Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Infidelity Exposed by Strangers at Baseball Game

Posted on by

busybodyI just read a story about a pair of women who noted that the woman in front of them at an Atlanta Braves baseball game was sexting with a man all the while sitting with her husband. They took pictures of the texts, wrote a note to the man with their phone number, and sent him the incriminating photos when he replied.

It’s a story that is both of the modern age and one that is ages old. If you know someone is cheating on their spouse, or see some other perceived ethical failing, should you inform the presumed aggrieved party?

I may get a lot of heat for this but I think the women who wrote the note were in the wrong. It’s just not their business to inform the husband of the cheating.

One reason is there is some chance the couple has an open relationship wherein they have sex with others. It’s also possible that the man is having many affairs and the woman is having her revenge. It’s possible the man is abusive. Anything is possible but those aren’t really the reasons that I’m against exposing such things.

I’m just of the opinion that it’s not our business, even more so when the effected parties are complete strangers. People who meddle in the affairs of others claiming they are doing good generally cause far more harm than the ills the claim to be solving.

I know that people will ask me if I would want to know if my girlfriend or spouse was cheating on me. The answer is that I wouldn’t want someone else telling me. I wouldn’t be particularly grateful to the tattletale.

If I had witnessed the exchange I’m pretty sure I would have said nothing.

What would you have done?

Would you have Exposed the Cheating Spouse?

View Results

Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

 

 

 

Is Shaving Your Legs a Double Standard?

Posted on by

Suzannah WeissThanks to my Facebook friends I’ve been made aware of a story about women shaving their legs in the news. It’s really about one woman not shaving her legs and she uses the argument that women shaving their legs is a double standard.

Suzannah Weiss wrote the piece for Yahoo! Beauty and seems to think a couple of things. That women shaving their legs when men don’t is a double standard. Also that women largely shave their legs to please men. She mentions that some women shave their legs because they like the look and they should be able to make that choice without judgement.

I suppose Weiss is simply trying to be encouraging to other women out there who don’t want to shave their legs. Perhaps she is trying to shame men who prefer smooth legs on women. I can’t speak to her motivation but the idea that it is somehow a double standard seems wrong to me. If a woman shaving her legs is a double standard then so too must be a man wearing a tie, a woman in high heels, a man who shaves his face, either sex who shaves their genitalia.

Weiss then goes on to explain that a great barometer of a man’s respect for a woman is if he thinks a woman is obligated to look pleasing to him. If a man expects a woman to look nice for him, apparently he is a bad fellow. Likewise it seems that it’s at least a negative thing for a woman to want to look pleasing for a man. If she wants to do it for herself, that’s fine. But wanting to look nice for a man? No good.

I’m a Libertarian. I believe we should always do what’s in our best self-interest. But this doesn’t mean we should be isolated. What is often in our self-interest is doing things that are pleasing to those around us. This is how we form friendships, relationships, and manage to exist in society.

One thing I noticed in the picture to the article Weiss is wearing a flower in her hair. Did she do that to please herself? Could not someone argue using her exact same points that wearing a flower in her hair is misguided attempt to be pretty to those around her? That men don’t wear flowers in their hair. Are flowers in the hair a double standard? Are men who like women with flowers in their hair somehow worse men? Are women who put flowers in their hair to please men wrong to do so?

If a woman wants to shave her legs to please a man, to please herself, or because she’s a competitive swimmer, more power to her. If she doesn’t want to, for whatever reason, fine again. If men like shaved legs on a woman, good for them. If they don’t, fine and dandy.

For purposes of full disclosure, I love smooth legs on a woman.

Tom Liberman

Who is to Blame for Throwing Urine on Chris Froome?

Posted on by

Fan-Urine-Chris-FroomeAccording to Chris Froome the responsible party is our favorite whipping boy, “The Press”.

First the story. The Tour de France has been plagued by Performance Enhancing Drug scandals almost since it was first run back in 1903. Things got very ugly when Lance Armstrong admitted to doping during his record breaking seven victories. There are members of the public are skeptical of anyone who performs well in the annual race and the 2013 winner, Chris Froome, was doused with urine by a fan during the 14th stage of this year’s race.

My issue is that Froome laid blame squarely where it did not belong. Here’s the quote that so aroused my ire:

I certainly don’t blame the public for this, it’s certainly a minority of people out there ruining it for everybody else … I would blame some of the reporting on the race, it’s very irresponsible.

Really? You don’t blame the person who filled a cup with urine, waited for your pass, screamed “dope”, and threw it on you? That person is apparently blameless? It was the press who somehow forced the spectator to act that way? What utter nonsense.

The press reports that riders in the Tour de France might be doping and that’s irresponsible? They suggest that Froome, a former winner, might be cheating and that’s completely out of the question?

I’m not saying those who write sensationalist stories attempting to get people riled up rather than reporting facts are somehow good people. It’s despicable to accuse someone of cheating when you don’t have reasonable evidence or shady circumstances to suggest as much. I’m just saying that, beyond any doubt, the person responsible for throwing the urine is the person who threw the urine! I mean, it doesn’t require an advanced degree is Blameology.

This idea of blaming the press or some organization for an individual’s behavior is rampant. We blame ISIS for domestic terror attacks. We blame racist organizations for mass shootings. We do this because they are convenient targets. The press is such an easy target in this case and often seems to be so.

I find it most useful to blame the person who acts in an egregious manner. I’m of the opinion that assigning blame appropriately is an extremely important part of finding solution. If we blame those who are not responsible then the chances of arriving at successful outcome is all but impossible.

I think the goal should be to solve problems, not lay blame on those who we perceive to be enemies. I’m naive that way.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

 

Parks Department Wants to Stop Selling Bottled Water – Lobbyist Convince Congress Otherwise

Posted on by

parks service water stationYet another example of who actually runs this country was in display when the National Parks Service found that the clean-up cost associated with plastic water bottles was eating up their budgets and the bottles themselves were becoming a fairly large trash problem.

Many of the parks in question decided to stop selling plastic water bottles and install watering stations where visitor can fill up their own containers. An elegant solution that solves the trash problem, the recycling problem, and also allows park visitors to keep hydrated at a significantly lower cost.

Apparently not. The lobbyist for  the bottled water industry have spent half a million dollars bribing … er … lobbying Congress to prevent the Parks Service from stopping sales of bottled water.

I want to be clear. The Parks Service is not banning bottled water if people want to bring their own. They are simply not selling it anymore. They are providing a cheaper and clearly better system. They will sell reusable containers for people to use at the water stations or simply allow people to use their own.

Congress is now in the process of preventing the Parks Service from implementing the change. The arguments they use are laughable. Basically that by not selling bottled water they are encouraging the drinking of soda which is unhealthy. That park patrons might die of dehydration because they can’t afford a reusable container as opposed to a bottled water. The reality is much more obvious. The bottled water companies have lucrative sales of their products at our National Parks. They don’t want to lose those sales to water stations.

This is the country in which we live. Congress members do not care about this country. They do not care about you. They simply care about who is going to pay for them to be elected so they can enjoy the graft associated with being a politician.

Representative Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania, where the bottled water industry is quite large, is leading the charge to prevent the Parks Service from making the change. Hmm, I wonder why?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

El Chapo Guzman Escapes

Posted on by

El ChapoOne of the leaders of the Mexican drug trade, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, escaped from prison the other day.

Guzman’s story is so illustrative of why the United States should not be meddling in the affairs of foreign countries that I can’t pass it up without writing a blog, although I’ve done so before.

The entire Mexican drug trade exists largely because of President Ronald Reagan. Yep. You heard me right. I’m not some crazy, anti-Republican democrat. It’s the truth. There are some pretty important people in the United States who have no desire to extradite Guzman to the United States because of the stories he can tell. Stories about high level Reagan administration officials who are still alive and who still wield influence in our nation.

Guzman worked for a man named Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (who likewise has never been extradited despite the fact he ordered a DEA agent named Enrique Camarena tortured to death). Gallardo built the entire Mexican drug trade with not only the knowledge of the United States government but with their help. Why? Because he was funding the Contra revolutionary group that President Reagan wanted to use to oust the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Yep. I’m not making this stuff up. Do you remember Iran-Contra? That’s where Oliver North helped sell anti-aircraft missiles to Iran in order to get money to fund the Contras. There is considerable evidence to suggest that North was also working with Panamanian strong-man Manuel Noriega to directly bring cocaine into the United States via the CIA in order to use that money to … yes … fund the Contra.

What a sordid, sick, sad tale.

This is the result of our meddling. This is one of the legacies of President Reagan.

All because we wanted to influence the political situation in Nicaragua. When the Sandinista government came into power, President Carter didn’t like them but he agreed to allow their legally held elections to stand and refused to get involved. President Reagan reversed this policy when he came into power.

You may not like President Carter very much and you may love President Reagan. At least be aware of the realities of their policies. President Carter isn’t guiltless in the meddling game in that he continued our misguided attempts to influence the country of Iran. Those policies largely created the entire terrorist network that exists today. Yay for meddling!

We should stay out of the affairs of foreign countries even when we don’t like their policies. This meddling is directly responsible for both the rise of terrorism and the rise of the Mexican drug trade.

Oh and end the War on Drugs.

Tom Liberman

Physics Defying Baseball – Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Physics Defying Baseball

In an attempt to make up for my lack of a Misleading Headline of the Week for the last few weeks; I’m posting a second one today

Eugenio Suarez attempts to field a ball that defies physics screams the headline.

Really a first rate Misleading Headline from Chris Cwik and Big League Stew. Not only is the headline bad but the entire article goes into zones of stupidity rarely seen. It’s really awful. You have to read it to fully appreciate how bad it is.

No the ball did not defy physics.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Sharks Swim in Boiling Water – Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Boiling Water SharksI’ve been derelict in my Misleading Headline duties for a few weeks, finishing up The Girl in Glass I: Apparition taking priority but I’m back with a doozy.

It’s Shark Week on Discovery and that brings any story on sharks out of the woodwork and into the headlines.

Amazing footage of sharks swimming in boiling water around a volcano is completely baffling scientists screams the ridiculous and misleading headline.

The story, as is often the case in these situations, is actually quite interesting.

A team of scientists lowered a camera into an inactive, underwater caldera. Basically the giant hole from a collapsed volcanic eruption. The keyword here is, of course, inactive.

Yes when the underwater volcano is erupting it spews forth highly toxic gases and heats up to thousands of degrees. When it’s inactive it’s simple ocean habitat. Sharks swim in the ocean. So there you go. Still it is pretty cool footage. Go take a look at the article but ignore the headline.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

What is the Work Week?

Posted on by

standard work weekThere have been a number of stories in the news this week about something called the Work Week.

We had Jeb Bush suggesting that people need to work more (he “clarified” suggesting he meant part-time workers need full-time jobs, but honestly, that’s not what he meant). A number of people are advocating reducing the Work Week to 32 hours.

The problem seems to me that there is a total disconnect between what the work week means and what people think it means. I aim to rectify that.

The Work Week in the United States is generally defined as Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with an hour for lunch. There are many permutations but largely the perception is that people work 40 hours a week at their jobs.

This is, of course, absolute bollocks! There continue to be a number of jobs where people work while at their office and leave work behind when they leave. These sorts of jobs a becoming an increasingly smaller part of the whole. With our phones, tablets, home computers, and other technologies we work wherever and whenever work needs to be done. The idea of a standard work week is utter nonsense for a growing number of people in the United States and other countries in this Information Age.

One of the metrics by which we measure how much work is done is called Workforce Productivity. The problem is that hours worked no longer has meaning in the equation. That hasn’t stopped people from trying to use that particular equation to calculate how productive we are. Productivity goes into many other economic equations defining the health of a nation. If one of the key measurements is no longer valid then I wonder about the entire equation. Are economic decisions being made at the highest levels of government and business that have no basis in reality? In my opinion, yes.

The reality is that people who work in Information Age jobs work far more than they report working. They are on their phones working for ten minutes here and ten minutes there. They are not in the office but they are working. While it’s possible people over-report time away from the office working I’m of the opinion that most people under-report and by a fairly significant amount. This throws all productivity measurements into disarray.

If we want to get a true indication of productivity we must accept this new paradigm for workers.

If we continue to follow outdated and mathematically flawed models we can only make bad decisions.

The idea of the Work Week is dying and we must accept that. Work can be done from anywhere, anytime.

Do your Over Report or Under Report your Working Hours?

View Results

Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Schefter Tweets Medical Records of Pierre-Paul

Posted on by

HarrisonSchefterThere were a number of tragic stories about misuse of fireworks over the Independence Day weekend and one of them involved a football player for the New York Giants named Jason Pierre-Paul.

A football analyst named Adam Shefter regularly posts scoops when it comes to the NFL and sports in general. He is the one who first reported that Pierre-Paul had his finger amputated and included an apparent picture of the medical records proving it happened.

Hello Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). At this stage were not sure how Shefter obtained the image but a retired football player by the name of James Harrison had a choice tweet about the incident.

James, I’m in agreement with you, buddy.

I’m not a lawyer but I’m guessing that Shefter is not in violation of HIPAA because he is not an agency that has medical records. Whoever gave him that picture could be in a whole heap of trouble. That being said, I’m am firmly of the opinion that what Shefter did was reprehensible, vile. Shefter works for ESPN and I’d be willing to bet suspensions are coming and those right quick.

The underlying problem, besides Shefter complete lack of moral fiber, is the news hungry world in which we live. The most important thing is to break the story first and get all those clicks. Clicks mean money in a very real way. Shefter is under a huge amount of pressure from his employer to get the story. That’s how he makes a living and that’s how ESPN stays in business. Virtually every media outlet in the world now puts speed and sensationalism ahead of getting it right.

Before we blame the journalists for everything we must accept our own responsibility in the matter. We are the clickers. We created this environment, they are just feeding us.

Not that I’m suggesting a big suspension isn’t in order. I’m just saying this is the nature of the world we have created. If you don’t like it, your only recourse is to practice a little click control. I’m not holding my breath.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

 

Nick Kyrgios Stops Trying for a Game

Posted on by

nick-kyrgios-gives-upIt’s time to put on white and play tennis at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club! This year a fellow named Nick Kyrgios stopped trying for a game because he was angry at the umpire’s decision in the previous game.

For those fans of mine who are not tennis enthusiasts I’ll let you in a secret. Tennis players stop trying, or “tank”, games all the time. The way tennis is scored with sets makes it useful for players to stop trying for a bit to recover their strength when the chances of winning a set or even a game is remote. Say a player is down 5-0 in a set. There’s not a lot of sense in going all out to win a game when coming back to win the set is all but impossible.

Wimbledon, in particular, facilitates this sort of behavior because the extremely fast surface gives the serving player a major advantage. Thus a returning player, like Kyrgios in this case, sometimes makes little attempt to win.

That being said, Krygios’ effort was far worse than normal for a player “tanking” a game. Generally there is at least a half-hearted try to return the ball in the hopes your opponent messes up. In this case Krygios made almost no effort at all. It was clear what he was doing. His opponent was ahead 2-0 in the second set so it had not reached an insurmountable lead as of yet. He ended up losing that set 6-1.

Krygios then started playing with more intent and won the third set before losing the match in the fourth. He played hard for both of those sets.

The question being asked is if Krygios “cheated” fans out of their money by not playing hard, or even at all, in that one game.

There is no doubt that athletes take plays off at times in all sports. They realize the energy necessary is not worth the result to be gained. They “tank”. What makes this case so different is the absolute indifference showed by Krygios. Fans booed, as would have I.

I do think Krygios’ behavior was very poor. It was disrespectful to the audience, his opponent, the officials, and the game itself. That being said, he did what they all do, just a lot more obviously.

I certainly prefer watching a player who gives it their all rather than one who slacks off during the game, even if for tactical reasons rather than simple petulance.

It’s my opinion Krygios will be under greater scrutiny in the future. Fans will dislike him and boo more frequently his efforts. However, the reality is sports is a results driven job. If Krygios wins tournaments he will get paid and our feelings about this incident are irrelevant. He can “tank” a game whenever he desires but if he wins tournaments he will succeed.

But to the question. Were the fans cheated?

I say no. One game or even set does not rise to that level if the other games and sets were played hard. I can see people disagreeing with me and I understand their point of view. It’s an interesting line. If he tanked two sets is that cheating? Certainly everyone would agree that if he lost three straight sets without trying that was indeed cheating the audience.

Did Nick Krygios Cheat Fans by Tanking a Game?

View Results

Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Why I wasn’t Rooting for Team USA – Hope Solo

Posted on by

USWNT-2015-Womens-World-CupHope Solo is a Bad Person

She’s a bad person. Hope Solo was not born a bad person. I think what happened in her childhood shaped her into being bad, but in the end I just couldn’t bring myself to root for her or the team that ignored her transgressions because she’s good at being a soccer goalie.

I don’t want to cover why she’s a bad person. There are plenty of articles out there that discuss it at length. I hope she gets counseling and can avoid situations like this in the future.

Not Rooting for Team USA

As the USA women’s World Cup team continued to advance and I watched friend after friend post how excited they were on Facebook, my own enthusiasm refused to emerge. I just couldn’t find it in me to root for the team that so eagerly overlooked what she had done simply because she gave them a better chance to win.

The reality is that if Solo had been a bench warmer, a marginal player, then she would never have been allowed to play. Her transgressions were such that she would have been left off the team. Of this I have no doubt. And that’s why I just couldn’t be all that happy when Team USA won the World Cup in resounding fashion.

There are a lot of great stories from the triumph. Hat tricks, veterans going out with victories, national pride. But I wasn’t rooting for them. I’m not happy they won.

Winning is not Everything

The entire episode reminds me of what is wrong with this world where winning is everything. I’ll never believe that winning is everything. That the ends of winning justify the means used to achieve it. We become cheaters to win, we employ bad people to win, we enrich bad people to win, we sublimate our own ethics to win. When we do that to win … we lose.

It’s my opinion this World Cup win is really just a terrible loss for ethics, for morality, for human decency.

I sure wish they would have left Solo off the team. That would have been a real victory, win or lose.

I know my opinion here isn’t going to be popular but I can’t force myself to feel differently.

Tom Liberman

Democracy and Voting for the MLB All-Star Game

Posted on by

all-star ballotI just read a rather stupid article from Big League Stew about how the All-Star game balloting displayed a “Midwest Bias” because the Kansas City Royals and St. Louis Cardinal had four and two players voted in as starters.

The Cardinals and Royals have the two best records in baseball and you would expect them to have more starters on the All-Star team than anyone else although four is inordinately high and voting issues in Kansas City have been in the news for a while now. The idea of a Midwest Bias is rather laughable simply because the starters for the game are determined by a democratic vote. No one picks the teams and therefore the only bias is that of the ballot box. Larger fan bases usually generate more winners.

That being said I did want to examine the idea of how the All-Star game balloting has regrettable similarities to how we choose the men and women who will make up the government of the United States.

If one group of people, call them fans of a team or a Special Interest Group, manages to get more organized than another they can sweep the ballot away from those who vote more on the basis of their integrity. By grouping their power and voting as a bloc they overwhelm individual voters and skew the ballot toward their candidate.

The result of this is that other groups must likewise organize themselves into entrenched voting blocs in order to win. They can’t vote for deserving players and a sprinkling of their hometown heroes when fans in other cities are voting en mass for their team’s players. This splits the vote and the organized group then wins.

There is also the issue in that the All-Star balloting system usually ensures at least one or two formerly great players who are not having a particularly good season are voted in on their name recognition whereas lesser known players, only known to hometown fans, lose out.

The end result is that we often have players in the All-Star game who are clearly not deserving of their places while those who rightly should get a spot do not. This is one reason pitchers and reserves are exempt from the voting process. The managers of the teams pick their own players to fill these spots although this often leads to controversy as well. Managers sometimes overlook deserving players in order to place their own favorites on the team. That is a good example of bias, unlike the silly article.

What have we learned? Popular voting leads to undeserving candidates winning. Popular vote leads to divisive pack voting, which in order to win you must use an “all or nothing” strategy.

Welcome to how we choose our Congress and President. Of course in baseball, at least, there are thirty teams. In politics we largely only have two teams and they actively prevent anyone else from playing the game.

Is there a better way?

You tell me.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Do Your Prefer the Right Call or a Temper Tantrum?

Posted on by

hawk-eye wimbledonI just read an interesting opinion piece about how Hawk-Eye, the machine used to make correct calls at tennis matches, is ruining the sport. The piece was written in OZY and I was intrigued by the premise even if I personally disagree.

The argument is that people loved watching John McEnroe and others argue with the umpire and linesmen and that the decline in ratings for tennis might be associated with the decrease in such activity brought about by the sure-eyed calls of Hawk-Eye.

The ratings for tennis are down according to the article and I did note a downward trend in what ratings services I could find although they were not up to date. I have no reason to doubt the author. The ratings decline could be partially related to “the Hawk-Eye effect”, which engenders fewer personal confrontations but it is also likely based on other things as well. Name recognition, all the screaming and grunting, demographics, etc. I’m not going to discuss the accuracy of the position taken by the author.

I do want to discuss the argument itself because it is interesting. There are a number of analogous situations in other sports. Instant Replay in baseball, football, cricket, and other sports. The taming down of fighting in professional hockey. The question to be asked is if people tune into sporting events to see arguments and fights. And how important are those to the health of the game itself?

There is no question we are moving to a system of officiating wherein technology ensures the call is correct and arguments are less heated. Is baseball better because the umpires, managers, and players, don’t engage in screaming matches as often? Is it worse?

To my mind it’s better, without question. I prefer the sport. I prefer getting it right. The fighting is not to my taste. It’s not the game. However, I acknowledge my opinion is not universal. Many people love the fights and arguments. There is a certain titillation to watching a player, coach, or other team official lose their mind over a bad, or perceived bad, call. For me it gets old very quickly, it’s just an exercise of “me, me, me” largely. Others feel differently and I guess that’s the question I’m asking today.

Do you like all the arguing? Do you miss it? Do you hate it?

Do you think arguments between officials and players enhance the games?

View Results

Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Bubba Watson and the General Lee

Posted on by

General LeeAs I’m sure everyone knows, what is called the Confederate Flag but is actually the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia and upon whose design was based the Second Flag of the Confederacy as well as a number of other flags associated with the South during the civil war, is in the news. I’m not going to reiterate that story, I’m sure everyone is tired of it by now. Or almost everyone.

The story today is about a golfer named Bubba Watson who purchased the General Lee used in the making of the The Dukes of Hazzard television show. He bought it at auction in 2012. Now he plans to paint over the iconic flag on the roof of the vehicle and replace it with the Stars and Stripes.

As I said, I’m not going to talk about the flag issue. Instead I’d like to examine the reaction to Watson’s decision to paint over the flag.

It basically comes in two flavors.

  1. Watson is a coward who caved to public demand.
  2. Watson is just doing it because he doesn’t want to alienate fans.

I’ve got a third reason: He decided he wanted to do it. He thinks it’s the right thing for him to do.

He bought the car because he loved the show. The Dukes of Hazzard was not about racism or hurting other people. It was ostensibly about moonshining, as Watson mentions in the article, but it was really about a couple of young cousins who are fighting corrupt authority figures. That and those Daisy Duke shorts.

I think the reaction to Watson’s decision is a microcosm of the unfortunate political condition of the United States these days. People want to assign blame for everything that happens without any reasoned look at the facts. It is apparently impossible for most people to take Watson at his word. We’ve got to blame someone, presumably a member of the other party.

Watson implies that the symbol is divisive and is not what the show stood for. He thinks the symbol detracts from what the car should be about. He wants to paint the Stars and Stripes on it.

Me, I’m a Libertarian. Watson owns the car and can do with it as he damn well pleases. I take him at his word.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Charles L. Clarke and the Seizure Laws

Posted on by

charles l clarkeI’ve been railing against the War on Drugs for a long time and against the seizure laws used in said war. I really don’t know that I can say anything else.

Read the story of Charles L. Clark and tell me that you support the War on Drugs. I dare you.

He may or may not be guilty of anything. He had a lot of cash he claims he had saved up. They stopped him because his luggage “smelled of marijuana”. When they found a pile of cash in his luggage, $11,000, they took it. They charged him with resisting arrest when he tried to stop the officers from taking his money although those charges were dropped. They couldn’t charge him with anything else because he had committed no other crime.

They suspected that because he had a one-way ticket and cash that he had earned it selling drugs. They had no proof of such and so they took his money. Now he has to sue the government to get it back. They stole it from him legally.

Meanwhile thirteen different law enforcement agencies have asked for their share of the $11,000.

If you don’t think something is wrong with this then I suggest that you cannot believe in the ideals upon which the United States of America was founded. You cannot believe in freedom.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Uber Officials Arrested in France

Posted on by

uberI’m not sure how many people outside of the Libertarian community fully understand what is going on with the transportation company Uber. It’s a sad and sorry story.

Taxi drivers in many countries and in the United States are petitioning their various governments to shut down Uber. Governments are listening and taking action.

First a quick look at Uber’s business model. Regular people become drivers for Uber. They undergo a relatively light background check, criminal records and the like, and when approved are allowed to pick up passengers in much the same way a cab does. The difference being that the drivers are on their own time with their own vehicles.

Passengers simply announce they are looking for a ride and the call goes out to nearby drivers who then take them to their destination.

It seems like a simple and elegant solution to getting people from point A to point B with as little fuss as possible. The rides are almost universally cheaper than cab rides. This does not sit well with taxi drivers and the solutions largely being proposed involve Uber paying larger fees.

Why, you might ask?

Because taxi companies pay large fees to the city governments in order to be licensed to operate their business. If a better model comes along and displaces them that means the taxi companies go out of business. This means, and here is the important part, the taxi companies stop paying ludicrous fees to cities in order to operate. That’s a nasty loss in revenue for the government.

The entire fee system is based on a government revenue plan that exacts money from businesses in order to operate in a legally licensed way. Without licenses the business cannot operate. It’s not completely ridiculous because it’s reasonable to have some sort of system for accountability should a business blow into town, sell a fake service or dangerous product, and then leave without recourse for those hurt or bilked.

But the entire system has gone way beyond any attempt to help protect citizens. It’s all about how much the city can extort from the business owner in order to operate. Liquor license? Pay up. Taxi license? Pay up. Any license? Pay up.

Not to mention companies bail on debts and responsibility all the time anyway, it’s called bankruptcy.

I’m not an anarchist. I don’t think anyone should be able to set up shop anywhere, anytime. That is dangerous. There are bad people in this world. That being said, Uber is a big company with a lot of money. They have executives who are well known. They can’t simply pack up and leave. Their business model is good for citizens, people want it. They love it.

The solution isn’t to charge Uber huge fees. It’s to reduce the ridiculous fees taxi companies pay. Let the best business model win. That’s good for you and me and ultimately the government, although those in such positions are far too short-sighted to see it.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Some Parents aren’t Nice

Posted on by

Angry ParentsI use Facebook although I don’t have a huge number of friends. I do peruse the links of those friends as I look for fodder for my blog. One of my friends shared the image at the top of this blog. It purportedly shows an exchange between father and child. It might be completely false but it most certainly does illustrate that sometimes parents aren’t very nice.

What struck me about the image was that it spoke rather directly to a topic that I attempt to analyze in my new novel, The Girl in Glass I – Apparition. In that novel the three main characters are teenage girls, Rhia, Mike, and Marianna, who have had very different parental experiences. A fourth character, Adusko also must deal with childhood baggage. It is not simply black and white, good and evil. There are nuances. One of the central themes of the book, and the trilogy as a whole, is the ability to grow outside of that very important parent/child relationship. Eventually the child must be their own entity.

Mike is raised by loving parents in a privileged environment but is in full teenage rebellion. Rhia left her parents at a young age and has set out on her own. Marianna was initially raised by a loving father but his death left her in the hands of an uncaring mother and an abusive step-father. The three set out together to save Tanelorn. One of the ideas of the novels is they get to know one another and learn to escape the patterns set by childhood. Adusko is the product of an extremely violent childhood although his story is explored in more detail in later books.

There is no doubt that we are all children and subject to the environment that our parents or guardians create. A child raised in one way certainly has both advantages and disadvantages in comparison to a child raised differently. There are certain environments that are more likely to create a happy and productive child and others which are more likely to create a monster.

The main point is that despite the worst or best upbringing it is largely possible for a person to make their own lives. In the Girl in Glass trilogy, I spend time with each of the girls showing how they overcome that initial life direction and eventually find their own way.

This lesson is important for everyone. We are none of us perfect. We all make mistakes. We all fall into patterns in life and too frequently they are those set into us at an early age. Those ingrained habits can be for good or ill but it is important to recognize them and eventually choose our own paths.

In the case of the Facebook post the last entry is a sarcastic reference to the lack of parental support. Is that a good thing? A bad thing? It’s not easy to say. Certainly anger is often justified as is sarcasm but if it hurts us to engage in such, should we choose not to do so? If the need to hurt someone else overwhelms the desire to help ourselves, I argue it is a bad thing.

In the end, if we spend our time trying to figure out ways to hurt those who have hurt us, we only perpetuate the lesson they taught us. Their lesson was that hurting others is a way to temporarily abate the self-loathing.

What would be better is if we moved on. Easy to say ….

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Flags – Burning and Displaying – The Constitution

Posted on by

flag_justiceThere’s a lot of debate in the last few weeks about flags. The flag of the United States and the second flag of the Confederacy.

In many southern states the Stainless Banner is still used in many public places and by private citizens. It is strongly associated with a history of slavery. It’s very creation is steeped in the idea that the white race is superior to the black race. Many people see it thusly. Others see it merely as a symbol of southern pride and do not think of it racially.

In most of the United States people consider the Stars and Stripes a symbol of national pride. Others see it as representative of atrocities that this nation has inflicted upon others and of general tyranny.

What I find most interesting about the debate is the complete lack of consistency on both sides of the argument.

Both groups seem to think that the government should not be able to ban its chosen flag while absolutely thinking the government should be able to protect the same flag.

As I Libertarian I think the both sides are incorrect. The government has absolutely no say in how any person treats a flag. If a person wants to hang it from their porch in pride the government should in no way prevent them from doing so. If a person wants to burn it on their porch then the government should in no way prevent them from doing so.

When the government makes a law telling citizens of this country how they are allowed to display or destroy their flags I will stand up and decry it. I will shout from the tallest tree that this law is wrong.

If a business, a governor, or a private citizens chooses to display a flag of their own accord, that’s their legally protected decision. If they choose to destroy it in any manner, that’s up to them.

If the governor of Alabama wants the Stainless Banner removed from the statehouse, then so be it. But if the federal government orders it so removed, that’s a problem.

If someone burns their flag in a public display of dissatisfaction with the government of the United States and gets arrested, that’s a problem.

We cannot simply support a law when it works to our benefit. We must support the law even when it works against us. Then we are consistent. Otherwise we don’t really support the law at all. If we don’t support the law then how can we expect anyone else to do so?

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

Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution

Posted on by

Constitution of United StatesAs a Libertarian I’m in a bit of an interesting situation in regards to the recent Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges.

The decision makes it largely illegal to ban same-sex marriage in the United States. I’m in agreement with this completely. It’s ridiculous that the government can either ban or sanction what is essentially a contract between willing parties. If any group of legally competent adults wants to sign a contract of marriage with one another there should be no law against it nor government reward for doing so.

There should be no law against ten people marrying each other. A man marrying five women. A man marrying his biological son. It’s just not the government’s business if consenting and legally competent adults want to get married. There should be no legal benefit to being married. The state and the federal government should have no say in the matter whatsoever.

However, the decision itself relies on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Specifically the Equal Protection clause. It argues that all people within a state must be protected equally by the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage although that hasn’t stopped the Supreme Court from invalidating laws against mixed race marriages, men in debt getting married, men in prison getting married, and a variety of other laws written by the states to “protect” the institution of marriage.

Justice Anthony Kennedy spends a lengthy amount of time explaining why marriage is such an important institution and why people cannot be disallowed from getting married. In the end he relies on the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause to justify saying that the Constitution protects same-sex marriage.

I disagree. I don’t think the Constitution protects the right to marry for anyone who is not what is called a Protected Class. These are people against whom discriminatory laws cannot be made. Homosexuals are not among them. This is why the Constitution can protect the rights of a black man to marry a white woman but not be used to protect two men who want to get married.

Without such protection the Tenth Amendment comes into force. This allows states to pass laws where the Constitution is silent.

Therefore I think the decision was wrong.

That being said, I think it is anti-American to restrict marriage in any way as long as all parties are legally competent. To do so is an example of government interference in the private lives of citizens where it has no place. Laws against same-sex marriages are among the most egregious overreaches of government authority in the United States today. However, they are legal. If a state chooses to thrust their government into the personal lives of the citizens of that state then it is up to those self-same citizens to vote for new politicians.

The practical result of all this would be, in my opinion, no difference. Time and attitudes are changing quickly. Without this ruling it would not be long before all states allowed same-sex marriages anyway. Those states that used laws to prevent such marriages would see loss of tourism and businesses that catered to those who thought same-sex marriages were perfectly acceptable. There are almost enough states (32 of the necessary 34) where same-sex marriages are legal to pass a Constitutional Amendment making it law for all states. This would have eventually occurred if there had been one or two holdout states.

In the end it’s all the same. Still, I don’t like the twisting of the Constitution to make it happen.

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

Steve Wozniak thinks We’ll be Pets for Robots – I agree sort of

Posted on by

steve-wozniakA fellow named Steve Wozniak whom I admire greatly recently changed his opinion on the future of Artificial Intelligence to more closely match my own thoughts on the subject and that makes me feel quite good!

Steve has a tremendous mind and has done some really amazing things with his life to help humanity as a whole. Originally he, like many others, took a pessimistic and fearful view of AI. That such an intelligence would think humans were slowing it down and thus move to destroy us. Wozniak now seems to largely agree with my point of view in that an AI would view destruction as a stupid process. What would give an AI joy would be to help us achieve great things together.

I don’t agree with his comparison to pets but I don’t think he meant it literally. Robots with AI will have the ability to solve problems far in excess of what a human can achieve. But I don’t think they will think of their “inferior” humans as pets. They will consider us allies in the quest to happiness. That is what we all want in the end. Sure we want money, good relationships, good food and drink, some want spouses and children, others want vacations, and other things but all those are all merely methods of achieving joy in our lives. That’s all anyone really wants.

It’s my opinion that the way we find joy is largely through achievement. Doing things makes us happy. Small things like mowing the lawn perfectly to big things like creating and rearing fantastic children. That’s what a vastly intelligent machine will realize immediately.

Anyway, I won’t reiterate my entire blog post which is linked above. You can read that if you want.

I just want to welcome Mr. Wozniak to the group that is extremely optimistic about AI. It’s good to have such as he on my side.

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