Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Fabiano Caruana and Nerd Poaching

Posted on by

Magnus Buying Up NerdsOver the last few years a very wealthy fellow by the name of Rex Sinquefeld has been making St. Louis the chess capital of the United States and his progress in that regard continued when he convinced the third highest rated player in the world, Fabiano Caruana to come play here at the St. Louis Chess Club.

The unarguably best chess player in the world, Magnus Carlsen, made the following comment on his Twitter account: … so they are indeed buying nerds.

I’m certain Carlsen was taking a humorous and good natured jibe at Caruana and Sinquefeld and I took no offense at the statement but I did want to examine the idea that Sinquefeld is indeed buying up all the world’s best chess players and loading Team United States to become a dominant player in the world. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? No thing at all?

The fact that an extremely wealthy person bought the land and a building which he turned into one of the finest chess clubs in the world is undeniable. That he lured Hikaru Nakamura to St. Louis with a contract that pays him well is a fact. That Sinquefeld also managed to convince the 7th highest rated player in the world, Wesley So, to come to Webster University to play college chess is undeniable. That Sinquefeld hired Susan Polgar away from her chess coach job at Texas Tech is a fact. That she brought her entire NCAA Championship team with her and won the title in 21013 cannot be denied.

None of these people was born in the United States and here they are leading the charge of U.S. Chess. What Sinquefeld set out to do and what he has accomplished are simple facts.

I’ve got an oar in this boat as they say because I live in St. Louis and belong to the local chess club Sinquefeld started. I love playing chess and having such luminaries around certainly makes things very nice for me. But is it good for someone to be able to essentially purchase the best players and thus championships?

It’s clearly been good for St. Louis. It’s clearly been good for Caruana, Nakamura, So, Polgar, Webster University, The Central West End (where the club is based), and a host of others. Money is willingly being exchanged for services and all parties seem satisfied. Of course what is good for one group is often times bad for another. Italy loses its finest chess player. Texas Tech loses its championship chess team, the Philippines loses its best chess player (So).

It is clear that this unbridled capitalism has victims as well as beneficiaries.

My bias is undeniable but I still think what Sinquefeld is doing is not only perfectly acceptable but largely beneficial. He is bringing tremendous publicity to the game of chess although certainly the amazing Carlsen is doing that as well. It’s a golden era for chess as computers have found new and exciting variations that liven up the game. The internet has brought players from all over the world together to enjoy the game they love.

What Sinquefeld is doing by assembling this group of players is good for chess in the long run but I do see the danger. There are competition laws for a reason. What if Sinquefeld were to pay all the top players in the world to join his club? What if he exerted such influence that anyone who didn’t join was colluded against? What if he then started charging exorbitant rates for appearance fees and tournaments because he controlled all the best players?

My argument is that he has yet to do those things and therefore I don’t have a problem. Absolute power leads to absolute corruption as they say. It bears keeping an eye on.

Welcome to St. Louis, Fabiano! See you down at the club.

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

Self-Driving Cars in Lots of Accidents – Misleading Headline

Posted on by

self-driving cars accidentsI’m a huge proponent of self-driving cars for many reasons and my trainer at the gym alerted me to the fact that 4 of the 50 self-driving cars in California have been in accidents. The assumption being that they caused the crashes; or at least that’s what the bevy of misleading headlines would have you believe.

The facts you ask. Sure.

All eleven accidents occurred at less than 10 mph and no one was injured badly.

The biggest accident involved a self-driving car being broadsided by another car.

All of the accidents, all of them, involved other cars hitting the self-driving cars, mostly being rear-ended while stopped.

Self-driving cars are required to report all accidents including minor ones where no damage occurs (the majority of the cases here) thus the apparently high number of crashes. Most people never report the sort of accident in which these cars were involved.

Conclusion? Self-driving cars, even in their infancy are doing just fine.

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

Sergio Garcia and Heckling Fans

Posted on by
Sergio Garcia and heckling

I was watching the Player’s Championship golf tournament this weekend when I became more aware of golf fans attempting to intrude upon the game via heckling. In this case a group of hecklers continually shouted at Sergio Garcia as he was swinging at the ball.

Garcia is no stranger to controversy and his attempted humor about fried chicken and Tiger Woods engendered a great deal of ill will from various fans. Garcia and Woods were engaged in heated competition and Garcia made the comment when asked if he would be seeing Woods later in the week. He apologized afterwards but this did not appease fans who have been giving him a difficult time ever since.

Heckling

The level of heckling at the Player’s Championship came to my attention, and I think everyone else’s, because Garcia was involved in a playoff with Ricky Fowler and Kevin Kisner. In the Player’s Championship they play a three hole playoff instead of sudden death so the three players played three full holes together in front of the entire crowd and exclusively on camera for every shot. It was then that the heckling became painfully apparent.

Those who dislike Garcia attempted to disrupt him in the midst of his swings. They shouted in the middle of his backstroke as he putted. According to Garcia it had been going on for much of the round and he refused to blame the behavior for not winning the tournament. He parred all three holes in the playoff and was eliminated.

Shouting at golf tournaments has gotten progressively more intrusive but this was the first time I’ve seen a concerted effort to disrupt a player by yelling in the middle of the swing. It was disturbing to witness. This was clearly an effort by fans to alter the course of the tournament. If this sort of behavior is allowed to continue it is only a matter of time before fans of Garcia begin to attempt to disrupt his opponent and before fans of all players do the same to anyone competing against their favorite.

It’s rude, it’s selfish, and it’s just plain ugly.

There are those that argue the crowd is loud and rowdy at football games, baseball games, and other sports and the golfers should just adjust. I have no doubt the golfers will adjust if this behavior becomes more common but I still don’t like it. Individual sports like tennis, golf, bowling, pool, and others require great focus and the crowd has traditionally been quiet during the preparation and execution of shots.

Society has changed in this regard. It seems to me that fans are more selfish. Not only do they hurt the player but they ruin the enjoyment of the game for the other spectators.

What’s the solution?

I’m not about passing draconian laws that banish spectators for any sort of boorish behavior. I think the real solution is to teach people to respect themselves, other spectators, and the game itself. Anyone who truly respects the effort required by professional athletes, who respects the other fans at the game and values their enjoyment, and who, most of all, respects their own integrity won’t behave in such a manner.

Not an easy solution but the best long-term one.

Tom Liberman

Paying the NFL for Military Tributes

Posted on by

military tributes at NFL gamesAs anyone who reads my blog on a regular basis knows; I’m from St. Louis and a huge sports fan. In the last few years I’ve noted a hefty increase in the amount of time spent honoring military veterans during the games. At every Blues, Rams, and Cardinals they take time to honor a soldier in the stands and run some tributes on the video screens.

It turns out that, in at least some of those cases, the military is paying the team to run the tribute. They consider it advertising and money well spent. I can’t tell you if that’s the case for my hometown teams, the article only mentions the contract between the National Guard and the New York Jets, but I did want to examine the idea of my tax dollars going to sports teams in order to honor veterans.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that when the Cardinals, Rams, and Blues give up time during the game to talk about a veteran they are potentially suffering a financial loss. That time would have otherwise gone to paying advertisers. The second thing I think about is that it’s quite good advertising. Young men and women at the game are probably inspired by the tribute and want to join the military because of it.

The military spends plenty of money on advertising outside of sporting events so it shouldn’t come as a huge shock that they are behind the tributes, at least financially.

I think the problem comes from the fact that there is a general impression that such tributes are done out of respect for the military and our veterans, not because they are paid advertisements. The reality is that on the whole these days sporting events are largely just giant paid advertisements. Anyone who’s gone to a game in the last ten years has seen every open surface of the stadium splattered by ads and had their eardrums assaulted during every break in the action by advertisements.

I suspect most people thought the teams were doing the military tributes out of the goodness of their hearts and the various leagues certainly did not do anything to dissuade us fans from such notions. That would certainly describe my understanding of events prior to reading the article.

That being said, I don’t have a problem with it. It’s capitalism in action. The team gets good will for doing it while the various military branches get return on their advertising investment.

What do you think? Are you upset and angry that such tributes are merely paid advertising? Do you feel deceived? Or are you more like me and accept events for what they are?

Tom Liberman

Treadmill for a Legless Person a Bad Thing? Price is Right

Posted on by

danielle perezThere’s an interesting little news story making the rounds about an episode of the game show The Price is Right where a double-leg amputee won a treadmill as part of her prize package. Apparently some people were upset by this although, judging by the comments, the majority of people don’t have a problem with it.

The game show issued a perfectly satisfactory explanation and I’m not sure I need to elaborate much upon it but I did want to discuss the idea that some people found the episode uncomfortable and consider their point of view, or at least the rationale behind it.

The prize, of course, was determined long before the contestant was chosen. There is no way the show can match every prize to every contestant. I would imagine many of the contestants simply sell their prizes in order to pay for the taxes on the earnings so it’s rather pointless to worry about what the prize is to begin with.

The contestant, Danielle R. Perez, seemed enthusiastic about the prize and made no mention of the fact that a treadmill wasn’t the most appropriate prize for a double-amputee and the host also made no mention of the seeming incongruity. But the real question is why were people upset?

Do people get upset when a man wins a product generally designed for a woman or vice versa? What was it about this particular episode that got people thinking?

It’s my opinion that people generally want to be good, they want to be helpful. It makes us feel better about ourselves when we do something nice. The idea here is that people came to an erroneous conclusion, Perez was in need of help or sympathy. She wasn’t. She’s just fine the way she is and happy with the prizes.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing to want to be nice to people and to help those suffering from real harm. That attitude is one of the good parts about being a human being. But it becomes a bad thing when we try to help people who don’t need it for the sole purpose of making ourselves feel better.  It’s quite clear that Perez didn’t need anyone to help her. People are trying to do so largely because it makes them feel better about themselves.

This is a difficult thing to fully grasp. We want to be good people and do good things and thus we seek out ways to affirm our goodness. In this era of instant communication people use Twitter and other social media platforms to show the world how wonderful they truly are. They stick up for the downtrodden by spending a few seconds writing a Tweet and Liking a post but they aren’t really a good person for doing it.

It’s not easy to examine our motivations deeply but I think the world would be a better place if we did. The next time you want to help somebody, take a moment to examine if that person actually need any help. Examine your motivation.

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

When is the Suspect the Victim? La’el Collins and the NFL

Posted on by

Lael-CollinsThe National Football League just held their annual draft and a particularly unfortunate series of events led to a young man named La’el Collins remaining undrafted despite the fact that he was considered a First Round talent. It illustrates an interesting reality of this world in which we live.

Collins is being questioned by police in relation to the murder of a pregnant woman. The police state that Collins is not a suspect in the murder of Brittany Mills but did have a previous relationship with her. They plan to question him about his relationship.

This was enough for every team in the NFL to pass on Collins through all seven rounds of the draft. If Collins was not being questioned in this case it is most likely he would have been taken as one of the top ten picks in the draft. The NFL uses a system whereby the position you are drafted in determines your rookie contract to some degree. If he had been drafted in the tenth slot Collins would likely have gotten a contract worth about $12 million. As an undrafted free agent he stands to earn about $500,000 per season for his first three seasons.

The difference is clearly enormous.

NFL teams are under no obligation to draft anyone. Because Collins is involved in an extremely serious legal situation, each team chose not to draft him. Collins asked the NFL to allow him to enter what is called the Supplemental Draft at a later time after he had time to clear up the current issues. The NFL refused. Collins said that he would refuse to sign with a team that drafted him after the third round and wants to enter the draft next season, this is currently not allowed by NFL rules.

What does all this teach us? That life isn’t fair.

The police stated pretty clearly they do not consider Collins a suspect in the murder but with the recent events in the NFL regarding Aaron Hernandez the teams in the league were immediately wary.

There are a lot of losers here. Mills is dead, Collins is out a lot of money; his reputation is forever sullied, and the NFL team that would have drafted Collins won’t have his services.

Was there a better way? Could the police have waited until after the draft to announce they planned to question Collins? I’m not sure. It’s a murder investigation and I’m sure the family of Mills wants the police to move with all haste. It’s possible Collins is involved in the murder and the teams were right to avoid drafting him.

Hopefully the police will find the murderer and Collins will have nothing to do with it. Collins will sign as an undrafted free agent and perform remarkably on the field and get a huge contract in three years.

Still, it does make me wonder about the nature of the world. It’s quite possible Collins did nothing wrong and is being significantly punished for it.

Sometimes there are no easy answers, or answers at all.

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

 

Texas A&M Professor Flunks All Students – Libertarian Perspective

Posted on by

irwin-horwitzThere’s been an interesting story in the news the last couple of weeks about a professor at Texas A&M who decided to flunk all of his students and refused to finish out the semester. It’s an interesting decision to analyze from a Libertarian perspective.

Let me preface my remarks with the note that I do not speak for all Libertarians.

There are certainly many different possible realities to this situation and I would guess that there is a fairly large amount of blame to go around, but I want to examine this from a point of view that assumes one side of the story and then analyze it from there.

A quick recap of the story is that Professor Irwin Horwitz of Texas A&M – Galveston sent an email to all of the students in his Strategic Management class informing them that he planned to fail every student and would not be finishing his duties as instructor that semester. He cited his reasons as being general disrespect, rampant cheating, threats of violence, and unpreparedness for life after college.

The extreme viewpoint is that Horwitz is telling the absolute truth and his students were uniformly guilty of these transgressions. A second idea would be that Horwitz is an awful teacher and the students are not guilty of the behaviors listed. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle but for the purpose of this post I’m going to look at if what Horwitz did would have been appropriate in the first case.

Let’s imagine all of the students were cheating. Let’s assume he did face threats of physical violence. Let’s assume the students were uniformly unprepared to move on in life.

I still have a huge problem with his behavior. To begin with he has an obligation to finish the class. The students signed up for his class under that understanding. I’m not talking contract law, I’m talking about honoring your word.

My second big problem is that if cheating was rampant he should have immediately reported it and flunked those who were doing it. If several students are cheating and the professor lets them get away with it then the other students immediately feel cheated themselves. If cheaters are allowed to cheat then what good is being honest? I have the same attitude in regards to students who made verbal threats of physical violence. Why were they not immediately reported?

Professor Horwitz behaved atrociously even assuming everything he said is true. The reality is, as I mentioned above, there is probably blame to go around. In that case he is even more culpable.

The University has stepped in and the situation seems to be fairly well under control so that’s a good thing.

I also wanted to take a second to assign some blame to the students. If students are aware other students are cheating and don’t report it they are likely in violation of ethics rules at the school. If they were aware of threats of violence and did nothing to stop it then they have failed as humans.

Not a lot of good in this story. 🙁

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

Casino Refuses to Pay Grandma Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Casino HeadlineThe big, bad, old evil casino is refusing to pay Pauline McKee her $41 million winnings and isn’t that just awful?

At least that’s what the misleading heading from the Chicago Tribune would like you to think. Here’s the real story.

McKee was playing penny slots and won $1.85 but an error on the machine posted a message proclaiming that she won a $41 million bonus. The casino employees came over and immediately paid her real winnings, shut the machine down, gave her money to play another machine, and paid for her and her family’s room that night.

The casino did more than enough.

McKee responded by filing a lawsuit for $41 million.

If there’s a villain here it’s granny.

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

Cheating to Win – Kendall Schler at the St. Louis Marathon

Posted on by

kendall-schlerI have several friends who run marathons and specifically St. Louis area marathons so when I saw a story about how a woman cheated to win this year’s GO! St. Louis Marathon I was intrigued.

The story gets even worse because the woman, Kendall Schler, apparently successfully cheated to finish third in last year’s race. When she won this year a more thorough investigation was performed and it was determined that she did not run in the race at all. She simply jumped in right before the finish, reminiscent of Rosie Ruiz in the 1980 Boston Marathon.

At first I thought it was a rather amusing story because her attempt to cheat was relatively laughable in that she tampered with electronic tracking equipment but when I learned that she managed to pull off the trickery the previous year and I got a little upset. I’m not going to try and analyze why Schler cheated. I play online chess and cheating is epidemic in that milieu. People cheat for reasons that seem bizarre to me but they still do it.

What I want to analyze today is the overall anti-Libertarian effect that cheating incurs and how a society of Libertarians would deal with such things. The thing about being a Libertarian is that you largely believe people should succeed through their legitimate efforts. When one person cheats to get ahead that not only subverts society by putting a lesser qualified person into a position of power but also denies more highly qualified people at every level.

The person who finished in second should have won, yes, but the person who finished  in eleventh place would have finished in tenth and gotten some particular reward. The cheater cheats every other person behind them and society as a whole. I’m thinking rather broadly here, not just about a race but about business, relationships, and life in general.

Let’s imagine we Libertarians have taken over the world. We have in place a society where achievement is the highest goal and the majority of people simply do their best at everything they attempt. How do we deal with people like Schler? In a Libertarian society there might not be electronic tracking in race bibs because we assume people will not cheat. How do we safeguard our society from such as Schler without becoming the authoritarian state we so detest?

It’s not an easy question to answer. In my opinion we actually must allow Schler to win. Our suspicions aroused, we (all the other racers and officials) now watch her more closely next time. When we try to create rule after rule to safeguard against Schler and her ilk we end up creating a system designed to thwart cheaters rather than promote achievers. Sure, Schler gets the win but does she benefit in the long run in a Libertarian society. My answer is no. She is quickly discovered and shunned.

However, in a non-Libertarian society with millions of rules the cheaters, provided they are stealthy enough, can prosper, as did Schler last year. No one watches too closely because they assume officials and existing rules will eliminate cheaters. Meanwhile the cheaters know the rules and use various methods to skirt them. How many cheaters are out there right now, unbeknownst to the rule makers?

It’s a tough question and the Libertarian answer is not easy to digest and understand. Still, I think it’s the right answer for society and for the world.

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

Rachel Lehnardt – Mom has sex with 18 Year old – Who Cares?

Posted on by

rachel-lehnardtAny sex story that involves a woman with younger men immediately garners headline attention and I’m not opposed to having a minimum age for consensual sex but why is it a crime if the boy involved was passed that age?

In this case a woman named Rachel Lehnardt had sex with an eighteen year old boy and apparently allowed her sixteen year old daughter and friends to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana in her home. Lehnardt has had her other children taken from her by the state of Georgia and is being charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor for allowing people to drink in her home.

Lehnardt denies allowing anyone to drink in her home although apparently admitted to her Alcoholic’s Anonymous sponsor that she did engage in sexual acts with several boys over the age of 18. Who cares? Apparently everyone because the comment sections are filled with horror and outrage at her behavior.

Personally I have no problem with a parent who allows their child to drink alcohol in moderation at home. I certainly sipped beer and drank wine in my household from a young age. What is freedom if we cannot have sex with other adults no matter the age difference? What is freedom if we cannot allow our own children to have alcohol in our own homes.

The only possible criminal activity I see here is the allegation that she allowed minors not her own child to drink alcohol in her home. If we’re going to charge every person who is under 21 with possession of alcohol or marijuana I guess our jails just aren’t full enough with people who committed nonsense crimes.

It’s not like she forced these kids to drink. They drank because they wanted to drink. The boys had sex with her because, gosh, people like sex.

The state has taken her four children from her. Do we think placing them in foster care is really to their benefit?

Lehnardt admits a problem with alcohol and is in treatment. That’s where her sponsor ratted her out for being honest about what was going on in her life.

This is one where I know outraged moralists are going to yell at me and tell me how wrong I am. How the state must “save” those poor children from their evil and out of control mother.

I completely disagree. If she wants to let her kid drink at her home she should be allowed to do so. If she wants to have sex with people who are passed the age of legal consent then more power to her. Freedom means being free, not being free to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

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

Andrew Sadek – Another Victim of the War on Drugs

Posted on by

andrew-sadekAnyone who ever watched a realistic police drama knows how informants are used by law enforcement officers to help them make arrests. These informants often suffer horrible consequences and the case of Andrew Sadek reinforces my opinion that the War on Drugs does far more harm than the actual drugs upon which war is being waged.

Sadek was a young college student who sold small amounts of marijuana to his friends at the North Dakota State College of Science. The police recruited a person on campus to be an informant and when Sadek sold him marijuana got the young man to allow them to search his room. There they found residual marijuana in a grinder.

The laws in North Dakota about selling even small amounts of drugs on school grounds and federally mandated sentencing guidelines meant that if convicted Sadek faced the potential of many years in prison. To avoid this he agreed to be the next chain in the link of drug informants. He made a few buys for the police. Then he ended up dead with a bullet in the head.

The investigation is ongoing and it’s possible Sadek was murdered or he committed suicide. It doesn’t matter to me which one. He’s dead because police terrified him into doing something stupid. He’s dead because we have laws in this country that potentially put people in jail for decades because they sold an easily grown weed to people who willingly pay for it.

I discussed this matter with a friend who suggested that Sadek was more than partially responsible for his death and that the police were merely doing their job in trying to catch higher level drug dealers. I don’t completely disagree with this thought. Sadek could have refused to cooperate but I think the burden falls more heavily on the government officials who at the very least coerced him into doing something quite dangerous. I’m of the opinion Sadek didn’t do anything wrong at all in his sales but the current laws say he did. He knew he was breaking the law and risked punishment.

That being said it seems awfully vicious, cruel, and manipulative to threaten a young man with the destruction of his life over such a minor thing as selling a little marijuana and then using that threat to place him in what can only be described as a physically and emotionally dangerous world. It’s irresponsible of law enforcement to do it. They must be held at least partially accountable for Sadek’s death.

The main question I have over this incident and the many other’s I’ve written about is quite simple.

Is it worth it?

Is this War on Drugs worth doing such horrible things to people? I ask law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and tax payers. Is it worth it?

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

U.S. Seizes Kim Dotcom Assets

Posted on by

Kim DotcomI’ve been following the saga of Kim Dotcom since January of 2012 when New Zealand police raided his home and charged him with copyright piracy. Things took another disturbing (at least for Libertarians) turn this weekend when a U.S. court decided that because he was a “fugitive” that the government was entitled to seize all of his personal assets despite the fact he hasn’t been convicted of a crime.

I’ve written about this entire misguided prosecution several times before and I don’t want to reiterate all my objections and will focus on this latest travesty today.

What happened is that the government of New Zealand, where Kim Dotcom resides, raided his house and took his property but the courts in that country decided that after nearly three years and no trial they needed to give him his stuff back. The United States then invoked a new legal proceeding claiming that Dotcom was a fugitive and as such they could seize his assets.

How Dotcom is a fugitive of the United States when he never lived in this country and never did business in this country boggles the mind. How the United States is entitled to steal … er seize … the assets of a person who was arrested, but untried, in another country is frightening. What can’t the courts decide? Who can’t they bankrupt?

The United States now owns $67 million worth of what used to be Dotcom’s property. His business is destroyed and he has yet to face trial three years after his initial arrest. The United States now owns his bank accounts, none of which resided in the United States! They own them! The accounts legally belong to the United States Government because a U.S. court decided the accounts of a man from another country was a fugitive.

There has been no trial and Dotcom wasn’t even legally allowed to defend himself in this latest phase. He now has no money to pay his lawyers to continue his case.

Who is safe from such rapacity?

Are you?

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

Saudi Arabia has Lost their Trust in Us? What-What-What

Posted on by
saudi-arabia-terror

Ahhhhhhhh!!!!

Anger rising. Rant uncontrollable.

Republicans in Congress are apparently angry that Saudi Arabia has conducted bombing raids in Yemen without the United States joining in.

This is a sign, they say, that Saudi Arabia doesn’t trust the United States and hence, President Obama.

THEY DON’T TRUST US!?!

Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian who learned his hatred of the United States in schools funded by Saudi Arabia. He learned it next to thousands of other Saudi Arabians and others around the Arab world who go to schools funded by Saudi oil. Fifteen of the nineteen scum that carried out the September 11th attacks were from Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is the chief financier of terrorist attacks on the United States in the world. They created ISIS with their schools and now it’s coming back to haunt them. Cry me a river.

I repeat again in case you missed the all-capital scream from above. They don’t trust us? They don’t trust President Obama?

How about, now this is a crazy idea, how about we don’t trust those murdering, backstabbing, useless fake friends? How about we stop ferrying them out of the country on private jets while the rest of the country is grounded after the September 11th attacks? How about we stop sending them weapons and money? How about that?

It’s all because we want oil. Oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil. We debase ourselves for it. We degrade ourselves, we feed our enemies cash, we sell our honor, our integrity for it.

I generally despise Democrats and Republicans with the same venom but today my hate is for just you, Lindsey Graham, and your Republican friends.

Ahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rant not over. Heart still raging.

Tom Liberman

Gal Gadot is too Skinny to portray Wonder Woman?

Posted on by

Gal GadotI like to fancy myself a bit of a plain speaker and a story from the entertainment world about an actress named Gal Gadot burns my britches.

First a little background. An upcoming Batman/Superman movie will feature the iconic character of Wonder Woman. The actress chosen to play the role is Gal Gadot. Here is the result of an image search so you can peruse the pictures of this attractive woman.

I’ve also included a picture of her in the blog if you don’t want to go to the trouble of clicking the link.

People are upset because they think Gadot is too skinny to play Wonder Woman. So they say.

Now here’s my problem with that assertion.

Shhh. Make sure no one is looking. Check behind you. Is it safe?

The problem people have is not her weight, it’s that her breasts aren’t large enough. Oh my goodness! What horrors have I spoken? The delicate ears of United States citizens everywhere aren’t mature enough to hear that.

This kind of mealy-mouthed double-speak bothers me. Personally I don’t think Wonder Woman needs to have large breasts although it’s undeniable that she is generally portrayed that way in comics and the most famous Wonder Woman, Linda Carter, had a full figure.

When people say Gadot is too skinny they get to say her breasts aren’t large enough without actually saying it. If you think Wonder Woman must have large breasts then say it! I disagree with you but at least show the courage of your conviction.

This sort of pretend speak just annoys me to no end.

Too skinny? Ha.

Rant over.

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

Phil Robertson’s Story of Murder, Rape, and Dismemberment

Posted on by

Phil RobertsonThanks to my Facebook friends I just read an interesting story about Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson.

Robertson examines the thought processes of a family who is brutally murdered, raped, and dismembered by a group of insane people. He does not mention a second family but the comparison is there, if not overtly mentioned. One family is an atheist family while the other is presumably Christian. Robertson thinks his story is about the world not having a right and a wrong without God, but surprisingly that’s not what it’s about at all.

The real idea is that the family being murdered, raped, and dismembered must be dismayed to know that the men doing this will not be judged in heaven. That a Christian family will take comfort while they are being murdered, raped, and dismembered in the fact that the perpetrator of the crime will eventually be judged and thus can apparently be less distressed about their murder, rape, and dismemberment than can the atheist family. The atheist family must simply go through the torment without the satisfaction of knowing the horror they face will be visited a thousand fold on the people murdering, raping, and dismembering them. The Christian family is thus less distressed by their own horror knowing that their god will inflict a worse punishment. Thus they are likely fairly happy to be murdered, raped, and dismembered.

On a second level it is interesting in that an atheist family will also not be comforted by the fact that god is standing right there, watching, experiencing, and allowing the murdering, raping, and dismembering to happen because there is a purpose behind it. One of the purposes apparently being that eventually the murdering, raping, and dismembering men will go to hell where they will suffer eternal torment and burning because god allowed them to murder, rape, and dismember the Christian family. The Christian family will be comforted by the fact that god is standing at their side, watching and allowing, because it is part of The Plan!

The third and final level I find interesting is that the murdering, raping, and dismembering parties will have the rest of their lives to realize what they did was wrong and genuinely confess their sins. Then those people committing the murder, rape, dismemberment will get into heaven where they can presumably apologize to the family for all the murdering, raping, and dismembering and both groups can live together in eternal bliss.

Perhaps that’s even why God allowed all that murdering, raping, and dismembering in the first place. So that the person committing the atrocities would feel remorse and turn their life around. Thus the murdered, raped, and dismembered family will have served their purpose in the eyes of the Lord.

Hooray, everyone wins.

The poor atheists on the other hand will know that their murder, rape, and dismemberment was not part of God’s plans but just the actions of a group of insane people. Thus they will somehow suffer more.

What does this story really tell us? That Robertson, and anyone who agrees with him, are sick people.

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

$375,000 Fine from FCC for Fleeting Porn

Posted on by

wdbj7-tv-stationA lot of my Libertarian friends are up in arms about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Net Neutrality these days but I spotted another story that, to my mind, illustrates a more significant problem. The FCC has just laid out a $375,000 fine against a television station in Roanoke, VA for accidentally displaying pornographic material, in the very corner of the screen, for about three seconds during a newscast.

The FCC was created in 1934 for the following purpose:

Regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ‘Federal Communications Commission’, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.

It was amended in 1996 so as to have jurisdiction over the Internet as well.

What’s important here is that the FCC was created to help spread television to the people of the United States. The ability to communicate broadly across the country was seen as advantageous and the FCC was created to try and help in that process. Somewhere along the way it has become an agency which decides what is decent and what is not.

I have an enormous issue with this. If a television station wants to broadcast something they should be able to do it. If an audience doesn’t want to watch it they don’t have to watch it. If a station deceives and shows something lewd when they promised not to do so then they should lose advertisers and viewers who are outraged. It’s not up to the government to protect our precious little ears and eyes from things we don’t want to see. It’s up to us.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s say they do have such a right. Within their own guidelines the base fine for indecency is $7,000. So exactly how and who came up with $375,000? It’s smacks of the arbitrary arrogance of unchecked power. Rules? We make the rules says the unanimous vote of both Republicans and Democrats on the FCC.

When you don’t follow your own rules then there are no rules.

Good luck finding their salaries. I couldn’t. The commissioners and their deputies get feted in fancy dinners paid for by various media companies. This is, of course, but the tip of the graft iceberg. I’m quite certain the commissioners and their families are well-taken care of by the various lobbying groups when it comes to vacations, sporting event tickets, and much more.

The bottom line?

This is the agency we created to help spread communication across our great country. Communication has spread. Their job is done.

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

Rape, Assault, Murder, Cooperate .. the Rene Enriquez Story

Posted on by

rene enriquezThe War on Drugs makes my stomach turn and I just read another story that brings me close to vomiting. Our police agencies are ferrying around a man convicted of rape, assault, and murder because he is has been cooperating with authorities for the last twelve years.

A fellow by named Rene Enriquez grew up in a middle class neighborhood with a businessman father but, for whatever reason, took up criminal activity. His first crime was raping an intoxicated woman as a juvenile and his list of misdeeds just gets more heinous from there. He helped organize the violent Mexican drug cartels and is clearly responsible for countless murders.

All this violence is fueled by money from the illegal drug trade. I’m not going to pretend there aren’t violent people who would commit crimes even if all drugs were legal but the level of violence and the organization of those who manufacture and distribute drugs is fueled by money.

That being said it’s not point of my blog today. Enriquez was essentially tortured in prison by being sent into isolation for twenty-four hours a day. After about tens years of this he decided he was willing to help police understand how the Mexican gangs operate and began cooperating with the FBI and local California police agencies.

He has acted as a witness in numerous occasions and is essentially on a speaking tour to promote his book. That’s what the original story is about. He was recently released from prison to give yet another speech. This time the paperwork wasn’t filled out properly and all the money spent to protect him from possible vengeful cohorts has come to light. The speech was for business leaders and top level law enforcement officers.

These same business leaders and law enforcement officers are speaking out on his behalf begging for this murdering rapist to be released. Why? Because he is cooperating. If released he will be moved into Witness Protection, given a new identify, and go on about his life.

I’m angry because it was drugs and their attendant money that led him down this vile path. I’m furious that this murdering, rapist is the darling of supposedly “tough on crime” high-ranking police officers and business leaders.

This is the place the War on Drugs has led us. We created Enriquez with our misguided laws and now we want to reward him for his criminal past. How many has he killed? Who knows and apparently who cares? He can help us perpetuate the War on Drugs so we can breed a thousand more just like him so let’s forgive him, let’s grant him parole. Yay!

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

Daredevil Motorcycle Rider Arrested

Posted on by

Daredevil Motorcycle Rider ArrestedI just saw an interesting video at Yahoo News about a fellow that was riding a motorcycle while standing on the seat. He was chased down by the police, pulled into a gas station, and was arrested.

My question is what was he doing wrong? From the video he was keeping in his lane properly and wasn’t speeding. Now, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t breaking traffic laws while not on video but, from what I saw, I see no reason to arrest the guy.

I think the initial reaction of most people will be that he was riding recklessly and endangering those around him. That was certainly my first thought. I’ve been on the highway when motorcycle riders were engaging in reckless actions. Speeding, dodging between cars, and other violations that I think warranted a ticket.

After watching the video a few times I don’t see this arrest as warranted. He seemed to be as much in control of his vehicle as anyone else. He didn’t seem to be speeding. He wasn’t wildly changing lanes or doing anything that appeared to endanger those around him. There’s no doubt that what he was doing had a higher potential for causing an accident than driving from the normal seated position but can we start arresting people because it appears they might be doing something that could be dangerous but isn’t?

Can a police officer arrest you for steering with your leg if you are maintaining your lane properly? Can a restaurant be shut down for looking dirty but obeying the various regulations that govern the food service industry?

There are laws in various states about distracted driving but this fellow was clearly pretty focused on what he was doing.

I’m not opposed to traffic laws. I’m certain that the greatest danger I face on a daily basis is people in their cars who are driving poorly. That being said, if this guy was sitting in the seat no one would think that he was driving dangerously. His driving is solid. He obeys the traffic laws.

There is certainly the possibility that he was driving dangerously at some point earlier and if such video comes out I’ll understand the arrest. But, barring that, I think the arrest was an example of the police state in which we live. We live in a nation in which an officer who doesn’t like the way you’re doing something can decide to arrest you even though what it is your doing isn’t against the law.

What do you think?

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

The Chocolate Chip Cookie Misleading Headline

Posted on by

ChipsRuinCookiesFooled again!

Those darn headline writers got me, although this time I can’t complain too much because whoever wrote the story has a good point. It’s a bit of a double-misdirection whammy because the actual headline on the story is accurate, it’s just its re-imagining in Yahoo News that lures in the unwary (me).

Boring, bland: Why chocolate chips ruin cookies! screams the headline drawing immediate outrage and surely the clicks of many chocolate chip cookie lovers like myself.

The real story headline is Do Chocolate Chips Ruin Chocolate Chip Cookies?

That’s the real story. That those making chocolate chip cookies should purchase premium chocolate chunks and chop it up themselves to create a less even distribution and better melted version of the treat. Apparently the chocolate chip isn’t so good at melting uniformly. The author even filters the chopped cookies to weed out the smaller chunks.

Yes, I want one of those cookies and I want it now!

What sort of foolio thinks a story about chocolate chip cookies needs a misleading headline to get clicks? Mmm, cookie.

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

What if Atheists Proclaimed lack of Faith in Satan?

Posted on by

god_vs_satanI was watching a video from the Amazing Atheist on YouTube just now, he’s rather humorous although a bit free with the profanities for my taste, when something he said caught my attention.

In the video he is railing against a True Believer, we’re not really sure if Christian or Muslim. The person accused him of not being an Atheist but being a Satanist. It’s a ridiculous comparison of course. Anyone who is an Atheist believes the chance the devil is down in hell is equal to that of god being up in heaven, that being no chance at all.

That wasn’t what struck me though. I suddenly asked myself a question. What if all Atheists started to proclaim their non-belief in the devil rather than their non-belief in god? Would that make a difference to the religious community? Certainly Judaism has no devil at all so they might actually consider it an acceptable idea but what about the Christians and the Muslims?

Would they be happier if we Atheists went around railing against the stupidity of the devil? How worship and/or fear of such an imaginary creature is irrational. What if Atheists marched with “There is no Satan” banners? If they said things like, “Hiding from your imaginary devil friend again?”

I think the answer is self-evident. The lack of belief in Lucifer would be as abhorrent to someone of faith as is the lack of belief in god. To deny the existence of Satan is one in the same as denying the existence of god. To deny one is to deny the other! A Christian or Muslim has to believe in the devil as much as they believe in god.

Still, the image of Atheists parading around with anti-devil signs made me laugh a little. It’s all the same to an Atheist after all. Why not?

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