who passed away with a Republican president in office the sides would be absolutely reversed.

Justice Scalia had a weak heart and high blood pressure. He was 79 years old. The scene of his death had absolutely no sign of criminal activity.

Justice Scalia, of all people, defended the Constitution of the United States to his death bed. And now those very people who expressed their admiration for his principled stances want his body taken by the state, against the will of his family, and mutilated?

What does this prove? It proves that principles simply do not exist anymore. The ideas our country was founded upon mean nothing. It is political expediency first, second, third, last, and forever.

The police are not allowed to enter our homes or search us without a warrant from a judge and probable cause and yet people think this is acceptable?

No! No! No! I say it thrice. I say it from the hilltops. No! You cannot chop up Justice Scalia. No! You cannot. Damn you, foul evil. Get thyself from my sight and do it right quick.

I have nothing further on this topic.

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

Advertisement, Outrage, or both? Terry Crouppen Superbowl Ad

Posted on by

crouppen-superbowl-angerIt’s been a few days since the Denver Broncos defeated the Carolina Panthers in the Superbowl but I wanted to take just a moment to discuss the commercial a fellow named Terry Crouppen paid to have shown during the game.

The backstory is that the owner of the Los Angeles Rams football team, Stan Kroenke, moved the team from St. Louis to Los Angeles. There was a protracted and ugly campaign between Kroenke and various interests in St. Louis on whether the team should stay or move. In the end Kroenke got his way.

The Rams football team had very little success while in St. Louis except for a short span from 1999 to 2002. They have been one of the worst teams in the league in recent years although have moved more towards the middle of the pack the last few seasons. One of the reasons Kroenke listed for moving was lack of fan support. So, obviously, there was a lot of animosity.

Crouppen’s commercial was basically him taking Kroenke to task for moving the team despite arguable good support from a fan and business base despite all the years of losing. That while Los Angeles certainly offered more revenue, Kroenke was already quite wealthy and could have kept the team in St. Louis without causing any sort of financial burden. Or was that really his point?

Now to the real reason for my blog.

I don’t doubt Crouppen’s anger at Kroenke. I’ll take him at his word. The reality of the situation is that Kroenke just doesn’t much care what Crouppen thinks and the commercial does nothing to change the fact that the team has already moved. What it does is make a lot of people in St. Louis appreciate and admire Crouppen, who is running a business. He’s a personal injury lawyer here in town who has long run advertisements on local media offering his services. Was this not really just more of the same?

He’s known, perhaps accurately or perhaps inaccurately, as an ambulance chaser. A lawyer who takes advantage of people who are desperate. A lawyer who feeds the Compensation Culture.

I do not know if these accusations are true or not but I do know it is the general perception of people here in St. Louis.

So was this attack against Kroenke a sign of moral outrage from Crouppen or merely a shrewd and, judging from the comments I’m reading, effective advertising campaign for his law firm? Or both?

You tell me!

Was Crouppen Angry, Shrewd, or Both

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

Dr. Hsui-Ying ‘Lisa’ Tseng and 30 Years for Over-prescribing

Posted on by

dr-hsui-ying-lisa-tsengDr. Hsui-Ying ‘Lisa’ Tseng was arrested back in 2012 for writing over 27,000 prescriptions over a three year period. She was just found guilty of three counts of second degree murder because three of her patients overdosed on those drugs and died. She was sentenced to thirty years on prison.

I think there is a lot to discuss about this series of events.

Let’s first dispense with the fiction she was merely a doctor prescribing medication to needy patients. Tseng was not. She was getting rich selling drugs to those who used them for recreational purposes. She was fully aware of this fact.

There are a number of points I’d like to discuss.

  1. The hypocrisy that is the prosecution of legal vs. illegal drug sellers and buyers
  2. The fact that the pharmaceutical companies, who were and remain fully complicit partners, are not prosecuted
  3. The charges of murder as opposed to illegal prescriptions
  4. A better way to prevent such abuses

The War on Drugs has largely been prosecuted on illegal drug dealers and poor drug users. Wealthy drug users go to unscrupulous doctors and get their “legal” drugs. Legal drugs cause more overdose deaths than illegal and yet are largely immune to interdiction. This hypocrisy is easily explained. Those with money influence government policy. This means that the Scales of Justice are so uneven that those on the wrong side become disenchanted with the entire nation. This is not a recipe for a healthy nation.

The fact that pharmaceutical companies are completely immune to prosecution because of their contributions to the campaigns of our government officials further indicts the system. The sheer number of pills Tseng was prescribing was surely noted by the companies providing her and yet they did nothing. Because there was money to be made. Let’s not pretend we don’t know this is the case. We all know pharmaceutical companies are well aware their product is being used for recreational, not medical purposes, and yet we don’t charge them. They are surely the biggest drug manufacturers in the world and doctors are their pushers. Unscrupulous doctors are their best clients. They know it, you know it, the police know it, prosecutors know it, and government officials know it. Let us not live in a fantasy world.

My next problem is the charge of murder. Certainly Tseng prescribed drugs that were not needed but she did not force the person to take those drugs. She did not even seek out the client. She merely provided a service to a willing customer. Someone came to her, purchased something, and then used it to kill themselves. If overprescribing is a crime, charge her with that.

You might think that the prosecution of Tseng would make me happy. At last a rich person is being charged the way poor people and drug dealers have long been prosecuted. You would be wrong.

I think all drugs should be legal. We shouldn’t prosecute more doctors but fewer illegal drug dealers. Obviously we would not have illegal drug dealers if drugs were not illegal. The vast majority of sales would go through licensed physicians.

So, you might well, ask, if you make all drugs legal; what do we do with people like Tseng who prescribe to those without a medical need? Who prescribe to children? Am I advocating distributing drugs to anyone who can afford them at all times?

In a sense yes, but also in a sense no. Doctors take something called a Hippocratic Oath. One line of that oath is as follows: I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I’m of the opinion that drugs should remain under the purview of physicians who understand their effects and can prescribe them to patients with instructions for proper use. Physicians who fail to do so should lose standing with their local medical organization. Physicians who believe patients are using drugs for recreational purposes should recommend treatment centers and do their best to help the patient. Pharmaceutical companies should have the option to cut off supplies to doctors they believe are not helping their patients but harming them.

Is this a perfect solution? Hardly. Doctors who lose their standing will still be able to prescribe drugs and make money but at least patients will know they are dealing with such physicians. Those bent on abusing drugs will be able to do so and I do not deny that there will be many such. But how is that different than the current system?

At least under my plan patients will get medical grade pharmaceuticals and doctors will get a chance to offer aid to addicts rather than simply sending them to the underground drug trade where compassion is in short supply.

At least under my plan our jails will not be filled with illegal drug users and dealers while the “legal” users and dealers doing exactly the same thing roam free and unhindered.

At least under my plan our law enforcement officers can focus on murder, burglary, rape, and other crimes. The rift between the police and the citizens they purportedly serve will begin to heal. Police will not longer die in shootouts with well-armed and wealthy illegal drug dealers.

Will we end drug abuse ever? No.

Still, I remain convinced making all drugs legal and relying on ethical doctors to police their own ranks is a better strategy than the War on Drugs.

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

Johnny Manziel and Insanity Laws

Posted on by

Johnny-ManzielAn NFL quarterback by the name of Johnny Manziel is making news these days for his erratic behavior and his father is expressing concern for his son’s safety. In another story a former NFL player named Brandon Marshall, who struggles with Borderline Personality Disorder, offered compassionate and sound advice for Manziel.

My point today isn’t to address Manziel, who clearly needs help, or Marshall who is to be admired for his acknowledgment of his own troubles and dedication to helping others, but to explain why it is so difficult to get Manziel the help he needs. Why it was so difficult to get Amanda Bynes the help she needed. Why it was so difficult to get Britney Spears the help she needed.

The picture below is a list of reasons why people could be put into insane asylums in the mid to late 19th century.

asylum-admission-reasonsIn particular women were put into such institutions simply because they behaved in a way in which male dominated society did not agree. In addition people, often women or the elderly, were put in such places simply as a way to steal their estates.

This began to change when a brave woman named Nellie Bly had herself incarcerated in an asylum and wrote a book about her experience.

After the horrors described by Bly, many states wrote laws preventing husbands from simply ridding themselves of unwanted wives both legally and without recourse.

This is the heart of my blog today. I’m a Libertarian and not an Anarchist and these sorts of laws are one of the many reasons why I feel this way. Such legal intervention from the government was absolutely necessary to protect a vulnerable group of people, in this case women and the legitimately insane who were suffering in an environment that can only be described as torture.

It is also the reason why it is so difficult to get Manziel into treatment should he not want it. He has refused such help and his father is upset that the hospital at which he most recently stayed simply allowed him to leave because he wanted to depart.

This is the both the price of freedom and the importance of minimal government oversight displayed for all to see and understand. It is vital and necessary that laws be put into place and rigorously enforced making it difficult for a person to be put into an insane asylum without their consent.

To pretend that people will not be so incarcerated without such laws is an exercise in denying human nature. Men will always want to extricate themselves from marriages without paying the price, and in this modern times, women as well. People will always want to steal the estates of their parents through such methods. To deny this is to live in a fantasy world. There are many unsavory people in this world and laws, fairly applied and with limited scope, protect us from such as they.

And yet, such protections endanger us as well. It is difficult to get someone help who is truly in need. Many obstacles must be overcome in order to get someone aid if they do not desire it. This is the price of true freedom which Libertarians and even more so, Anarchists demand. This is personal responsibility even for someone in apparent and obvious mental trouble.

I recognize that there are far too many laws with far too broad a scope. But this does not mean all governmental oversight should be abandoned.

These are difficult questions and there are no simple answers. Not for Manziel and his family or for Anarchists and Libertarians.

Thanks for reading and feel free to comment, even in dissent!

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

CDC, Pregnancy, and Alcohol

Posted on by

drinking-while-pregnantI woke up this morning to headlines blaring about the danger of alcohol to pregnant women or even women who might be pregnant. The warnings say quite explicitly that a woman who is pregnant, who is trying to get pregnant, or who is having sex but is not on birth control, should never drink. That’s the recommendation.

The warning is specific and terrifying:

Alcohol use during pregnancy, even within the first few weeks and before a woman knows she is pregnant, can cause lasting physical, behavioral, and intellectual disabilities that can last for a child’s lifetime.

The danger is called Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

I’ve long heard that drinking was considered a bad idea for pregnant women but this new study seems to prove this theory beyond a doubt. Or at least that’s what the dire warning from the CDC would have you believe.

If you read the Wikipedia Article the results are much more in line with what a reasonable person might expect.

Women who drink four or more drinks a day are in serious danger of causing FAS in their child. Women who have two or more drinks a day early in the pregnancy also risk mild forms of FAS. The correlation between women who drink less than this is equivalent to the correlation between men who drink alcohol during a woman’s pregnancy being linked to FAS in the infant.

Yes, you heard that right. Husbands and boyfriends who have less than two drinks a day give an equal chance of impacting a child with FAS as do the women who are actually pregnant. That’s what the studies show.

Yet, with this evidence in hand, the CDC states unequivocally that women should not drink at any time if there is a remote chance of them being pregnant or if they are, indeed pregnant. Do not have a single drink!

I’m all for studies and I have no problem with government agencies issuing warnings and advice. The government does not have the power to make a woman stop drinking if she is pregnant nor should they. One of government’s jobs is to give us the information we need to protect ourselves. I support performing such studies with my tax dollars and informing the public of the results. After that it is up to us to decide how we wish to behave.

That being said, the shrill and dire language of this warning smacks of Big Brother. It is the government twisting results to match their desired outcome.

Present the facts as they exist and, for a moment, pretend that we citizens are adults capable of making good decisions based on those facts.

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

Femke Van den Driessche and Cheating at Sports

Posted on by

femke-van-den-dreisscheThere’s an absolutely fascinating sports case taking place at the World Championship Cyclo-Cross event where a woman named Femke Van den Driessche was found to have a motor in her bicycle. I’ve written in a general way about Performance Enhancing Drugs in the past and also about mechanical aid in regards to Oscar Pistorious and this latest incident is but an extension of those blogs.

It’s clear that Van den Driessche was on a bike that had a motor in it. It is clear people will cheat to get ahead at sports. This cannot be denied. What I want to talk about today is the impact such engineering is going to have on the sporting world and how we deal with it.

Soon replacement parts in humans will be able to perform more ably than their originals. Motors are being installed that cannot be spotted without a time-consuming inspections. Drugs that are undetectable enhance human performance. Someone will find away to make a shoe that allows a player to jump higher or run faster. Gloves will be created that track a ball in flight. The only end to the improvements that can be made is human imagination.

No sport and no player will be above suspicion. It is not just at the highest level of professional sports, your child might be beaten out on the local cross-country team by another kid who is using a technological advantage. All incredible performance will generate skepticism. Any improvement in skills will cause suspicion. It is endless and it is inevitable.

The recourse to all this is largely futile. For every bike inspected for a motor there will be an engineer figuring out a way to do it and avoid the inspection. For every PED test created to spot a drug there will be a method found to mask it.

Does this mean we should stop trying to ferret out those who break the rules? Should we just dispense with rules altogether and accept that such methods are a fact of sport?

I think these are good questions because I believe sport itself is important and a force of good in this world.

It’s good to encourage human achievement and sport is where this is often most visibly on display. I find few things in life more exhilarating than well-played sporting endeavors and astounding athletic achievement. It is disheartening to think such performances came about because one team or athlete used something to give them an advantage.

At work such improvement is considered a good thing but not so in sports. In work if you complete a job more quickly your receive rewards, but in sport everyone knows that a motor can propel a bicycle faster and a computer can play better than an unaided athlete. The point is to do so without such aid against your peers.

Therefore I think it’s a good idea to continue to fight against those who do not play by the rules. It is true that we cannot catch all the cheaters nor prevent all the cheating. It is true that every great performance in the future will be subject to innuendo, speculation, and outright accusations.

What else is there to do?

Tom Liberman