Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Tom Schweich and the Comments of Hate

Posted on by

Tom SchweichThere a story that’s been ongoing here in my beloved home state of Missouri for the last few months ever since a man named Tom Schweich committed suicide in the early stages of a nasty political campaign.

Former senator John Danforth gave a moving eulogy for his friend in which he laid the blame squarely on the vicious attacks that are now regular fare in a primary campaign and general election. There is no doubt attack ads are on the rise and the vast sums of money from anonymous sources have contributed to this rise.

I’ve talked about all that in the past. What I want to talk about today was the tone of the comments section in the article. I’m sure you can guess. It was one political attack after the next. Name calling? Check. Character assassination? Check. Lies? Check? Straw Person arguments? Check. It only took a few minutes perusal to see almost every comment decrying the death of Schweich was actually perpetuating the very thing they were supposedly arguing against.

Why is there so much vitriol and hate in U.S. politics? Because there is so much vitriol and hate in the hearts of the citizens of this country. The people of this nation are filled with fear of the other party and this leads them inevitably to rage. It leads them to childish name calling. It leads them to think their very lives are in grave danger if the person from the other party gets elected.

Most disturbingly, candidates and activists from both parties immediately began to look for ways to capitalize on the suicide to advance their own chances in the next election. Nauseating.

The good, decent words of John Danforth? It’s as if no one heard them.

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

On Arranged Marriages and Math Tests

Posted on by

Indian Bride Math QueryThere’s an interesting story making the News of the Weird rounds and I think it’s worth discussing. A woman in India walked out of her arranged marriage when she determined that her potential husband did not meet minimal education standards.

For most of us in the Western world it seems impossible that a woman could not know the intelligence of her husband-to-be just a few short minutes before they were to be married but in India many marriages are arranged by the parents of the couple. In these sorts of marriages the parents pick an appropriate spouse and the two do not meet until the ceremony itself. There is no doubt, from a statistical perspective, that such marriages are more likely to succeed than are so-called autonomous marriages. Even in the United States small groups like the Amish practice arranged marriages and they result in far fewer divorces.

Divorce rate comparisons actually play a role in what I want to talk about today. The idea of an arranged marriage is that the parents of the two participants are slightly more level-headed than the bride and groom. Passions do not cloud judgment. The parents look at things like education level, social status, and general compatibility before other factors like physical attraction.

I find myself largely in agreement with the concept of an arranged marriage although the reality of it not so much. I  harbor no illusions that we here in the United States will suddenly embrace arranged marriages but I found the article interesting nevertheless. What I found most intriguing was the bride’s insistence on giving a mathematical test to her husband in the moments before the wedding. It’s clear she was concerned that her parents had been duped by the groom’s family. I was actually a little surprised by the simplicity of the question (What is 15 + 6) although I don’t know the education level of bride. I would have expected, if she were a college graduate, a more difficult question.

It also makes me wonder if perhaps this sort of duplicity is becoming more common in India, as the bride was clearly wary. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that, in the future, more arranged marriages require that the parents meet with the proposed spouse before making any agreements.

What struck me the most was the groom’s family lying on such a scale in order to gain a favorable marriage. It’s clear to me that the woman would likely never have been happy with such an uneducated man. In a culture where arranged marriages are the norm it is the responsibility of the parents to find the most likely match for their child. In this case the groom’s family failed him badly, as did the bride’s although that was because of lies told by their counterparts.

That’s a real shame. If your parents aren’t looking out for you, who will?

No profound revelations here today. I do applaud the bride’s diligence and adherence to Libertarian Principles. Always look out for yourself.

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

Michael Diggle and the School Bras

Posted on by

southfield-school-michael-diggleThere’s a fascinating story making the news in England involving a drama teacher named Michael Diggle who has been fired for asking two female students to take off their bras in order to apply body make-up and take pictures.

It sounds like an easy decision to make but I don’t think so and I’m going to tell you why. I suspect a lot of people are going to disagree with me.

Diggle was a respected drama teacher and his students were practicing to perform a play called Crave. I’ve never seen it but it clearly involves some dark and sexual themes. He applied bruise make-up to one of the girls on her upper back and neck requiring she remove her bra. During this time he apparently commented on the girl’s figure. He also took sexy, or what is being called provocative, pictures of the girls because such photos are used in the play. Said pictures were used in the play. He did both of these things without supervision and while alone with the girls.

School administrators spoke with both of the girls in question and others in the play. All apparently describe Diggle as excellent at his job as Director of Creative Arts at Southfield School in Kettering. He is described by students as being devoted. He is the sort of teacher who apparently asks his students to stretch their ability and become better. His actions were determined not to be sexually motivated. He has a good history with the school and apparently no other disciplinary problems.

Another important factor, from my eyes at least, is that Diggle maintains he did nothing wrong. He merely wanted to help his students become better actors, to apply themselves in difficult ways. Being a great actor requires such ability and it seems clear to me that Diggle is the sort of teacher who helps young people reach their potential.

I’m not completely on Diggle’s side in this. He should have had other people present when applying the makeup and taking the photos; perhaps the parents of the girls or at least another adult. That being said I think firing him is totally inappropriate. He is the sort of person who should be teaching our children. He is clearly not frightened to take on difficult topics and forces his students into unfamiliar situations. This is something a great educator must do.

I’m not opposed to a reprimand or lesser punishment but does it help the children of Kettering to lose such a teacher or does it hurt them? Isn’t that the bottom line? Is a teacher effective? That’s the question. We all make mistakes and such draconian punishment ensures that those who are bold, those who take risks, those very people we want to motivate children are driven from the field of teaching. We are left with those who don’t take chances, who don’t ask tough questions, who go down the easiest path, and take their charges with them.

I understand the investigation but I don’t agree with the final decision. Others may disagree.

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

Refused Chemo in Remission – Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Connecticut Teen RemissionThose darn misleading headlines! I’m aware and wary but this one got me!

Connecticut Teen Who Refused Chemo Now in ‘Remission,’ Seeks Freedom blares the headline. There have been a number of stories in the news in the last few months about young people who did not want to get chemotherapy. In several cases the parents of the teen essentially ran off to avoid the state forcing medical care their child.

This was not one of those cases. In this case the state took Cassandra C. (full name not released to protect the minor) from her home, strapped her to a hospital bed, and forced chemotherapy on her. It worked and she’s now in remissions. She says she’s committed to finishing her treatment and wants to go home.

The headline was clearly designed to draw in people who thought the girl refused chemotherapy and is now in remission. The reality is that if she had been allowed to refuse such care she would likely be dying or already dead. The statistics on chemotherapy are overwhelming. I’ve had discussions with people on this subject and I’m not going to get into a debate today. Look up the one year, five year, and ongoing cancer survival rates for those who take chemotherapy and those who don’t. You can choose to disbelieve the numbers, that’s your call, me, I’ll go with the statistics.

Back to the story; it’s interesting for a number of reasons. Does the state have the right to force medical treatment on a minor who refuses such? Minors don’t have the same constitutional rights as adults so it’s not a simple question for a Libertarian like myself. A parent unquestionably has the right to force an underage child to take medical treatment against their will. This goes without saying. Does the state?

If a child has a 90% chance to die without taking the treatment and a 99% chance to live with the treatment is the state obligated to step forward?

I discussed this issue more fully in a post about child endangerment but I’ll recap quickly. If parents imprison and abuse their children can the state step in? If you agree with that then it’s hard not to agree with stepping in for medical treatment. The child will likely die unnecessarily without said treatment. Child abuse is not usually fatal although the long term outlook is certainly awful.

I’m not going to cover all my points again today, please read that post if you’d like know my opinions.

This story is really just about another misleading headline that lured me in!

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

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off from a Libertarian Perspective

Posted on by

Charlie Sheen Ferris BuellerMy favorite comedy show these days is The Goldbergs and every week I look forward to the day Hulu releases the next episode. This week they paid tribute to Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and, as usual, there were some great moments not the least of which was Charlie Sheen’s conversation with Erica.

Anyone who has seen the movie remembers the astounding advice Charlie’s Sheen’s character gave to Jeanie (Shana, Jennifer Grey) and watching it again sent chills down my Libertarian spine. In a few short sentences Sheen gets to the root of why Jeanie is so angry and points out why it is wrong, so very wrong. That scene is an Objectivist Libertarian anthem.

The entire movie is really about taking advantage of life’s opportunities. I’ve heard people say it’s about kids pulling one off on adults but that’s not it. The parking lot attendants demonstrate this with great clarity. It’s about not being mad at your brother because he gets to do stuff you don’t get to do. It’s about doing things yourself!

“Your problem is you,” says Sheen and he’s right. “You ought to spend a little more time dealing with yourself and a little less time worrying about what your brother does.”

I say we should spend a little less time worrying about who is smoking marijuana or who is getting married to whom. We should spend a little less time worrying about who hired an illegal nanny, a little less time worrying about one sentence in one speech by one politician. We should spend a little less time blaming the other political party for everything that is wrong in this country. We should spend a little less time worrying about who got what kind of plastic surgery.

We should spend a little less time listening to wild-eyed fanatics who predict the end of the world if someone they don’t support is elected to a political position. We should spend a little less time listening to pseudo-scientific claims that have no evidence to back up their conclusions.

What is wrong with this country when Charlie Sheen has got it right and the fanatics to whom you listen and watch in the media have got it all backwards?

Now, I recognize Sheen was reading lines, acting. I’m under no illusions that he’s got the right idea about how to lead your life. But, by golly, for one moment there at least, he got it totally right. He nailed it. He summed up that movie.

Go out there, Jeanie’s of the world. Don’t complain and blame everyone else. Achieve great things! It’s inside you. You can do it. I believe in you and so does “Boy in Police Station”.

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

Police Contrived Conspiracy against Douglas Dendinger

Posted on by

dendinger-cell-phone-video-summonsI read a lot of stories about abuse of power from law enforcement officials in the news these days but this one ranks near the top. A fellow named Douglas Dendinger served a summons concerning a police brutality case involving his nephew.

The police officer, two prosecutor, the police chief, and three other witnesses described the handing over of the summons as a physical assault. Written testimony from multiple witnesses stated clearly that Dendinger assaulted the officer in the course of serving the summons. Dendinger has a prior drug conviction.

I want you to imagine the comments you might have made with just that information. What you might have thought about the story right at that moment. The police chief and six other witnesses accused a convicted drug user of assaulting an officer. It’s impossible they’re all lying. The guy is a convicted felon. The case involved his nephew.

I wonder how many times this exact same scenario has occurred all across this great nation of ours? There’s something new today. People have phones and can easily take video. I think you know where this is going.

The case finally got tossed out of court when the prosecutor’s office was forced to recuse themselves and the state took over. With the case dismissed Dendinger is now free to discuss the events in public. There is video. The police chief lied. The officer lied. The lawyers from the prosecutor’s office lied. Dendinger handed over the summons and walked away.

I want you to think about this case the next time you blindly support police officers against suspects. I’m not saying all police officers are bad. But when the bad officers are supported by the good officers we are all in trouble. The entire system may not be broken but it’s not working properly anymore. It is my opinion that good police officers are being driven from the force because they won’t go along with this sort of thing.

This antagonistic relationship between law enforcement and citizens is driven by the War on Drugs. The fact that municipalities increasingly rely on Seizure Laws to finance not only the police department but the entire city government. For all those great police officer out there; be aware that I’m not trying to attack you, I’m trying to save you!

This must stop. Police must return to Protecting and Serving, not intimidating, stealing, and using their position of power to attack anyone who dares question their authority.

When the citizens of this nation no longer trust the police force the entire country is in danger. We’re not there yet but it’s not good out there.

End the War on Drugs. Write the seizure laws off the books. City Hall finance your police department with what they need not the other way around. This is serious business.

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

Dominik Walker Sentenced for Murder because he sold Heroin

Posted on by

Dominik Walker Heroin OverdoseThe War on Drugs continues to threaten all our security and the case of Dominik Walker should send chills down the spine of every United States citizen.

Walker possibly sold heroine to Marlene Rose who then died of an overdose. Many people will say good. He was selling an illegal product and deserves a prison sentence. I couldn’t disagree more. This is such an egregious overreach of law enforcement that it makes my stomach turn. The implications are so far-reaching it’s difficult to fathom the possible repercussions.

Can a firearm dealer be charged with murder for selling a gun to someone who didn’t have a license and then went on to kill someone? Can a bartender be charged for murder for selling to a 20 year old who then got in a car accident in which someone died? Can a grocery store clerk be charged for murder for selling a cigarette to a 17 year old who then accidentally set fire to their house killing their entire family?

I’ll not tread lightly here. I’m a Libertarian who believes that the only drugs that are currently illegal are those the drug industry doesn’t control. Heroin is legal. Cocaine is legal. All types of drugs are legal but just in forms the pharmaceutical industry controls. Should a pharmacist be charged with murder when a patient overdoses on their pills? When the child of a patient overdoses because they took those pills?

The entire War on Drugs has caused nothing but misery and suffering for everyone. Drug users, drug dealers, law enforcement officers, innocents, and everyone else. We are all suffering and this apparently new legal precedent shocks me. Who can’t be charged when it becomes criminal to sell anything to anyone who goes on to commit a crime?

Someone who sells a stolen car should be charged with dealing in stolen property, not murdering the family the driver of the car hit in an accident. It’s madness. If someone dies from an herbal remedy manufacturer who engaged in false advertising should the retailer be held responsible for the death? I could go on forever. There is no end to the possible abuses.

I’m not one to bring race into every argument but the fact that Walker was black and Rose was white makes me question the entire prosecution. Do you think there would have been such a charge and sentence if Walker was a young white man from a good family and Rose a black woman from a poor neighborhood? I don’t.

End the War on Drugs. Manufacture, distribute, and sell. We are adults. If we make poor decisions we suffer the consequences. That’s the true price of freedom.

Tom Liberman

Goodbye Mr. Spock

Posted on by

leonard-nimoy-gives-vulcan-salute-dataIt’s a sad day for me. Leonard Nimoy passed away and with him, to some degree, Mr. Spock.

The reality is that Mr. Spock is not dead for the simple fact that he was never alive. He was simply a character played by Mr. Nimoy who spoke lines and acted from scripts. Yet here I am saying farewell anyway. It is difficult to separate Mr. Spock from Mr. Nimoy. It is not difficult to do the reverse. Mr. Nimoy went on with his own life and accomplished many things.

Mr. Spock may not be dead but my heart is heavy nevertheless. Mr. Spock is now played by Zachary Quinto in the new Star Trek movies. I wish Quinto well, certainly his bravery at taking on such an iconic role is to be admired. That being said, I think I am not alone in thinking of Mr. Spock as the embodiment of the acting talents of Mr. Nimoy.

I watched Star Trek in the reruns in the early 1970’s and he was far and away my favorite character. I myself might well be what they call today a high functioning autistic. The definition is thus:

The manifestations of autism cover a wide spectrum, ranging from individuals with severe impairments—who may be silent, developmentally disabled, and locked into hand flapping and rocking—to high functioning individuals who may have active but distinctly odd social approaches, narrowly focused interests, and verbose, pedantic communication.

Whatever my condition may or may not be there is no doubt that Mr. Spock inspired me. His insistence on logic when those around him were aroused by their passions touched something inside me even in my juvenile years. I loved Mr. Spock. I was furious during the episodes where he was infected by something or another and forced to act illogically or to, horrors of horrors, kiss Nurse Chapel!

I loved his habit of coolly calculating the odds in dangerous situation. I loved his search for the best possible solution to every problem regardless of other factors. He was my hero.

I did not always agree with his logical conclusions. I do not think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I like to think Mr. Spock would have approved of my disapproval. He was that sort of man … er … Vulcan … er … fictional character.

I’ll finish this post with my favorite Mr. Spock quote of all time. It is certainly not his most famous line but for me it sums up everything. In the heat of battle, in a moment of crisis and emotion, he kept his cool and gave us his logical perspective on the tactical prowess of Khan Noonien Singh.

Captain Kirk was lucky to have such a friend.

Live long and prosper.

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

Great Parts and Lousy Product a Review of the Movie Shrink

Posted on by

ShrinkI watched a movie on Hulu last night called Shrink. It was bad. Why it was bad fascinates me.

I’ve argued on a number of occasions about the ideas of Subjective vs Objective thinking and while doing so often make reference to movies. I argue that what makes a movie good or bad is its various parts. The actors, the acting, the screenplay, the cinematography, the directing, and various other factors.

Shrink puts my logic to the test. The movie has a stellar cast who all perform ably enough. It has high production values in every regard. The dialog of the individuals when interacting with one another is largely pretty strong. Yet, it’s awful. It is terrible in the way a bad film is not. A bad film is made up of many bad parts. This is an awful film made from excellent parts. How, how, how?

Let’s examine what went wrong.

The score is good but overly repetitive when it comes to what are clearly meant to be scenes that touch our hearts. When the same piano notes again start I found myself cringing. “Oh no, here we go,” I said out loud. Out loud.

The plot relies on coincidence again and again and by the time the Keke Palmer character finds the accidentally dropped script and the Kevin Spacey character wakes up next to his drug dealer in the hospital; I had had enough. “Nooo!” I shouted. “Really?” I said shaking my head.

Dallas Roberts plays an agent and his germ-phobia is ever prevalent when useful and absent when not. In one scene he recoils from a touch and, moments later, grabs the arm of a client and drags him off for a talk. Inconsistencies. Little ones that crop up again and again. Nothing huge. No deal breakers. Just minor flaws adding and adding and then multiplying.

All of the characters are half-explained (at best) and there are too many of them. We learn about them in short bursts that are designed well but just always seem to fall short. The writer clearly understands the idea of showing instead of telling a story but it’s just too little for too many.

I could go on but the conclusion that I’ve finally reached is that an overwhelming number of little flaws destroys the product no matter how great its potential. Perhaps that is why it is so difficult to achieve greatness. It requires both broad strokes of genius and minute attention to detail.

Anyway, I’d avoid Shrink if I were you. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

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

1984 or Men Like Gods?

Posted on by

Utopia or DystopiaUtopia or Dystopia? That is the question.

I was skimming through various news headlines, as is my daily habit, and felt a familiar sense of bemusement as I noted story after story that seemed to have little relationship with the truth. We now live in a time where information is more freely available than it has ever been. Communication of ideas cannot be suppressed but it can also be channeled in a way never before known in human history.

More people can think and learn independently and at the same time more people can be directly influenced by a set upon story decided by a few people in power. A single narrative broadcast through various outlets and repeated endlessly as truth both loudly and with conviction.

I think this duality brings us, at this moment, closer to both Utopia and Dystopia than ever before.

So the question is whether we are heading toward Men Like Gods or Nineteen Eighty-Four?

Will we grow into a society which believes in privacy, free movement, unlimited knowledge, truthfulness, and free discussion and criticism?

Will fear of such a society inspire those who desire control to create a world of tyranny?

Generally I’m pretty optimistic about this subject. I think people will embrace freedom and those who wish to impose tyranny will never be able to convince the masses otherwise. Still, as I peruse article after article that spouts nonsensical ideas. As I read statements that lack any factual basis from men and women whom I consider to be intelligent; I begin to wonder.

Is it a race? Will one emerge victorious and the other fall by the wayside or is it our lot in life to vacillate between the two ideologies? I do not offer any conclusive answers. These are difficult questions and perhaps they will never be satisfactorily answered.

Here’s what I think.

As individual freedom spreads so also will fear of freedom. I think it is a race. As I, and those like me, demand more privacy and less government those that want to control us will redouble their efforts to suppress us. They will gather their forces and unify their Talking Points. They will promise safety and promulgate fear. Many people will believe anything they are told if it is said often enough and with absolute conviction. Truth can be overcome and lies can win. There is a terrible danger.

Evil might triumph.

Think for yourself. Don’t believe a statement because it matches your ideology. Question. Be skeptical. Demand logic and proof. Examine evidence with an open mind. Go where the facts lead, not where you heart wills.

If enough people can fight and win that difficult battle, I’m confident Utopia awaits.

See you there!

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

Is the Chelsea Football Club Responsible for Fans Racism?

Posted on by

Chelsea-racist-victimThere’s a fairly big story making the news in the Barclays Premier League this week. After a game between Chelsea and the French Paris St. Germain club fans from Chelsea refused to allow a black French-Mauritian man to board the train while making racist chants. The man wasn’t a football (soccer for my U.S. friends) fan at all but happened to be boarding the train heading home at that moment.

Officials for Chelsea immediately stepped up by condemning the fans, giving out lifetime ticket bans against fans identified in the video, and inviting the victim of the incident to come to a game and experience “true” Chelsea spirit.

I think we can all agree that the football club is not responsible for the actions of all of its fans. If a Chelsea fan raped a woman or murdered someone it’s not the club’s responsibility to apologize for such an attack. This situation is somewhat different in that it was a group of Chelsea supporters riding public transportation after a game which involved the club. They wore Chelsea gear in support of the team and identified themselves as both proud Chelsea fans and proud racists in their chants.

Even with that said I’m still of the opinion that Chelsea has no real responsibility or obligation in the matter. If they don’t want to apologize, issue ticket bans, or offer seats for their game I’d say they were well within their rights. I do think Chelsea’s stance is admirable. They are not hiding behind the reasonable excuse that their fans are not in any way their responsibility but are willing to stand up and condemn the attack. They are making clear and bold statements to their supporters.

Some might argue that this is merely propaganda by the club to get good publicity but I don’t see that. I see genuine anger at the incident and I can sympathize. I’m a Libertarian and I’m not responsible for all Libertarians or those who claim to be Libertarians. However when I see a supposed fellow Libertarian espousing nonsensical conspiracy theories about the terror attacks on September 11th or claiming that the vile Sandy Hook murders were somehow a hoax I do feel a responsibility to stand up and denounce that person.

As a Libertarian I have voluntarily identified myself with a group of people. When a member or members of that group of people behaves in a disgusting fashion I do think it’s my responsibility to say something. It is certain that I cannot control their behavior. Likewise I can say unequivocally that they and they alone are the responsible party. Just as I can say that the Chelsea football club bears no responsibility for the racist nonsense a few of their fans espouse.

I think the club stepping up and doing what they are doing is entirely appropriate. It is leadership by example. The racist fans are not their responsibility nor was the incident their fault in any way. The fans themselves are solely responsible but the fact that a good person is not guilty of wrong-doing doesn’t mean that person should stand by silently either.

Good for Chelsea. I hope the victim of the racism accepts their offering, attends a game, becomes a fan, and that much good can come from this incident. That would be a win.

Do you think officials of the Chelsea club should apologize or do you think it’s not their fault or their responsibility?

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

Game Theory – Fortune and Glory Board Game

Posted on by

Fortune Glory gameLast night was game night and we played Fortune and Glory from Flying Frog. The main reason I mention this is not that my glorious victory erased the memory of my ignominious defeat at Illuminati but that we had a fascinating moment in what is often called Game Theory.

I know many people aren’t much interested in board or role-playing games but I think what I’m going to talk about today is something you should be interested in regardless of your gaming habits. Game Theory largely involves decision making while playing games but has tremendous application when it comes to real life as well.

Understanding not only statistical odds but also the many other factors that go into a successful endeavor is a study that everyone should understand. I was never taught game theory while growing up and I’m certain that I am the worse for it. I’m of the opinion that Game Theory should be mandatory education at a primary level of schooling and continuing through secondary and advanced education. That being said I’m not going to go too deeply into the topic. I just want to explain what happened last night and how it was I emerged victorious. I think it is instructive in a number of ways.

In the game Fortune and Glory you move your tokens around a board that is made up the world. The goal is to collect Fortune. You do this through a number of game mechanics. In addition to collection your own Fortune you also gain various Event Cards which can be used to help you or hinder your opponents. This is very important.

Back to the game. Two of my opponents were playing quite well and getting close to victory. I then began to use Game Theory. In Fortune and Glory you get the most Fortune through the accumulation and eventual sale of Relics. To get Relics you have Adventures. You must pass a series of Adventures to get the Relic. You can rest between Adventures and hold your victories or push your luck, but if you fail an Adventure you lose your accumulated successes.

In this case I used good Game Theory in pushing my luck even though my chances of success were low. I then had a series of fortuitous dice checks for which only luck gets the credit, not me.

But now comes what for me was the most interesting point of the game. There were three of us with enough Fortune to win the game but we had to rush back to our home base to claim the victory. We were all within a lucky Movement roll of victory and it came time for initiative to see who would move first in the upcoming round. It seemed clear that whomever moved first of the three of us would be victorious. The dice were rolled and my string of luck ran out, I would act last in the round.

Here is where my Game Theory failed me. I assumed all was lost. However the reality is that this “bad luck” roll actually allowed me to win the game. As the two fellows with the appropriate amount of Fortune made their final moves all of sudden my fellow competitors started to pull out various Event cards that blocked their progress in one way or another. After a flurry of activity it was suddenly my move and no one had any blocking cards left!

The path was clear and victory was mine.

While I’m happy to have won, the reality is that playing the game with a great bunch of guys made us all winners (just me a little more). The real moral of the story is to study Game Theory because it will help you make good decisions, not only across the board but in life as well. Sometimes it’s not easy to see what the best decision will be and often it is counter-intuitive.

Happy gaming!

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

 

Don’t Jump to Conclusions – Road Rage Tammy Meyers

Posted on by

tammy_meyerThere’s been a pretty big story all over the news the last week and when I first read it the comments pretty much leaned in one direction but the story is quickly changing and comments are now going pretty much in reverse.

I don’t want to talk about the story so much in this blog post as the problems that come with leaping to a conclusion too quickly. That being said I do have to cover the story to explain my premise.

A woman was recently killed at her house. Her family reported to police that Tammy Meyers was involved in a near collision while teaching her daughter to drive and the people in the other vehicle followed her home and began shooting.

The initial reaction was that the people in the other car needed to be found and killed immediately. That there was no need for a trial when such vicious animals are involved.

The new story is that there was an driving incident but that Meyer returned home safely. She rounded up her son and at least one firearm before going back out to search for the offending vehicle. They could not find said car and returned home only to find that they had been followed and then the other group began a gun fight.

I would not be at all surprised to find the story changing even more. I’m going to withhold judgment for the moment although the family has already lied to police about the incident at least once which makes their entire story less plausible. The other party fled from the scene and has not yet turned themselves in which doesn’t put them in a particularly good light either.

At this point I think it’s entirely possible that Meyer caused the road rage incident, escalated it, and her son was the first to fire his weapon. That’s certainly the tone of the comments on the story now.

The reality is that I don’t know. That’s the lesson for everyone who was ready to pass judgment the moment the story broke and those with their opinions now. It’s a lesson we should all acknowledge. It’s easy to pass judgment without knowing all the facts. It’s a good idea to gather up information before making a committed decision one way or the other.

The reason this is such a good idea is that once you’ve committed to a particular opinion it’s not so easy to reverse. There is the natural human tendency to refuse to admit a mistake. And of course you cannot unsay anything you’ve said. If you’ve said something truly awful even an apology cannot always completely fix things.

Something to keep in mind.

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

The Krispy Kreme Klub

Posted on by

Krispy Kreme KKK PromotionToday I take up the gauntlet of political correctness with a news story coming out of the United Kingdom and a Krispy Kreme story that ran a, shall we say interesting, promotion.

A Krispy Kreme store in Hull, England ran the Krispy Kreme Klub promotion as a way to attract patrons to the store where they would get to decorate their own donuts. Little did the store owner realize that those three letters used as an acronym are often associated with something besides donuts. It is England after all where the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) are not particularly well known. The store is now apologizing for the promotion and everyone seems to be taking it as a simple misunderstanding.

What I’d like to talk about today is the more underlying nature of political correctness. Is it the responsibility of every advertisement to make sure they don’t offend at all times? Should people apologize if they inadvertently make an insulting reference. If the word retarde means behind in French but something else in English should they not use it in advertisements? If a slang word means something different than its literal translation does that mean the pizza advertisement that uses it is in the wrong? If the word naughty has two meanings should we demand it not be used in a child’s Halloween costume?

How thin have our skins become? How little provocation does it take us to start a boycott, demand an apology, fight for what is right? All it takes is a small minority to complain and the business is happy to apologize. The idea is that they have nothing to lose. If they apologize and say it was inadvertent then they gain some goodwill. Refusing to apologize doesn’t get them any sales and I think a lot of times that’s a shame. I think we shouldn’t have to apologize all the time, particularly when the offense is so minor and largely meaningless.

Does anyone think that a doughnut shop in England is having a KKK rally? And even if they did that would be their business. I certainly wouldn’t patronize their store any more but that’s as far as my power goes.

I don’t think this is a huge deal to be honest but I don’t understand all the rage over something so silly. Sometimes I think the business owners should stand up and say there’s nothing wrong with what we did. Get over it.

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

How is a Bikini Empowering for Hannah Davis?

Posted on by

Hannah-Davis-Sports-illustrated-coverThere’s apparently a big controversy about the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition cover picture which shows a model named Hannah Davis pulling down her bottoms so that they almost, but not quite, reveal her genital region.

The reason it is causing such a stir is because it is apparently a little too sexy and some people think that Hannah is degrading herself by posing in such a fashion. Davis states that she finds the experience to be empowering in this article and there are nearly 7,000 comments indicating a great deal of interest in the story.

The argument that she is degrading herself generally seems to be that because she is using her beauty to titillate the target audience of the magazine she is essentially betraying all the women who through tremendous efforts gained many freedoms for women. Freedoms like voting and being able to practice medicine or law.

First off, let us not fool ourselves. The cover is designed to arouse. Davis is an attractive young woman with a figure that inspires lust. She is not on the cover for any other reason.

The real question becomes if Davis is degrading or empowering herself. To answer this we must look at the historical role women played in the world and the place they now have in nations where women are still treated as objects. The reality is that throughout history women were largely objects to be owned by men. They derived most of their power through their influence over devoted husbands and loving sons.

The underlying reason for this lies in the simple and undeniable fact that women both give birth to children and provide them with sustenance for the first years of life. This meant that women could not participate as actively in activities of the tribe. Their mobility was handicapped by being pregnant or caring for a child. This began to change very recently and the advent of safe and reliable birth control was certainly the most important factor in the emancipation of women. There is no doubt that strong and capable women fought long and hard for more rights in the world as well and they deserve much credit also.

Is Davis trying to recreate a world where women are once again treated as chattel? I don’t think so. It’s my opinion that she is the beneficiary of all the work done by her predecessors. In nations where women are treated as property they are not allowed to use the allure of their faces and bodies to make their own money. Davis makes a lot of money. She can do with her life what she chooses, not what any man tells her. Because of her financial success she is more free than am I. She is, in a word, empowered.

There is no doubt she is empowered by the money she gets from working as a model but the next question is if she is degrading herself by doing it. It is a legitimate question. Do I degrade myself when I beg my boss for forgiveness when perhaps I wasn’t to blame for the original mistake? If I apologize to a client for their error in order to keep the job? What if a client asked me to serve cocktails at their office party while wearing almost nothing in order to get a job? I think it’s quite fair to characterize such behavior as degrading.

People can and do use their money to lure others into degrading behavior. That such behavior is despicable there is no doubt, but we cannot pretend it does not happen. Is Davis degraded in that cover picture? Is she degraded elsewhere in other magazines, other photo-shoots?

My opinion is no. She seems to be in control, not being controlled. She seems to be enjoying herself. She seems comfortable with her own body. No one appears to be coercing her into doing the modeling. To me it is not the nature of the image itself so much as the power in which she whose image is on the cover feels she has. A young woman kidnapped from her family and forced into such a pose would be degraded. A woman with little money and babies to feed who was lured into a photo-shoot in which she was coerced into showing far more of herself than she desired would be degraded.

Davis, not so much. Good for her. She is comfortable in her appearance. Confident in her figure. She makes a good living doing something she enjoys. That’s empowering. If only the rest of us were so lucky.

Tom Liberman

Collapsing Bee Colony Mystery Solved or Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Bee Colony CollapseI have a late class this morning so I’ve got some time to read the news and I came across a second ridiculously misleading headline. Well, it’s beyond misleading. It’s a complete falsehood. The headline is misleading and the story behind it is worse.

Mystery of Bee Colony Collapse May have been Solved screams the headline from traditional criminal headline abuser International Business Times. By the way, don’t hang out too long on the page or you’ll get spammed by a Java Update message.

I can sum up the story. Bees get stressed and die. No one is sure why yet. We did a study that shows when older bees die then younger bees are forced to forage and they tend to die which leads to the collapse of the colony. What a stunning revelation.

Anyway. Stupid headline exceeded only by the even more idiotic story. It is badly written with typos and all sorts of sentences that make no sense.

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

Misleading Headline – Bill Walton calls Michael Jordan Average

Posted on by

Bill-Walton-Michael-JordanI woke up this morning to find an no-brainer addition to my misleading headline of the week collection.

Bill Walton thinks Michael Jordan was just an Average Athlete blare the headlines from stories across the sporting world.

Anyone who follows basketball knows that Jordan is arguably the greatest player in the history of the National Basketball Association (NBA). There are those who will argue for Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Lebron James, Bob Cousy and others but no one would exclude Jordan from the conversation. He was great, not average, and no one, including Walton, thinks otherwise.

Walton is saying that what made Jordan great was not his athletic ability but his desire to win, his preparation, his ability to elevate those around him, and stamina earned through a tremendous practice ethic. Jordan was 6′ 6″ tall which is not particular large for the position he played in the NBA. He was not the sort to physically push anyone around in comparison to those around him. I think Walton more than pushes the point that Jordan was average but it’s also clear that Jordan was not a dominant physical player. He had good speed and very strong jumping ability but that was not the heart of his game.

Walton has it right. What made Jordan great were other things. His mental toughness, his work ethic, and what I consider the absolute key to greatness, making those around you better. It is all but impossible to win championships, Jordan won six in the NBA and one in the NCAA, without such an ability. You must be a team player who gets those around you to reach their maximum potential and Jordan did this with players like Scottie Pippin, Steve Kerr, Horace Grant, John Paxson, and others.

The thing about the headline that is misleading is that it attempts to paint Walton as claiming Jordan was an average player. Walton meant nothing of the sort. He recognizes Jordan’s greatness and attributes it to something besides simple athletic ability. In other words, Walton was giving Jordan a tremendous compliment.

So, there you go.

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

Atheist Murderers – Craig Stephen Hicks

Posted on by

craig-stephen-hicksThere’s a pretty big story making the news in that a self-proclaimed atheist murdered three young students in North Carolina who were Muslims. I’ve written a number of times about the nature of fanatics and the underlying cause of violence.

I think I’ve been pretty consistent about my thoughts on this subject but they’ve come in a variety of posts over the last few years and these terrible murders made me suppose I might clarify my thinking on the subject in a single post.

What I see, and have seen in the past, when someone of a particular religious or non-religious persuasion murders people there is pretty much instantly a round of the blame-game.

I’ll state my position clearly. The blame goes to Craig Stephen Hicks. He was clearly suffering from a tremendous case of frustration which lead to rage and then to violence. I wrote about how frustration is often the underlying cause of the expression of rage through violence in another post. The fact that Hicks is an atheist has no bearing on the subject any more than if he was a Christian. I know that people will think I’m just saying this because I’m an Atheist myself but I’d urge you to read through my other posts on this subject. Let me explain my thinking to save you all that reading.

People who commit such murders are generally acting out of either extreme frustration or fanaticism and often both. People who are frustrated in life find something on which to focus their rage, be it religion or the lack of courtesy when others use parking spaces not assigned to them. When we get frustrated with things in life it leads us to anger. When the frustration persists eventually to rage. In those who lack the ability to control themselves, for whatever psychological reason, eventually to violence.

Today I blame the murderer not the religion or lack thereof. Tomorrow I’ll do the same even if the murderer is a Christian or a Muslim. Those who kill like to latch on to something to excuse their behavior. Religion is often a good excuse as is political affiliation. It doesn’t mean that religion has anything to do with it. The blame is clear in these cases and it will always be so.

I don’t blame Atheism. I don’t blame Muslims. I don’t blame the media stoking such rage with nonsensical news stories designed to inflame. I don’t blame the victims taking up parking spaces. I don’t blame the lack of laws restricting access to firearms. I blame the murderer.

We make our choices in this life. As a Libertarian I think people should have great freedom. With that freedom must come responsibility.

We make our choices and we should be rewarded or punished appropriately.

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

Football Recruit Feels Misled – the Mike Weber Saga

Posted on by

Mike Weber and The Ohio StateI’ve found an interesting story in the world of sports that I think illustrates one of the issues with college football as it currently exists. A highly recruited young player from Michigan named Mike Weber chose to go to school and perform as a running back at The Ohio State University.

The coach who was primarily involved in recruiting Weber just took a new job for the Chicago Bears in the National Football League (NFL) and Weber now feels betrayed. He thinks the coach, Stan Drayton, knew all along he was leaving the job.

Before we fully understand whether what Drayton did was wrong we have to understand how college football operates. Each year the coaches seek to bring in the most talented young players from all over the country and this process is called recruiting. The schools are not allowed to pay the athletes so they do this recruiting by promising the player certain things. Playing time and coaches who will develop them for the NFL and an eventual payday among other things. They show off their facilities and promise the parents of the recruit how they will take care of their boy. They build relationships with the high schools so that the high school coach will advise the young players to go to their college.

What’s important is that once a player signs a contract, commits in the vernacular of the NCAA, they are bound to that school. They cannot change their mind once what is called the Signing Day passes. This is a legally binding contract. If the player wants to change schools they must sit out an entire season, they can never play for another school in the same conference, and the coach of the original school has veto power over what other school the young player attends even after sitting out a year.

The coach, on the other hand, can leave at any time for a higher paying job without any repercussions. That in itself is obviously not equitable.

In this case Drayton announced that he was moving almost immediately after the all important signing day. After Weber was legally obligated to stay at Ohio State.

I’m not decrying Drayton’s move. Changing jobs is a tricky business and you don’t know if you are going to be hired for the new position or not. It’s reasonable that you don’t announce it before it is a done deal. That being said I’m absolutely certain the Chicago Bears and Drayton intentionally timed this announcement to come after Signing Day. The NFL understands their players largely come from colleges and the teams of the NFL want to behave in such manner as to keep the colleges happy. This means announcing that they have signed college coaches after Signing Day when possible.

What upsets me is that Weber is bound in a way that Drayton is not. The circumstances have changed enough that I think players like Weber should be allowed to change their mind. Frankly, I think Weber should be allowed to change his mind any time his contract has expired. Players essentially work on one year contracts, called scholarships. The school pays for tuition for a year and if they decide the player is worth such payment they renew the contract at the end of the season.

Weber should be able to pack his bags and go off to whatever school desires his services. In this case The Ohio State has no damages. They paid for no tuition, no room and board, and no coaching. Weber should be allowed to leave. The NCAA doesn’t want this because it would likely become somewhat chaotic as players backed out of contracts because of changing circumstance. However, the teams are allowed to do this. If a player, for whatever reason, is deemed undesirable the school simply doesn’t offer them a scholarship the next year. This happens all the time. The player is injured or new recruits push the player deep onto the depth chart and the school needs to free up a scholarship. It’s the nature of the business.

I think it’s unfair that players do not have the same freedom.

In reality coaches are not even bound by their contracts. The coach buys out their existing contract and moves on. Any coach, even if under contract for five years, can simply leave. Generally the new employer pays some compensation for the move but not always. By this logic a player should be able to pick up and leave for another school at halftime of the game if they reimburse the school for the remainder of their tuition and sundry other expenses.

I don’t begrudge coaches here, I’m angry about the fact that there are clearly two sets of rules of conduct and the people who are getting the short end of the situation are the young players.

Free Mike Weber!

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

 

Military Suicide and Congress’s Solution

Posted on by

Veteran SuicideI read a story this morning that makes me angry. Congress has passed a bill concerning the prevention of suicides in U.S. soldiers. Do you think that’s a good thing? It’s certain our representatives think you think it’s a good thing because the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 99 – 0 with the one missing voter being the sponsor who wasn’t at the capital in time to vote.

As you can probably guess already, I’m opposed to the bill. Before you get out your lynching rope let me explain.

First off the 22 suicides a day in relation to the total number of U.S. soldiers is pretty much in-line with suicides per day of non-soldiers in the United States. This article goes into a number of permutations of the statistics but I think it’s safe to say there is no “suicide epidemic”.

But that’s not the real reason I’m opposed to this bill. If you read the original article all the way to the end you get this little juicy tidbit that tells us everything we need to know.

The latest version of the bill orders the Veterans Affairs Department to find money for suicide-prevention programs within its $160 billion budget.

There you have it. The bill gives no direction and assigns no funding with which to achieve the goal. Please find some money to do something to fix the problem. Look at me! Look at me! I passed a popular bill. Vote for me! The bill does nothing? Who cares, I’ll vote for it anyway.

Not a single Senator of this great country was willing to call out this nonsense for what it is. Not one had the courage. That’s the problem.

If you applaud this bill and thank your Senator for passing it … you’re part of the problem.

I’m absolutely for trying to get our soldiers, and our civilians, the mental health care they need. I’m all for preventing suicides. But saying I’m for it does nothing. Actually doing something like laying out a map for how to better recognize suicidal tendencies in soldiers or hiring more psychiatric doctors at Veterans Hospitals would seem like a good ideas. This bill? No ideas, no money, just an attempt to win votes while achieving nothing.

Typical.

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