Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Czar means Caesar … as in Julius

Posted on by

CzarI’ve had enough! I can’t take it any more and that means it’s time for a rant blog!

President Obama is planning on appointing an Ebola Czar. Ahhhh!!!!!

This is not a political rant. This is not a medical rant. This is a history rant! So buckle your seat belts.

The United States is a representative republic. When the Founding Fathers joined together to form a more perfect union they looked to the past. They looked to the governments of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. They did not look to dynastic and imperialist Russia. They did not look to Julius Caesar who presided over the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire. That’s what Czar means. It’s a corruption of the word Caesar.

I’m a big fan of Julius Caesar. I suspect he wanted the Republic to continue but circumstances were beyond his control. The reality remains that his actions led to the end of the Roman Republic to which we owe much of our own governmental organization. The United States Senate is named directly for the governing body of Rome. The President serves a limited term as did the Roman Consuls (there were two who, in theory, provided checks and balances to one another).

I find the desire for the name Czar to be misguided love for the idea of unadulterated power. That’s what a Czar represents. Absolute power. It is strongly reminiscent of the absolute power of Imperial Russia. A state of affairs in which millions of people suffered horrendously. A state of government so awful that Communism was born from its excesses. That’s bad, my friends. Really bad.

For some reason people have a fondness for tough talking leaders who sound like they know exactly how to solve every problem. They don’t. And most likely they are actually morons. Anyone intelligent knows that the world is a tricky place and there are rarely simple and profound solutions. Beware the person who tells you he or she has all the answers and that the other person is dead wrong. They want something from you.

As I read articles about Vladimir Putin I see people admiring his autocratic rule. I see a creeping fondness for tough talk and a my way or the highway attitude rather than someone who builds coalitions and vets ideas.

The gravest danger to any Republic is its own people. I do not like the name Czar. I do not like the abject fear-mongering that has become our political system. It’s leading us down a dark and dangerous path. Our politicians act more like Czars every day (both sides so I don’t want to hear about how awful one side or the other is in this matter). I have no problem with the idea of a someone to lead a team. There is always going to be a person in charge but it’s important to keep the power of that person under wraps. The voice of dissent must be allowed to speak. A Czar brooks no argument. A Czar commands and the people do or are killed for disobeying.

If President Obama or any future president sees a particularly difficult issue and wants to appoint someone to lead the effort to overcome such a challenge, so be it. Just don’t call that person a Czar. I’m sick of it! Sick, I tell you.

Rant over, resume your normal lives.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

Are Artificial Turf Surfaces Toxic?

Posted on by

crumb rubber turfThere’s a story making the rounds about the carcinogens in artificial turf and the dangers they bring for people who play on such fields. Is it hysteria? Is it a real threat?

The idea is that artificial surfaces these days are largely made up of small particles of rubber called crumb rubber. Strips of green plastic are mixed in with the rubber to give it a grassy look. If you’ve seen any game played on such a surface you know it immediately as the crumb rubber sprays up under impact. Crumb rubber is made from old tires. It generally contains things like zinc, sulfur, black carbon, and oils that contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

PAH sounds like one of those nasty, toxic chemicals that cause cancer but the reality is that it’s quite common and found in almost anything made from carbon. It is a carcinogen but is also largely inert which means it’s very difficult to ingest enough to cause any harm. The main way people get high-levels of PAH is by ingesting things like coconut oil. It is also found in wood, coal, tobacco, incense, and other places. Your chances of ingesting PAHs largely come from burning these sources, not from crumb rubber.

The idea is that people who spend a lot of time on artificial fields will incidentally ingest some of the small rubber pellets through their mouth and nose. That such small amounts eventually add up to a toxic mix that might contribute to a kind of cancer called Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. This disease tends to effect young people in their teens and early twenties. A few such cases involving young athletes sparked some concern about artificial fields.

I’ve looked over a few studies and, to date, there has been no correlation between athletes who play on artificial fields and an increased health risk. There are not that many studies and those that have been completed aren’t particularly broad in their scope. New York State is now conducting a large scale study because of the recent alarms.

One must also take into account that if the artificial fields were replaced with natural grass that this would entail the accompanying regular spraying of chemicals that contain carcinogens.

I’m not willing to dismiss the claims of those who think artificial turf is causing cancer but a perusal of the existing evidence makes me largely skeptical. It’s one of those situations where some people get sick and someone else leaps to a seemingly reasonable conclusion that turns out to be completely unrelated.

How many of you saw Erin Brockovich and came away with the belief that the town of Hinkley had major contamination problems that caused a large outbreak of rare forms of cancer? It turns out that that rates of cancer in the region are lower than would be expected.

How many of you remember the silicon breast implants that caused many women to develop cancer? Subsequent studies have shown no link between the implants and any form of cancer.

I’ll wait for the major studies to be completed before I’m completely willing to dismiss the claims as nonsense. What I’d like you to do the next time someone begins talking about this subject is interject a few of the points I’ve made here. Talk to them reasonably and suggest that it’s likely the fears are without merit. Mention that young people tend to get Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and sometimes they are athletes.

Remember that correlation does not imply causation.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Phil Ivey did Cheat – According to a Judge

Posted on by

Phil IveyI wrote a post back in May of 2013 which questioned the action of poker player Phil Ivey. In that blog I examined what Ivey did while playing cards at a casino in London and whether it amounted to cheating. I’ll recap so you don’t have to read the entire first post.

Ivey and a friend were playing a game called Punto Banco at the Crockfords casino in London and noted a misprint on the cards. Ivey and his friend then exploited this misprint to win about $12.4 million. This sort of behavior is called edge sorting. The basic definition is using flaws within the system to win at the game. Ivey never disputed what he did to win the money. He never claimed it was simply his considerable acumen with cards that allowed him to win. During the trial he told the truth about what he and his friend did.

In my original blog I came to the conclusion that what Ivey did was certainly unethical but did not amount to cheating. I felt that if someone in a card game in which I was playing used the same technique I would think they behaved as a poor sportsman. I probably wouldn’t play cards with them again and I’d have to consider their behavior in any future encounters. Still I did not think any cheating occurred. He simply took advantage of a weakness.

The case has now run its course and the judge ruled against Ivey. The judge decided that what Ivey did was actually cheating. That the casino was right to withhold his winnings and he would not be able to collect them. The judge went out of his way to mention that Ivey was straight-forward and truthful in his testimony. Ivey reacted by saying he still doesn’t think he cheated, and I agree, but that the judge has made a decision and that is that.

I disagree with the judge on this one but I think Ivey is taking the high-road and that’s a good thing. He plead his case honestly and fairly and lost. That happens and I’m sure Ivey knows it far better than me.

I’m still of the opinion that edge sorting is unethical and not cheating.

What I find most interesting about this ruling, which occurred in England and therefore does not affect U.S. casinos, is the repercussions on other situations. A player who notes any flaw in the system might be denied his or her winnings. I think it can be fairly argued that if I notice a person has a tell, that’s gambler talk for a physical reaction that gives away the contents of the player’s hand, then I’m potentially engaged in cheating and might legally be deprived of my winnings. If I’m aware you twitch your nose when you are bluffing and win a lot of money during a poker game is it possible that you can legally not pay me?

I understand there is a difference between a misprint on a card and a physical tell but I’m not convinced the two are that different legally.

As an example let’s imagine a fairly big poker game with a table of nine players. I note that one player has a tell. I use that tell to anticipate that player’s moves which gives me an advantage over every other player in the game. It helps me not only against that player but I can influence that player, through my own betting behavior, to change the way other players bet. I can lead the telling player into a bluff when I have a poor hand to drive out players with good hands.

It’s my opinion this behavior would qualify as a skilled playing, not cheating.

Is such behavior the equivalent to noticing a misprint on a card and using it to one’s advantage?

In summary.

  1. Noting misprint and not telling anyone: Skilled playing; unethical but not cheating
  2. Causing cards to be misprinted and using that information to win: Cheating
  3. Noting a tell and using it to advantage: Skilled playing.

What do you think? Was the judge right? Did Ivey cheat?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Cardinals v. Dodgers Game 3 Strike Zone

Posted on by

Kemp v Dale argumentAnyone who reads my blog on a regular basis knows I’m a St. Louis Cardinals fan. It’s a good day to be such again but that’s not really my topic now. I want to talk about reality versus perception. On Monday night I was at Game Three of the Divisional Championship Series against the Dodgers and there was a great deal of controversy over the strike zone by umpire Dale Scott.

The Dodgers were particular upset by the variance in the strike zone and both player Matt Kemp and manager Don Mattingly made their annoyance public. The former after he struck out in the ninth and the latter after the game. There was an undercurrent that the Cardinals benefited from fewer bad calls than the Dodgers.

In the stands it was clear Scott was calling pitches high and to the right side of the plate strikes for most of the night. My perception, from the upper deck but fairly close to behind home plate, was that from the first inning on pitches in that area that were being called strikes. The other side of the plate seemed to be significantly less loose. Overall, pitches that looked like they might be balls were called as strikes and in general it was a loose strike zone. A pitcher’s strike zone.

As the game went on there wasn’t much scoring as is often the case when the umpire is calling a wide strike zone. It seemed to me, from my obviously biased perspective, that the umpire was generally consistent although there were some balls getting called as strikes on the left side of the plate that were balls other times. But that the right side of the plate was consistently a strike, particularly high in the strike zone.

I’m much further away from the plate than the players. The players obviously have a bias as well as us fans.

Reading comments on the stories it seems the general thread was that the umpire was bad but it sort of depended on if you were a Cardinals fan or a Dodgers fan if you thought the calls were lopsided for one team or the other. Most Cardinals fans seemed to think it was pretty even while Dodger fans agreed that the Cardinals were given an advantage.

That’s the bias. The perception of the viewer interfering with reality. The only way to avoid such bias is to seek out factual evidence. Happily enough, in today’s modern world, there is a tracking system which monitors every pitch and spits out statistics. Here is the analysis of Game Three.

In the chart anything red is a called strike and anything green is a called ball. The squares represent Cardinals at bats and the triangles represent Dodgers at bats.

  1. The left side of the plate was called very well and, if anything, the Cardinals got the worst of it.
  2. The right side of the plate was called very broadly but largely consistently for both teams. Again, if anything, the Cardinals got the worst of it.

These two facts lined up with what I thought I saw during the game.

On the particular call that Kemp argued about in the ninth inning he was called out on a pitch that earlier in the count was called a ball. It was in the zone that Umpire Scott had been calling a strike for most of the night. It can be argued that the first pitch, called a ball, was against the umpire’s trend on that side of the plate and when the second came and Kemp simply watched it go by he was tempting fate. Still, he has a point. The pitches were virtually identical.

What I find interesting is the ability to dispel general perception with factual evidence. No longer is perception reality. We can get the reality quickly and easily. It’s not surprising that fans and players end up thinking that they were treated unfairly when the reality is somewhat different. What I really love is this age in which we live. Where arguments like this can be settled with factual evidence instead of endless hours of arguing and no real resolution. That’s cool.

And, of course, Go Cards!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Justice Scalia Suggests the First Amendment does not Protect Non-Religion

Posted on by

Exercise ClauseThere’s an interesting legal story making the news these days and it hits home for this Atheist. Supreme Court Justice Scalia recently spoke at a gathering at Colorado Christian University and put forward the idea that the federal government and the states are not obligated to protect people who do not have a religion. That it is “absurd” to suggest Atheist are protected by the First Amendment.

The gist of his argument centers around the interpretation of what is called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Justice Scalia seems to be saying that while it would be completely illegal to bar a Muslim from entering an establishment it would not be likewise Constitutionally illegal to bar an Atheist. Being a Muslim is a religion as is being a Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Wicca, or any other religion. The Constitution would certainly protect anyone of those religious faiths from being denied access to anything because of their beliefs.

There is something called the No Religious Test Clause in the Constitution. It reads thus: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

It seems reasonable that Justice Scalia would allow a Non-Religious Test to be administered to anyone who sought public office. That if you said you were an Atheist you could be legally barred from holding office in the United States.

I cannot tell you exactly what Justice Scalia thinks but it certainly must fall along the lines of the idea that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they meant to protect people of any religion but not people of no religion. The strict interpretation is that barring someone from practicing their religion of choice does not apply to not practicing a religion at all.

If this is the case then it would be perfectly legal, although perhaps not reasonable, to pass a law that discriminates against Atheists. That an Atheist could be charged with a crime for not believing in any religion. That an Atheist could be imprisoned for not having a religion. This would require the legislatures of a community passing such a law but it would not be unconstitutional.

Naturally, being an Atheist, I find this interpretation disturbing.

It’s an argument that holds up when we think about physical items. We can have a dog park where all dogs are welcome but no non-dog can enter.

The problem is that the exercise of our religion is not a physical thing. It’s an idea. It’s like saying no one is allowed to prevent you from thinking but they can prevent you from not thinking. Not thinking is a separate thing from thinking.

Let’s say there is a beautiful buffet and the rule is that everyone is allowed to smell the food in any way they desire. Using a cone, from far away, from up close, but it’s completely illegal to not smell the food. Not smelling the food is exercising your right to smell in any way you desire, not to do it. You can eat the food any way you want. Off a plate, by hand, using a fork, using a spoon, having your spouse feed it to you, but not eating it is illegal. We have the freedom of speech and this, of course, means we can choose not to speak. We have the right to bear arms, and of course, we have the right to not do so. Trying to separate the two things is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

Justice Scalia seems to be saying it would be perfectly Constitutional to pass a law saying everyone must, at all times, make political speech. That not making politically free speech is a crime.

I absolutely disagree. The freedom to not exercise our rights is an inherent and crucial part of exercising our rights.

Freedom of religion must include freedom to not be religious. They are tied together as one.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

 

Egg-actly my Point – Judge Throws out Egg Lawsuit

Posted on by

Commerce ClauseI wrote about a lawsuit being spearheaded in my own beloved state of Missouri back in February that involved the regulation of chicken eggs in California.

The basic premise of the lawsuit is because California is such a huge economy; rules they pass for their state effect other states. I wrote at the time that while this is certainly true it in no way forced the egg production facilities in Missouri to change their coops. It simply means that if the people in Missouri, who sell approximately 1.7 billion eggs to California each year, want to enjoy the profit provided by productive people from the Golden State they need to change their practices. They are perfectly free to continue to keep chickens in conditions that can only be described as horrific but they won’t be able to sell eggs from such chickens in California.

The people of California spoke. California is the wealthiest and most populated state in the union. When voters from that state make a decision it carries more impact than when the voters of Missouri decide something. Just as laws in Texas can effect the rest of the nation. This is the nature of our Representative Republic.

I’m pleased to say that a federal judge completely agrees with my interpretation of events. The case has been tossed. U.S District Justice Kimberly Mueller writes that the states lacked legal standing to sue because they failed to show that the California law does genuine harm to their citizenry instead of just possible future damage to some egg producers.

It is patently clear plaintiffs are bringing this action on behalf of a subset of each state’s egg farmers,” Mueller wrote in the decision, “not on behalf of each state’s population generally.

It is quite clear, Justice Mueller. Thank you. And just in case Missouri and the other states want to keep filing and filing; she also ruled they can’t refile or amend the existing case. They can appeal but it appears they have little chance. Not that I would put it past the legislatures in my home state to keep the appeals process going for as long as possible simply to delay the expenditure necessary to improve the coops (estimated at $120 million).

It’s nice to know someone agrees with me now and again. Happy dance ensues.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Forgery Equivalent to Original

Posted on by

Mark-Landis-ForgerA friend posted an interesting story on Facebook about how a forger convinced dozens of museums to display his work over the years. One of the first comments on the story suggested that it made no difference to the viewer. If the piece of art was indistinguishable from the original, even to an expert, then the regular museum goer would have the same experience as if it was the original and should be satisfied.

It’s an interesting argument. One of the first analogies that someone offered was the idea that if you went to a concert and saw a band that looked exactly like the authentic members of the band, who played the music the same way; your experience would be no different than if you had seen the actual artists. It’s an appealing idea. That our perception of events equates to reality when, to our senses, the two are identical.

Before I launch into my interpretation of events I’d just like to mention that everyone should read the story itself. The forger in question is a man named Mark Landis who has relatively severe mental problems. He forged the paintings not for financial gain but for a sense of doing something perfectly. He has what is now called Autism Spectrum Disorder and his ability to copy things, both painstakingly and exactingly, is remarkable. He committed no crime and is now available to paint portraits from pictures provided by customers. Anyway, it’s a fascinating story but it doesn’t really have much to do with the point I’m examining today.

So the question becomes if my senses cannot tell the difference between two things are they then the same? Is my experience untainted even though I was given something different than what I expected. I remember being blindfolded and having my nose held while being fed various foods and the ability to distinguish the difference between an onion and an apple was noticeably effected. Naturally in such a case my biological processes would have instantly detected the difference and reacted accordingly. Let’s say we made a brick taste exactly like a steak and tree bark like potatoes. Eating nothing but bricks and tree bark would soon kill me despite my own satisfaction. Clearly our perception of reality is not going to save us there.

Let’s say that we created an illusion of a bridge across a chasm when there was no bridge. Again death ensues. Both of these examples are not truly fair though. When I go to the museum and see a beautiful painting and it touches my emotions is there a difference if the picture was a forgery? In this example my body is not physically effected by the deception. My emotions upon seeing the art are not hurt in the way my body might be from a physical deceit.

What happens if someone you love tells you they reciprocate that feeling when they don’t. Are you undamaged by the deception? When you find out the truth do you have no right to be angry? The love you felt at that moment is not changed in retrospect. You still felt it then. As long as my beloved St. Louis Cardinals are once again in the playoffs let’s take an example from that realm. When Mark McGuire was hitting home runs many people believed he wasn’t using Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDS). Were not their feeling of elation and inspiration at his feats of power betrayed by his later admission? Certainly they way they felt at the time was genuine. That emotion cannot be changed any more than anything in the past can be changed. Once I make a left turn it can never be anything but a left turn. No matter what happens, that’s what happened.

Does this mean that the people shouldn’t feel upset by the fact that McGuire was using PEDs?

Should those people who saw fake art, even though it was indistinguishable from the real artist’s work, have no complaint? Should they not feel they were deceived? Should the memory of the event not be diminished? Certainly the elation of the original moment will always be there but our lives are little more than memories. When something happens, it happens, and then it only lives on in our memories. Subsequent events can and do change that perception.

I can well imagine you’ve figured out my opinion on this subject.

If you were elated and inspired by art that turns out to be a forgery, then you have every right to be upset. Your memory has been tarnished. But also remember the original joy. Remember that you were inspired by that art. That really happened and nothing can change it.

If you pay to see a particular band and someone else plays, providing the exact same experience, you have been deceived but it doesn’t mean you didn’t enjoy the show. You should demand a refund. Someone lied to you. However, don’t let that stop you from remembering how much you loved the concert at the time. Wonderful moments are out there. Seek them out, find them, and relish them. If subsequent events tarnish what you imagined, you have every right to be angry but also try to remember the joy of the original moment. That can never be stolen from you.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

Forced out of Walmart because of Resume Discrepancy

Posted on by

David-tovarI spotted an interesting story in the news today about a vice president at Walmart who was forced to resign his position because of a discrepancy in his resume. What I’d like to discuss is the forced resignation over something that has nothing to do with his work performance. Certainly there is cause for the resignation as having false information on your resume brings up the possibility that you got the job through subterfuge in the first place.

David Tovar thought he graduated from the University of Delaware but because of a transcript mistake it turned out he was actually a few credits short. By then he already had his first job and didn’t think it was worthwhile to go back and finish his art degree. He went on to work in the communication field at several places eventually arriving at Walmart eight years ago. He was in the final stages of being promoted to the position of senior vice president when a check revealed the resume discrepancy.

Tovar immediately admitted to the error and is apparently leaving Walmart on good terms. He wanted the job and Walmart refused to give it to him because of the lack of a college degree. He didn’t want to stay in his old position and so resigned.

I’m of two minds on this one. I do think it’s fairly important to be relatively accurate with data on your resume. Most people will alter a date or two to accommodate for time between jobs but lying about whether or not you got a degree is a little more serious. In this case it seems pretty clear to me that Tovar could have gotten his degree if he wanted. That his deceit was fairly minor in that he was a few credits away from his degree. He had largely done the work.

It must be assumed that he was good as his job to have reached the potential level of senior vice president at a company like Walmart. That is a position that certainly carries a salary well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more.

So what we have here is a company refusing to promote someone they truly felt could do the job because of a relatively minor transgression. I’m sure Walmart will justify the move by noting that if they let Tovar continue upward with a false resume they would not have a leg to stand on when trying to fire others for a similar offense. I understand this argument as well but I just think it’s a mistake to let go a talented employee over something that is, in my opinion, so minor. It’s not easy to find good people and when you find them you need to do your best to keep them.

I understand Walmart’s fear that they might be handcuffed in future labor disputes. At least I’m guessing that was one reason for the decision to let Tovar go. Still, the idea that a company  cannot keep a talented employee because said employee made a mistake rankles my sensibilities. It seems like someone could have stepped up and taken the responsibility for keeping Tovar although undoubtedly the legal department had their say.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

Corporal Discipline and a Child’s Future

Posted on by

corporal-punishmentChild abuse is in the news in the NFL these days because of incidents surrounding Minnesota Viking’s running back Adrian Peterson and his four year old son. I’ve been reading and watching comments on the story including those made by Charles Barkley and everyday people in the section below the stories themselves.

There seems to be a trend that while Peterson may have “gone too far” that the old biblical admonishment to spare the rod is to spoil the child holds wisdom.

I’m going to be clear. Every time you use corporal punishment on your child you increase the odds the child will grow up and commit crimes. The more you hit a child the better chance there is that child will break laws, will rape women, will murder, will become a sociopath. Every time. The statistics are overwhelming. Children that suffer more physical violence in the home are more likely to be violent in society, to break laws, to hurt others. Study after study shows the same thing.

Children who grow up in homes where violence is not used are generally not violent themselves. The biblical adage is the opposite of the truth. It’s called a lie.

Children subject to violence become violent themselves. The more violence to which they are subjected the more anti-social they become. It is readily obvious to me that children who learn violence as a way to solve problems will naturally gravitate towards violence themselves. I don’t need a million studies to prove that point. The studies exist. I’d urge anyone who disagrees with me to do some research on the subject.

They’ve put video cameras in the homes of parents who claim they only hit children who are misbehaving and always do it with an explanation of what the child did wrong so it is a learning moment. It turns out most of the time the parents hit the child on the spur of the moment with nothing more than a “no” or a “stop”. That the intensity of the punishment is generally without regard to the transgression of the child but completely related to the mood of the parent. Tired parents, frustrated parents, angry parents, hit longer, hit harder, and do it with less provocation.

I can’t really write a lot more on this subject. Virtually every scientifically sound study shows exactly the same thing. There is no benefit to corporal punishment and great harm is possible.

It is certainly possible that parents use such punishment as measures of last resort and that children who were punished fairly, judicially, and with an explanation will grow up to be outstanding adults. It is even possible that children who are punished more egregiously will grow up to be excellent adults.

The statistics just tell us patterns and trends. They do not predict exactly what will happen to every child in every situation.

My advice is simple. Don’t hit your child.

I don’t have any children although I think I can understand a parent’s frustration and anger at a misbehaving child. I can understand the desire to lash out. To harm. I don’t think a well-deserved spanking is going to turn a child into a criminal. I do think the statistics are clear. The evidence is clear.

Avoid corporal punishment as much as possible and your child will be better off. That is the outcome we desire. Healthy and well adjusted children who grow into better adults.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

 

 

Lies in Ohio – Political Lies Protected by First Amendment

Posted on by

Legal Lies OhioThere was an interesting ruling handed down today by U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black in regards to an Ohio law which prohibited an organization knowingly lying about a candidate during the election process.

The First Amendment protects our freedom of speech. There are certainly laws against slander and libel but there is largely no legal remedy against someone who tells a lie that does not rise to either of those illegal activities. In this case a campaign organization wanted to post an ad that was completely false. The candidate said the organization would be charged with a crime if it did so and the court battle ensued. It is now perfectly acceptable to knowingly lie about a candidate in a campaign advertisement in Ohio.

A similar case was adjudicated by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case in Minnesota covering lying about ballot initiatives. In that case the right to lie was also upheld. Neither case has reached the Supreme Court at this junction so, presuming appeals, these decisions might yet be overturned.

I find the case interesting because the people arguing against the laws are basically saying they want to tell lies to help win an election. That by telling lies they should not be subject to legal remedy. They, of course, argue that they are fighting for the First Amendment but the reality is they want to be able to lie in campaigns to swing the election towards their candidate. What they forget, as usual, is that this is dual edged weapon. If they can knowingly tell lies in a campaign advertisement so also can their opponents.

To a certain degree there are already so many lies, so many half-truths, and so much misleading information out there that I’m not sure the judgement really amounts to anything. Anyone who believes attack ads about a candidate without bothering to go to one of the many readily available fact-checking sites probably has no real interest in the truth. They prefer to be fed lies as long as they coincide with their preconceived political ideology.

This just continues the ongoing slide of our nation into a morass of people who don’t really care about the truth. We, the voters, undeniably care only about that which confirms our notions. Anything that disavows them we ignore or convince ourselves are lies. Anything that confirms them is the truth. If the truth were different. If people looked at the facts and judged statements for their true worth we would not have the current elected officials we have. We want to be told lies and proceed to lap them up while begging for more.

My only real surprise in this outcome is that Ohio and Minnesota were allowed to prohibit lying for so long!

To those who “won” this case; I congratulations you on your victory. You will reap your just reward.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Ray Rice and Double Jeopardy

Posted on by

Ray Rice and WifeThere’s a big controversy going on over Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice and I find the situation pretty deplorable for a number of reasons.

For those of you haven’t been following this story it’s pretty grim all the way around. In February of 2014 Rice was accused of punching his fiancé while they were in an elevator at the now closed Revel casino in Atlantic City, NJ. He was arrested and charged with aggravated assault; the result of the case currently pending trial. He has since married the woman.

The NFL has a policy where they will suspend players based on personal conduct even if they are not found guilty in the court of law . Several prominent cases have arisen over the years with the most well known involving Ben Roethlesburger. This policy was implemented for Rice and he was given a two game suspension for the alleged assault. The woman in the case argued for him during the hearing.

Quite a number of people came forward arguing the suspension was far too lenient and that league commissioner Roger Goodell should have imposed a longer penalty.

Months went by. Rice played in his team’s preseason game and was widely cheered during those games.

Then, just a couple of days ago, the video of the incident surface. The league immediately suspended Rice indefinitely and the Ravens released him from the roster.

I’ve got a problem with both of those actions. Both the league and the team were aware of the nature of the crime and the police report pretty much describes events as they happened in the elevator. The only new evidence is the video.

I’m no Rice fan. I thought he should have faced a longer suspension originally but the reality is the league and the team made their bed and want to go back and remake it because the public has seen the video. Rice has not been convicted of any crime at this stage although certainly the video is damning evidence.

My real problem here is that punishment was meted out for the crime. No new crime has been committed. It’s the same crime but the league can now go back and completely change the penalty which was agreed to by all parties? That just strikes me as wrong. I’m not saying new evidence shouldn’t be able to force a change but I just don’t see any new evidence here. The league knew what he did, his then fiancé asked for leniency against him, and a resolution was settled upon.

Was the league wrong in its original penalty? Certainly one can argue that.

Does Rice deserve the harsher penalty? Not an unreasonable conclusion.

I just don’t like this changing of the rules because of public perception. That’s really what is happening here. The crime is the same, the league the same, Rice the same. What has happened is that people are now visually aware of the brutality and the NFL wants to keep its fans. They should have thought of that in the first place!

Frankly, I’m a little skeptical of these personal conduct penalties in the first place. What if it turned out the video showed that Rice accidently slipped, fell and in flailing about hit his fiancé? What if we didn’t find out until after the suspension? What if it turned out she was lying? That’s why we have criminal and civil courts. Once a person is found guilty of a crime I’m more reasonably disposed to a company firing its employee.

I know it won’t be popular but I don’t think Rice should have faced any additional penalties until after the case was decided. I think the NFL and the Ravens were wrong to change the penalty based on the video when they knew the crime all along. Once the legal case is decided I think they will be well within their rights to impose further penalties.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

It’s Cardinal Nation … Win or Lose

Posted on by

Cardinal NationI was at the St. Louis Cardinal game on Friday night and we were defeated by the last place Cubs 7 – 2 in a game where we scored a couple of runs in the first inning and then stranded nine runners and looked pretty awful. During the game we had a “fan” behind us who seemed to only find enjoyment when the Cubs scored runs so he could tell us how awful our manager is and how awful our pitching is. I had a fellow next to me tell me there was no way we could make the playoffs with pitching like that.

On the other hand there were plenty of Cardinal fans cheering their team and upset with the loss. They talked about what was going wrong and what could possibly be done to make it better.

The next day they lost 5 – 1 to the Cubs punctuating what has been a frustrating season. Before the season started the Cardinals were the favorites to win the National League Central Division after having lost in the World Series the year before. Our starting pitching was solid and our young relievers looked good. There was some concern about our hitting but generally we were the favorites.

As the season has gone along we’ve had a number of injuries and the Milwaukee Brewers have played much better than expected. They’ve been leading the division almost since the first week of the season.

Expectations often drive our emotions when it comes to life. If the pundits predicted the Cardinals would finish in last place many people would have been happy to be just 1.5 games out of first place on August 30. But that was not the reality. We were supposed to win so expectations were high.

The players and coaching staff have talked about how tough this year has been and I would imagine expectations weigh as heavily, or even more so, upon them than they do on the fans. The miserable performances on Friday and Saturday afternoon led a lot of people to think the Cardinals were finished for the season. Perhaps they are. Maybe they won’t make it to the playoffs. Maybe if they make it to the playoffs they won’t win the World Series.

It doesn’t matter to me. I’m a member of Cardinal Nation win or lose.

There’s an interesting phenomenon in professional sports where some franchises seem to do well year after year. There is Packer Nation, Red Wing Nation, Laker Nation. I’m fortunate enough to have been a Cardinal fan since I can remember. Many of my best memories are from Cardinal victories and I’m not going to let a tough season make me forget those memories.

I love going to the games. I love rooting for my teams. I get mad when they lose. I’m willing to lay some blame. But I’m not willing to be happy when the team I love loses because it vindicates my prediction about a player or manager.

I’m of the opinion that a higher percentage of positive attitudes among fans helps build a Nation. Fans that root for their team, win or lose, that believe in them, that give them their support even in the tough times. With fans like that owners, managers, and players just want to win more than the other owners, managers, and players. And when you want to win more than the other guy, well, often times you do. Certainly not always, or even most of the time.

When it comes to my Rams I’m envious of the Packers, Steelers, and 49ers. When it comes to the Missouri Tigers I look with envy at the tradition and power of Alabama and Nebraska. When it come to the Blues I may hate the Red Wings but I get it. Their fans are proud and rightly so.

But, by golly, it’s nice to be a part of Cardinal Nation.

Oh, by the way, the Cards took the second game of that double-header and fought back from a 5 – 0 deficit to win today 9 – 6. We’re tied for first in the Central.

Here we go, Cardinals, here we go!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Michael Sam Reporting – Pandering to Gay Bashers

Posted on by

michael-sam-ramsAs many of you who read my blog know I’m a St. Louis resident and big sports fan. I consider the Cardinals, Rams, Blues, Billikins, and Missouri Tigers my home teams. I have season tickets to the Rams and I’ve observed without a lot of interest the stories revolving around Michael Sam.

For those who are not big sports fans this is a story simply because after he finished his college career but before the NFL draft Sam announced he was gay. At time he was generally considered to be someone who would be taken around the 5th round of the NFL draft. In the chaos of his life after the announcement he went to the NFL Combine and did poorly. Thus he slipped all the way to the 7th round and the Rams.

Since then there have been a plethora of stories about Sam. The Oprah network hoped to do a show about him during the Rams training camp but that didn’t seem like a good idea to anyone except the network and it was squashed.

As I said earlier, I’ve been pretty much ignoring the stories about Sam. They really don’t offer much. He’s certainly not the first homosexual in the NFL or college football. He has largely kept pretty quiet about the whole thing in his quest to make the team. The stories are almost completely fluff pieces without any substance and certainly no other 7th round pick has gotten near this publicity. It’s all about him being gay.

So why am I suddenly writing a blog about it? ESPN sent a reporter to Rams park the other day and she was all about Sam. I happened to catch the press conference after practice, called a Presser, and this woman was hounding coach Fisher about Sam to the point of annoying everyone. It wasn’t until later that I heard she went to the Rams players and started asking about Sam’s showering habits.

This line of questioning angered enough people that ESPN has had to apologize.

What is the reason ESPN sent this woman to talk to the Rams? What is the reason for all these stories? It’s not the Lesbian and Gay community and their supporters. It’s for the people who go apoplectic about lesbians and gays. They are the ones that drive the rage fueled comments about the lesbian and gay “agenda” of the story.

Do you hate gay and lesbian people? Are you sick of reading about them? Stop clicking on the stories and stop posting rage-comments. These stories are all about you! You are absolutely causing these stories to be written. ESPN sent this reporter in to ask these questions because they are pandering to gay and lesbian haters. And that’s disgusting in its own right, let alone the vile nature of the line of questioning to begin with. There are plenty of people angry about that, I won’t add to the chorus.

What makes me mad is all the people claiming ESPN is pandering to gays and lesbians. Look in the mirror. They are pandering to you.

Take a little responsibility. If you don’t want to read a story about Michael Sam because he’s gay, and that’s about the only reason he’s being written about, then don’t click on the story. Don’t write a comment. Every time you make that click and make that comment you ensure that another story will be written. And when you claim it is an “agenda” for the gay and lesbian community you’re simply wrong. It’s all about your and your clicks.

As Chris Long so succinctly tweeted, “Get over it.”

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Dorial Green-Beckham Can’t Play Football for a Year?

Posted on by

Dorial-Green-BeckhamI’ve been railing against the unjust system the NCAA has created in many posts over the years and now I’ve got another one to write. The NCAA has done something that I find not merely reprehensible but clearly illegal. I’m not a lawyer so this is merely a layman’s opinion.

So what has the NCAA done this time?

A fellow by the name of Dorial Green-Beckham was one of the mostly highly recruited high school athletes in the nation and it was a huge win for my Missouri Tigers when the agreed to attend the University of Missouri. He had two very productive seasons at Missouri and near the end of last year was particularly good. There were incredibly high hopes that he might be one of the best wide receivers in the nation this coming season.

He had several off field incidents which involved criminal activity and personal inadequacies. Such star players normally get multiple chances when lesser athletes would not and Green-Beckham was given these extra opportunities. He failed to pull himself together and eventually the University of Missouri kicked him off the football team. The NCAA has rules that sophomores are not allowed to enter into the NFL draft (I’ll save my objection to that for another day) and so he had to find somewhere to play his third season for before becoming eligible for the NFL.

The Oklahoma Sooners agreed to give him a scholarship and he joined the team. The NCAA has a transfer rule which says that if a player leaves one top-level school to go somewhere else they must sit out for a full season. I personally think even this rule borders on illegality. It equates to a non-compete clause in your contract where you must not take a job within a certain distance of your current job or with a competitor. The legality of these non-competes has been tested and they rarely stand up.

In this case Green-Beckham did not voluntarily leave the University of Missouri. He was kicked off the team. I can’t believe there is a non-compete in the world that would stand up if you were fired from your job. Once you’ve been fired you should be able to proceed in any direction you desire. I can possibly see a situation where someone behaves atrociously in the hopes of getting fired to avoid a non-compete but that’s not the case here. Beckham was happy at Missouri and not looking to transfer. He was kicked off.

However, the NCAA has decided that despite the fact that Green-Beckham was involuntarily removed from the team he is still subject to the transfer rule and must sit out a season. I’m no fan of Green-Beckham. He’s a good player but his behavior has been reprehensible, particularly those parts that were not criminal. I don’t want to get into that because it’s not part of the equation. He was fired from his job and the NCAA is insisting that his non-compete still applies.

I honestly don’t understand how any entity can prevent you from doing anything you want after you were fired from your current position. I’m shaking my head. I’m completely baffled. This can’t be legal, can it? Any lawyers out there that can help me out?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Mo’ne Davis Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Mo'ne Davis Misleading HeadlineAnd we have a winner in the Misleading Headline of the Week contest!

I usually find my Misleading Headline on Yahoo which conglomerates from other places but today the story is actually from the desk of Yahoo Sports.

Mo’ne Davis, and why no one should laugh at the idea of a woman in Major League Baseball screams the banner rolling across the top of the story about the young girl who is pitching well in the College World Series. She’s grabbed the attention of America and this was demonstrated the other night when my niece and mother were extolling how this girl was beating all the boys.

I had to remind them that a thirteen-year old girl is often times bigger and stronger than her peers.

As is often the case with my Misleading Headline of the Week the story itself is very rational. It explains that girls of this age not infrequently excel against their male competition but then puberty hits. Mo’ne is likely not going to be getting bigger than her already 5′ 4″ frame. The boys she will be playing against will soon be well over six-feet tall and weigh 200 lbs.

It’s great that Mo’ne is doing well. It’s a neat story and I wish her the best. She’s may get invited to throw out the first pitch at a Phillies game this year but she won’t be taking the mound in a competitive game at the major league level. There are a few young women who throw a decent knuckleball and it’s just possible they’ll play in the minor leagues but I don’t see any conceivable way a woman is going to be a major league pitcher.

As I said, the article covers all these facts quite nicely. It’s a really well-written article. The headline used to generate interest? Not so much.

Go get ’em Mo’ne!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Misleading Headlines – Plunging Asteroid

Posted on by

One Story Two HeadlinesIn my ceaseless vigil to find my loyal audience misleading and amusing headlines I take a look at quite a few stories but I think this is a first for me. I’ve found a story in the Huffington Post and a story in the Inquisitr that are not only about the same subject but actually use the same graphic in their headline!

The two stories actually say pretty much the same thing and are fairly interesting to anyone who follows space news. The headlines; both in the Yahoo news aggregation and on the stories themselves, tell completely different stories.

The Inquisitr blares: Asteroid Hurtling To Earth: Could Lead To Human Extinction

Huffington says: Astronomers Think This Cosmic Rubble Pile May Show Us How To Avert An Asteroid Disaster

What’s interesting to me is the grasping headlines are in such stark contrast to the reasonably written stories. Anyway, take a look at both if you have time. It’s a good lesson in how much power the headline has over our perception of the story as a whole.

I’ll sum up in case you don’t have time. A large pile of rubble is heading towards the earth. It’s not a solid rock but a group of smaller pieces held together by both gravity and something called Van de Waals forces. It might prove quite simple to disrupt an asteroid conglomeration of this nature and doing so might teach us valuable lessons. If we can break up this relatively minor threat we are better equipped to understand how to do so in the future.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

2014 PGA Championship and the Rules of Golf

Posted on by

PGA Wet ConditionsThis past weekend there was a very interesting situation in the 2014 PGA Golf Championship involving both Rory McIlroy and the rules of golf in general. The tournament at Valhalla Golf Club was plagued by inclement weather in the shape of rain, lots of rain. This played a major factor in a number of rules decision that both the players and fans of golf are questioning.

The major rules issue occurred because a long rain delay brought on the possibility that the last players on the course would not be able to finish their round. This was particularly important because the leader of the tournament on the 18th tee was in that last group. If McIlroy was unable to finish his round because of darkness he would have had to come back the next day and finish at that time.

The course officials allowed McIlroy and his partner to hit their balls before they would normally be allowed to do so. In this case when the two players in front of them were still playing the hole. In order for this to occur the players in the leading group must agree to allow it to happen. According to the players in the leading group they agreed on the tee shot of the trailing group but not the approach shot. There are some contradictory statements coming from rules officials who say the leading players did allow the second shot.

There was also a general issue of the course being extremely wet and muddy. This meant the players were often in what is called standing water and their balls were muddy making them difficult to control. There are several rules to deal with these situations.

In some cases players are allowed to play “preferred lies” where they pick up the ball after each shot, clean it, and place it close to its original position. A second rule covers two other situation. Players are allowed to move a ball that is in standing water to a drier area and drop it. In some cases the entire fairway was standing water and players had to move a fairly good distance to find a playable position. A clause of this rule involves balls embedded in the ground, in this case the rain soaked ground.under those conditions players are allowed to pick up, clean, and drop it nearby. This led to a situation where players were hoping for a plugged ball because it allowed them to clean it whereas a muddy ball just had to be played. It’s a huge disadvantage to play a muddy ball.

According to other players some rules were bent to attempt to get the round finished under very wet conditions.

What I want to talk about is why the PGA felt it so necessary to bend, if not break, rules to get the round finished. There were many people at the course on Sunday who would not be able to return on Monday but I suspect the real reason was that the number television viewers for a Monday round would ever equal those for a Sunday finish. Advertisers paid for Sunday time slots, not Monday time slots.

The rain was coming down extremely hard and the course was barely playable at best. If the tournament had not been so prestigious with so much television interest I strongly suspect they would have simply cancelled the round altogether. The conditions on Saturday were awful and got progressively worse on Sunday.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that the PGA was under pressure from the networks to get that round finished, and they did. I think it’s also safe to say that fifty years ago when television money did not rule golf that the round itself would have been cancelled. There is big money in golf by the way. McIlroy got a paycheck of $1.8 million for his eventual victory.

I’m sympathetic to the PGA in some ways. The people paying the bills wanted the round finished. I’m also rather dismayed by their willingness to twist the rules to their advantage. The course itself also suffered serious damage from spectator and players.

However, I’m no shrinking violet when it comes to blogging so I’ll tell you what I think. I think they should have cancelled the round after the big rain. It might have cost them some money but it was the right thing to do, at least I think so. The best player probably won but we will never really know because of the various issues. Would McIlroy have played his second shot differently if he knew the results of the leading group? Did the very dark conditions on the last few holes alter scores for those players who had to deal with it? Did players gain advantages from rules decision involving embedded balls and standing water?

It’s not just about who won the tournament but who finished in 10th place. The decision to play was unfair to the players. The spectators probably were better served by getting to watch the tournament conclude but who knows what excitement might have occurred on a Monday finish?

I understand the influence of money and it’s not all bad. Good things come from major sponsors and the players earn a lot more money now than they did thirty years ago. I’m not saying that the PGA was wrong, just that I think they were wrong.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

 

Misspelled Miley Cyrus Tattoo Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Miley Cyrus brain tattooMiley Cyrus is big news for reasons I can’t fully understand but whenever she does something there are a ton of stories about her. The latest is that she got a new tattoo which is misspelled. So, of course, I have to check this out and I see that the tattoo reads, “Love yer Brain“. Hmm, I’m thinking. Maybe it was meant to be love yer Brian? She’s dating someone named Brian?

No, it’s the “yer” part. Which isn’t really misspelled because that’s apparently the name of the song to which she is referencing. It would actually be misspelled if the tattoo read “Love your Brain” because that’s not they way the song is spelled.

I think it’s rather an awful tattoo. Apparently she did it herself but it’s not misspelled. That’s the way the song is spelled. It’s really just a blatant and misleading attempt to get your click. Did anyone else fall victim to the deceit?

Oh, and by the way, you should Love your Brain! I approve of that part of the message. I’m not so big on the tattoo and frankly I don’t know much about Miley but the words are good ones. I’m all about good words!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

 

A Tale of Two Jews – Roy Cohn and Sidney Frank

Posted on by

Sidney-Frank-Roy-CohnThe wonder and glory of information that we have at our fingertips thanks to men like Tim Berners-Lee never ceases to amaze me and I experienced yet another magical moment when the simple act of watching an advertisement led me to what I’m going to write about today. My point today is that what is important about a person is not his or her religion (or lack thereof), race, sexuality, or any other superficial factor. What’s important is what he or she does with his or her life. Today I look at the amazing story of how Sidney Frank and Roy Cohn crossed paths.

I’d never heard of either until while watching cricket on ESPN3 I saw a commercial about Grey Goose Vodka. I thought, hmm. Let’s look up this Francois Thibault. He is certainly an interesting fellow but that led me to look up Grey Goose vodka. That led to the remarkable story of a great man named Sidney Frank. Frank was born to a Jewish family of no particular distinction or wealth and managed to save enough money to attend Brown University for one year. After that he had no money left and so went to work as an aircraft mechanic for Pratt and Whitney servicing engines in the South Pacific during World War II.

He married well and rose quickly in the ranks of his wife’s family distillery business. He was eventually forced out of the company in a family dispute and after his wife died started his own company. Through hard work and promotional genius he turned Jagermeister into a huge success and made himself a lot of money. That is when he approached Thibault about producing a fine French vodka made with the best ingredients. Grey Goose. He turned the company into a huge success and eventually sold it to Bacardi for a tidy $2 billion. He became a tremendous philanthropist who gave money to, among many others, Brown University so that no student would ever have to leave because of lack of funds again. He gave all the employees of his company large bonuses.

***** ERRONEOUS INFORMATION******

He had a heart attack at the age of 86 and as he lay dying on his bed a man named Roy Cohn came to visit him.

****** CORRECTION *****

Cohn did not visit Frank’s hospital room but another man named Lewis Rosensteil but the story is otherwise accurate as to Frank’s actions.

***** END CORRECTION *****

Roy Cohn was also born to a Jewish family but the similarities to Frank end there. Cohn gained a law degree and used his family influence to get a good job immediately upon being granted his license. He gained prominence prosecuting accused Soviet spies during the Red Scare years using whatever methods necessary to gain convictions. He helped secure the conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg apparently having convinced the brother of Julius to lie on stand, this done to prevent his and his wife’s reputations from being destroyed.

This bit of skulduggery got the attention of Eugene McCarthy and Cohn played a rather slimy roll in the McCarthy hearings that ended in disgrace for McCarthy largely because of the tactics used by Cohn against the army.  Later in life Cohn was accused of professional misconduct several times. He engineered a hostile take-over his grand-uncle’s Lionel Model Train company and ran the company into the ground before he was eventually removed.

He was involved in an extremely shady political deal that allowed John B. Anderson to get the New York nomination in the 1980 Presidential race. This was designed to split opposition to Reagan although the results allowed Anderson to become the last Independent Candidate for President to have a solid chance of winning. Still, it involved passing along money in an illegal fashion.

**** CORRECTED SECTION ****

He walked into Lewis Rosenstiel’s hand hospital room. Both Jews. Both white men. In the eyes of many much the same.

Cohn took the hand of the comatose Rosensteil and forced it into signing a will that named Cohn as one of the primary executors of the will. A despicable act by a disgusting man.

*** END OF CORRECTED SECTION ***

Roger Stone, a friend of Cohn, said that the man’s final goal was to die absolutely bankrupt and owing millions of dollars to the IRS. He succeeded.

The next time you think something about someone because of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their sexual habits, their sex, their race, or any other superficial features; I’d like you to think about Frank and Cohn.

Tom Liberman

Drug Testing Policies – The Dustin Johnson Dilemma

Posted on by

Dustin JohnsonThere is a fairly big news breaking in the golf world about a young golfer named Dustin Johnson. Johnson is considered one of the rising young stars on the tour and additionally is dating the daughter of Wayne Gretzky. He recently announced that he is taking a leave of absence from the PGA tour and rumors are flying around. Most of them involve drug use.

What I’d like to examine in my post today is the different ways the various professional and college sports leagues handle recreational drug use. Because most leagues now do testing for Performance Enhancing Drugs they also find evidence of recreational drugs use. What should be the leagues response to a player who uses illegal recreational drugs or who is guilty of any disreputable behavior in general?

There’s a pretty wide variety of solutions out there. MLB doesn’t really care about recreational drug use whereas the NFL has a rather strict structure of suspensions when dealing with such things. College football and basketball have no real rules regarding events of this nature and generally leave discipline up to the coaches in question. This often results in star players being given more slack than those with less talent.

I think one important factor to consider is a leagues responsibility in dealing with criminal violations. Again the NFL is very aggressive in handing out suspensions for activities that have nothing to do with football while MLB and other sports are not so proactive. If a football player is charged with a crime he faces suspension even if he is later exonerated as happened with Ben Roethlisberger.

It is certainly within the purview of an employer to suspend or fire an employee for their non-company related activities; taking into account state laws. If Dustin Johnson used cocaine and the league found out about it through their drug testing program and then suggested he take of a leave of absence is that appropriate? John Daly certainly had more than a few incidents while he was using the legal drug of alcohol and the PGA never found a need to suspend him.

By not having a stated policy these events tend to get handled individually and the player’s value to the team or league becomes a deciding factor. Is this fair? Should a star player be allowed to use legal or illegal drugs when a less talented player faces suspension? It certainly seems unfair at face value but it is essentially the way real life works. If a strong employee makes a mistake they are given more chances. If a weak employee makes the same mistake they are fired. It’s really up to the individuals in charge to make such decisions.

But enough discussion. Where do I stand on all this? I think the PGA gets to make its own rules as does the NFL and all the other leagues. They are not law enforcement agencies. They are not in the position to arrest and criminally prosecute their members. Their responsibility is to their league, employees, and fans. If they decide that telling Dustin Johnson to get some help and take some time off is in the best interest of the PGA that’s their business. If they suspend a lesser player for the same violations that’s also their business. It’s not fair, it’s life.

When things like this are dealt with internally it has an effect on the league or company as a whole. If handling the Johnson situation reflects badly on the PGA they might lose sponsors, fans, and money. If people don’t really care then they will continue to do well. It’s the very nature of personally responsibility. When it comes to things like this people want a strict structure of rules so everyone is treated equally.

In the NFL many are complaining that Ray Rice received a lesser punishment because of his star power. That it isn’t fair. Those critics are right. It isn’t fair. In our rush to make everything fair we remove personal responsibility from the equation. We have hard and fast rules and no exceptions are allowed. We have mandatory sentencing policies which are designed to create equality but end up doing more harm than good.

Life isn’t fair. Transgressions and perceived transgressions must be dealt with by the person who is charged with the job. Students might be suspended for pointing a toy gun or they might be warned. The person in charge must weigh the evidence and circumstances and make a difficult decision. If people don’t like the decision they can complain but when we remove decision making from people’s hands in an effort to treat everyone fairly we end up creating a system in which there is no personal responsibility and in which circumstance plays no role. This is unfair as well.

Dustin Johnson’s membership in the PGA tour is subject to its rules. If you don’t like their rules go to court. Organize a petition or boycott. The quest for fairness leads us down the path of complete abrogation of responsibility and this is a bad thing. Everyone becomes afraid to make a decision and we are paralyzed with fear. Nothing is accomplished.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books