Author Archives: Tom Liberman

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

 

 

I’m Going Home – The Eric Cantor Story

Posted on by

Eric CantorMy disgust with politics continues to rise today with a second story that makes my blood boil.

Congressman Eric Cantor was until recently the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. He took his district for granted and failed to put enough effort into his primary election campaign and was defeated. This means he won’t run in the general election and won’t represent his district for two more years. Because of this he gave up his position as Majority Leader to make way for another Republican to move into the position.

Now he’s decided to simply quit Congress altogether. He’s told the governor of Virginia to hold a special election, the winner of which will serve out the remainder of his term which expires in January. He’s basically leaving five months early to pursue other interests which he did not disclose. It’s fairly safe to say that he’ll be earning more money in this new endeavor likely being paid by the companies whose dollars influenced his vote while he was supposedly serving the people of Virginia.

In his resignation speech he has the nerve to claim he is doing it for those self-same constituents who voted him into office. Who spent their time and money on his campaign and election. We must remember that Cantor was elected to a two-year term. When he ran for election he promised to serve the people of his district for two years.

I want to make sure that the constituents in the Seventh District will have a voice in what will be a very consequential lame-duck session.

What a load of crap. He’s quitting so he can get a head start on whatever his lucrative new career will be while completely abandoning his constituents and costing them the considerable amount of money it will take to hold this special election. Then he tries to claim he’s doing it for them? This is a complete lack of personal responsibility. This is complete lack of honor. He was elected by people who believed him and now he’s fleeing when faced with adversity. Yes, losing your primary was tough. Yes, serving out the remainder of you term and trying to do your job instead of quitting and going for the money is hard. It requires something called integrity. You, former Congressman, apparently have none.

Why don’t you just quit today. No loss. I can’t imagine who is going to hire this man but I’m sure they are lined up and will give him a better paying job than the vast majority of honest and hardworking Americans, be they Republican or Democrat, make. He’ll peddle his influence and buy a bigger house, take more vacations, and go on lucrative speaking engagements.

I wouldn’t pay him a dime but I guess I’m in the minority.

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

CIA Spies on Senators Investigating CIA

Posted on by

The_CIA_Is_Sorry_for-spyingSome months ago Senator Dianne Feinstein of California accused the CIA of spying on committee members conducting the investigation into CIA torture tactics against prisoners. The Director of the CIA denied the spying. It now turns out she was right and I’m disgusted although completely unsurprised.

The White House is finally set to release the information from that report although it is likely much will be redacted. We know, from pictures, that agents of our country, be they soldiers or intelligence operatives brutally tortured people who were at their mercy. The spin on this issue was so disgusting that a number of my friends argued that torture was a good thing. They thought we should be torturing people. My friends argued that torturing was a good and useful thing. That it was right to take someone who was completely at your mercy and physically and mentally torture them to get information they may or may not have.

Now we find out that the CIA spied on and impeded the investigation into the Senate’s investigation of this torture. That the director of the CIA lied in interview after interview about what they did and did not do.

What happened to honor? What happened to decency?

When you have a pet you don’t beat it because you can. When you have a child you don’t spy on them because you can. When you have a prisoner you don’t torture them because to do so reflects on who you are as a person and what you stand for as a nation.

During my debates on torture with friends I had a very intelligence and capable friend ask me if I would torture a prisoner if he knew where a nuclear bomb was placed that was set to go off in one hour. I told him no. He was astonished. Would you? What would be the outcome? Think about it for a second because a five year old knows the answer.

But I’m digressing into a lecture on why torture is bad and I refuse to be drawn more deeply into that debate. To torture someone over whom you hold absolute power is evil and wrong. That’s it.

We’re all aware that government agencies are spying on our phone conversations and email activity. People like to credit Edward Snowden with passing along that information but it’s been readily known since our Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branches passed and allowed to stand various parts of the so-called Patriot Act. How I despise that name. How about the Pretend Feel-Good Name to justify the Taking Away of Our Constitutional Rights Act?

What did Senator Feinstein think was going to happen when she and her colleagues broadened the spying powers of the FBI and the CIA? That it would only go so far? That giving these agencies more power to spy on citizens without recourse would stop where she wanted it to stop? That the Director of the CIA would show good sense with barely a morsel of oversight?

This is why we have the Constitution. Power is dangerous. Accumulation of power is dangerous. This is why Congress is the only body that is supposedly allowed to declare war. This is why we have the Fourth Amendment which is under assault from all sides. This action by the CIA is not funny. It’s a serious crime.

The United States is no longer a nation that stands for freedom. We are a nation that hides in fear and is willing to sacrifice anyone and everyone for the illusion of greater safety. That is why people argue torture is acceptable. That is why people argue that our government needs more power to spy on us. That is why people argue our police force needs ever more power to stop us from doing things they deem illegal and the power to seize our property under the flimsiest of excuses.

Freedom isn’t free? I disagree. Freedom is completely free. Without government, without law enforcement, without restraint I am completely free.

Freedom isn’t safe. We give up Freedom for security. I give up the right to drive how I want and ignore traffic signs because that modicum of freedom isn’t worth the danger it entails. We’ve gotten to the point where we’d rather kill, torture, spy, and repress not just our enemies but even our own citizens for ever decreasing slivers of safety.

Yay ‘Merica.

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

We Are Alone – So Far …

Posted on by

GalaxiesI just read an article about the nature of movies in regards to the special qualities of Earth that seem to attract so many invaders. It’s a bit tongue-in-cheek but there are some valid points. Why would an advanced alien civilization visit Earth?

The question I’m going to think about today is along the same line although from the opposite position. Why wouldn’t advanced aliens visit the Earth? Because that’s the real question if you believe the galaxy is teeming with technologically advanced civilizations. I’m one that finds it difficult to believe that such civilizations do not exist. The universe appears to be some 14 billion years old and current estimates have our galaxy clocking in at 13.6 billion years. There are some 200 billion stars in our galaxy and possibly a lot more. Recent evidence suggests that most stars form planets, that water is abundant in the universe., the buildings blocks of life are everywhere, and places where life might thrive seem common.

And yet, silence.

One common explanation is simply the massive distances involved. If the speed of light is the maximum then getting to our little world is no easy trick even for a race that’s been around millions of years. I find that explanation very appealing.

One of the main factor’s driving human exploration of space is simple curiosity. We want to know what’s out there and we particularly want to know if we are alone. What if the answer was an unequivocal no. What if there is microbial life on Mars, a thriving underwater community on Europa. What if life is, as I suspect, everywhere. What if almost every star system eventually allows for intelligent life? What if you know all about it? What if you are communications with tens of thousands of other species? Does this dim your curiosity? What interest is there in a young species just reaching out to the stars?

What if finding such a new species was common-place? What sort of regulations would you put in place around such a community. We certainly understand the idea of the Prime Directive of the Star Trek world. Don’t influence young races, don’t contaminate them. It’s a reasonable explanation.

Perhaps life is so abundant that such advanced races just don’t care until we get to a certain level of technology. We just have nothing to offer them.

I’m sure there are other explanations and any of them might or might not be true. There is just no way of knowing. The reality is that we have yet to have any credible contact with a species from another planet. Perhaps we are alone. Perhaps the aliens walk among us, studying or plotting. Perhaps they are out there keeping their hands off for the moment because of their own rules of conduct. Perhaps the distances are just too daunting.

Maybe someday we’ll learn the answers to these questions and that’s a good thing. We’re here, we’re striving to find more, to learn more, to explore our world, to understand the universe. What more is there to do?

I guess that’s my point. Don’t be daunted by the lack of information. Keep looking for more. Follow the facts, don’t be fooled by those theories you want to be true. It’s fun to speculate, to guess, but when it comes to reality, stick to the facts. I’d love the universe to be teeming with intelligent life but the evidence of such does not exist. Therefore I cannot argue that it does.

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

Do you want to be a Millionaire?

Posted on by

MillionaireThat’s the question that I saw posted on Facebook and the vehemence of my reaction surprised me. Fuck no.

I want to earn millions of dollars. I write my books and I want people to love them. I love writing them. I want people to read my books and understand the philosophical ideology behind them. That we make our destiny in this world of ours. That those who work hard and treat others with honor earn their millions. Don’t give me a million dollars because I picked a randoms series of numbers.

I want people to buy my books by the millions. I want movie studios to understand the power of the words I write and offer me millions, tens of millions of dollars because turning my books into movies will entertain countless fans and earn money for other people. I don’t want you to spend your $2.99 on my books to make me a millionaire. I want you to spend that money because you love reading my books. I want you to spend that money because the ideas of decency, fair-play, hard-work, personal responsibility, and independent action resonate with you.

I do not pursue millions of dollars. I pursue doing things I love. I pursue writing books I love. I pursue a fulfilling life. I pursue spending my time with interesting people who enrich my life.

This is what Ayn Rand was writing about and she was right. Howard Rourke did not pursue wealth. He pursued the glory of his craft. John Galt did not pursue millions nor did Dagny Taggert and Francisco d’Anconia. Those who think the point Rand made was that money is the motivator don’t understand her and they won’t understand this post.

No!

No, I do not want to “be” a millionaire. I reject the notion out of hand. I want to earn millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions. I want you to read my books. I want you to love reading my books as much as I love writing them.

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

How you Appear Changes how People Treat You

Posted on by

professional and unprofessionalI recently wrote a blog about catcalling and it elicited a reaction from reader that I found interesting.

… I just don’t think it should be a woman’s job to pick her outfits to avoid being catcalled …

The main gist of the argument against me was that women shouldn’t be judged by their appearance but for their intelligence and personality. I suppose this is a fine sentiment but it is completely unrealistic. We are all judged by our appearance and even within that there are nuances. While we certainly don’t have much control over the size of our nose we do have control over the clothes we wear and the way we present ourselves.

If a woman wears a low-cut blouse and a push-up bra she is choosing to present herself in a certain way and men are going to react in a certain way. There is no denying this fact. It’s like saying someone who goes to a funeral in ripped jeans and a t-shirt shouldn’t be considered rude and treated as such. The same goes if a bridesmaid arrives not in the dress the bride chose but in something completely different.

I’m certainly not suggesting that a woman is asking to be harassed by men yelling out crude comments but the reality is that men are encouraged to approach women and engage them in dialog. It’s not an easy line to define to be certain. The original article I wrote concerned a woman who found herself continually shouted out on her way to work while wearing a business outfit. There are plenty of men who catcall in an unwanted fashion and the woman did nothing to provoke such behavior. My point is that it’s unreasonable to expect all men to avoid saying something to a woman because it’s possible that woman might consider such an advance unwanted. If a woman attends a party and a fellow she isn’t interested in approaches her, she rebuffs him, but at the same event encourages a man she does find intriguing. How is the man supposed to know ahead of time whether he will be found acceptable or not?

Even that’s not really my point in this blog. We are judged by our appearance and to do so is completely human. We judge people by their appearance every day. It’s in our nature. A woman who wears certain types of clothes will be judged for wearing them. A man who wears certain types of clothes will also be judged for it. It’s certainly not the most accurate way to judge a person but it has value. Someone who dresses in a certain way is consciously presenting themselves in that fashion. It is fundamentally different from a large nose or big breasts. These are things we cannot easily control. Our dress speaks directly to conscious decisions we have made and it is therefore reasonable for people to judge us based on our clothes.

Don’t get me wrong. I think aggressive catcalling when it is apparent the woman isn’t interested in inexcusable. However, if a woman is looking particularly nice it’s not unreasonable for a man to offer a compliment or two.

It is a woman’s job to dress appropriately and be aware that her clothes will illicit certain responses. To pretend otherwise is to simply live in a fantasy world. It’s also the man’s job to be aware of signals when a woman is receptive and when she is not. It is certainly all of our jobs to communicate effectively when people around us are behaving in ways we don’t like. Even then we can’t control their reactions completely.

When I’m at the football game and a fan is behaving boorishly I can sit there and take it or I can say something. Once I’ve said something the situation is largely out of my hands. If the fan continues to act horribly I can escalate by bringing in authority figures or I can simply accept their behavior and attempt to ignore it. Life is rather messy in this way. If a man is catcalling a woman she can ask him to stop, tell him to stop, but she largely can’t make him stop. If he wants to continue he can, it’s rude, nasty, boorish, and just plain mean, but that’s life.

Dress how you will, but don’t pretend it will not illicit certain reactions, whether or not those reactions meet with your approval. Fair? No. Life? Yes.

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

 

Frenchmen on the Podium at Tour de France for First Time in 30 Years

Posted on by

PERAUD_JEAN_CHRISTOPHEThe 2014 edition of the Tour de France is scheduled to end tomorrow afternoon and something rather remarkable is going to happen. Two Frenchmen,  Jean-Christophe Péraud and Thibaut Pinot, are likely going to finish in second and third place respectively. This will mark the first time since 1997 that a man from that nation has finished in the top three at the Tour de France.

Why is this notable? Because of events that occurred during the Tour de France in 1998 and the reaction of the sports federation of France to those events. In that year’s race there was a huge doping scandal in which virtually every rider of the race was implicated. During the race not a single rider was found to have illegal substances in their body but subsequent revelations and testing showed that virtually every sample taken during the race was contaminated. An exception was George Hincapie whose two samples were found to be clean although he has since admitted to using illegal substances before and during that race.

The aftermath of this event triggered cataclysmic changes from the anti-doping agency in France although other countries did not act with the same level of alacrity. Lance Armstrong’s dominance of the Tour de France began the next year in 1999 and those who wanted to compete with Armstrong and his doping machine had to take the same path. Frenchmen could not because of the stringent testing policies created by their federation after the scandal of the 1998 Tour.

Suddenly, after nearly a century of domination, not a single Frenchman could be found on the Podium at the conclusion of the race nor even frequently among the top-ten finishers. All because they were riding presumably without the aid of Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs). What does that tell you?

Of further interest is the nature of anti-doping regulations now in place for all of the riders of the Tour de France. They are subject to what are called Biological Passports which keep track of all vital information of an athlete and anything out of the normal range is considered a violation. This removes the element of masking filters which eliminate PEDs from the system and yet allow for their use and thus increased performance. The masking efforts are apparently always going to be ahead of the testing efforts and therefore the Biological Passport seems to be the best method to detect the use of PEDs.

The use of Biological Passports does not extend to the professional leagues of the United States.

If the authorities largely cannot catch those using PEDs then the result will always be the use of PEDs by athletes. All results are tainted. Athletes from nations with progressive testing can almost never defeat their counterparts who are using such methods.

The world cycling federation  now uses methods long in place in France. Frenchmen stand on the podium once again. I think that says it all.

What do you think would happen if the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and other top leagues in the United States adopted a Biological Passport? I know what I think.

Tom Liberman

Catcalling – Compliment, Implicit Threat, or Just Annoying?

Posted on by

CatcallingThere’s an interesting news story making the rounds about a young, professional woman who took video of men catcalling towards her as she made her way to work each morning. Catcalling in this case is defined as a man whistling or otherwise commenting on how much he likes the appearance of a woman who happens to be passing by.

I’ve witnessed such behavior on any number of occasions and it always makes me uncomfortable but I’m an introvert by nature. I’ve certainly seen occasions were women seemed to enjoy the attention although more times than not they either ignored it or it appeared they were discomforted. In a strange way it reminds me of people at the gym who come up and offer unsolicited advice on how to properly use exercise equipment. It’s someone invading my space without an invitation to do so.

As I’ve said, there are times that women seem to not only appreciate such interactions but encourage them with their dress and mannerisms. I wonder is it ever appropriate to engage in catcalling? If the woman is dressed in a particular way does that invite such behavior? If a woman smiles and seems to enjoy mild catcalling is that in invitation for louder and more obnoxious attempts?

It’s all a bit confusing to this introvert.

It seems to me that it’s probably largely based on circumstance and personality. For the most part I think it is an uncomfortable practice that apparently gives men an excuse to say outlandish things without consequence. However, there do seem to be times when it is perfectly acceptable because the woman in question desires such attention. It gives men a chance to interact with women who they would otherwise not be able to engage for a variety of reasons.

Women rarely engage in such behavior although I have had my buttocks mentioned in a complimentary fashion by women in passing on a few occasions. I wasn’t offended although it was a bit disconcerting. I can imagine that if it happened frequently I would come to find it annoying although I suspect there is little chance of that occurring.

In this case the woman has printed cards which she hands out to the offenders and also offers for download to those who read her story. Is this wise? To confront the men who so annoy her? Certainly some of the reactions of the men are positive and include apologies but other men are not phased at all and I would imagine think they have increased their chances of furthering a relationship with Lindsey. Getting a woman to engage in conversation is certainly the first step in a relationship and their catcalling has achieved this purpose.

I’m particularly interested in the opinions of my female readership. Do you always hate catcalls? Hate them when it’s from someone who doesn’t interest you? Find them complimentary when used mildly although offensive when used more aggressively? Has you opinion changed over time?

Let me know in the comments!

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

The Sun is Really Hot

Posted on by

Solar FlareI don’t know if this actually qualifies as a Misleading Headline because it is so obviously ridiculous that it’s hard to imagine anyone was fooled. The Sun Could’ve Destroyed Civilization Two Years Ago blares the headline from many-time winner of my weekly award, The Daily Caller.

Clearly they are talking about solar flares that have the potential to destroy electronic equipment. There was a big one a couple of years ago but it did not hit the earth. In reality the world is a lot better prepared for solar flares than in the past and much of our electronic infrastructure is shielded from such assaults. I’m certainly not saying that a flood of charged particles from the sun couldn’t do a lot of damage but destroying civilization is probably beyond it’s power for the next few billion years.

It’s also interesting to note that the solar flare mentioned in the article was rated as a X1.1 which, while large, is hardly the biggest in 150 years as the article claims. There have been significantly larger flares spotted on any number of occasions since we’ve been closely observing such events.

I am sort of curious if any of my readers saw the headline and clicked on the story with any expectation of reading about a real threat to civilization. Did you see the article? Were you tempted to click? Did you think it was obviously silly? If you did click it did you believe the nonsense about it being the largest such event in 150 years?

Let me know in the comments!

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

 

The Ice Cream Sandwich that Defied the Power of the Sun!

Posted on by

Great Value Ice Cream SandwichI have an ice cream sandwich problem. I’ve written about it before and it’s haunted me since childhood. I’m a little less tempted now. It turns out the ingredients in some ice cream sandwiches make them resistant to the power of the sun, in other words, they don’t melt.

Technically, according to the article, they do melt, they just don’t lose their solid shape. This does make even an addict like myself begin to wonder what I’m putting into my body when I purchase those delightful treats and down them without hesitation. I will admit that I generally purchase a higher-class of ice cream sandwich simply because I’ve reached the point in my life where I prefer something tasty and more expensive over something cheap but rather icky.

I’ve never had the Great Value sandwiches from Walmart so I can’t speak to their flavor but I have enjoyed Klondike Bars which apparently have many of the same ingredients and are somewhat, although not completely, resistant to melting as well.

I think everyone tries to eat at least a little healthier to some degree or the other and the people of the United States spend a great deal of money on diet products. This indicates a desire to eat better food. The problem is that providing certain kinds of healthy food without particular ingredients is not so easy.

However, I’m willing to bet that the media storm surrounding the Great Value Ice Cream Sandwiches will put a fairly big dent in the sales of the product. That Walmart will probably have to change the ingredients and perhaps even re-brand the product. What’s interesting is that the ice cream sandwiches were not hurting anyone. The ingredients have been tested by the FDA and approved for use in food. Such ingredients are tested fairly thoroughly and if they were toxic would be banned. So what we have is the sandwiches being judged in court of public opinion. I’m all for this. The more information people have about anything the better decision they are going to make.

It’s interesting because I came out with an article not long ago about how Monsanto is helping to feed the world safely using genetically modified food (GMF). There’s a significant body of evidence that they don’t do any harm, can be grown more easily in pest-heavy and environmentally unfriendly regions, increase yields, and can provide more nutrition than their counterparts. Those opposed to such products are vehement in their opinion despite the facts. Those that will boycott the Great Value Ice Cream Sandwiches will likely be just as vehement.

The question I ask myself is how do I reconcile my rather immediate distaste at reading the article about the ice cream sandwiches with my complete lack of concern with GMF?

I guess it just that I’m comfortable with the idea of eating GMF because I’m aware of the amazing good they do in helping prevent starvation world-wide. If I want to eat a delicious ice cream sandwich without churning my own ice cream and baking my own sandwich material then I’m forced to put up with some chemicals in my food. There is a price to pay for the conveniences of modern society and the fact of the eight-billion people that inhabit our world.

In the end it’s best to avoid processed food as much as possible but it’s not so easy … especially when you have a problem.

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

Friendzone is Derogatory?

Posted on by

Friendzone WhedonAs of this morning at 6:33 Central Time Joss Whedon’s tweet about retiring the term Friendzone has nearly 10,000 retweets, 7,000 favorites, and is fast making its way through Facebook. I know I’m out of touch. I’m 50 and I’ve never been much, or at all, a ladies man but I don’t see why this is offensive.

Friendzone refers to, as far as I know, the person on the wrong side of an unrequited love relationship in which the parties remain on friendly terms despite the lack of romance. According to the comments I’m reading on Facebook it seems to somehow either mean a woman who is cruel for withholding sex or a wimpy man who can’t somehow woo a woman into having sex with him. It’s not the way I use the term or have ever heard anyone use the term but what do I know? I’m old and out of touch, or did I already say that? The memory isn’t what it used to be.

While I say I’m out of touch I am well-acquainted of the friendzone. There have been plenty of times I was attracted to a woman who wasn’t interested in me in a romantic way but enjoyed my company. Admittedly the number of women who weren’t interested in me in a romantic way and likewise weren’t interested in my company is a greater number but I’m nevertheless acquainted with the the idea.

I think it’s a pretty common zone from among all the zones. There’s the Relationship Zone when both parties are interested in one another, the Restraining Order Zone when one party is a little too eagerly interested in the other party who is not at all interested, there is the Bitch/Ass Zone where both parties dislike each other intensely which can, surprisingly, move to the relationship zone with astonishing speed, and there is the Who Are You Zone where one party has no idea who the other party is and that there was sexual interest at all. These are the dynamics of human relationships. It’s been going on for at least as long as I’ve been around and judging by books and movies, a lot longer.

So I ask, Joss, what’s the big deal? Why do we have to retire a term that pretty clearly describes the situation. “I’m in the Friendzone,” says I like her/him in a romantic way but they are not interested in me as anything other than a friend. Do we have to create a new term because, apparently, some people have turned the word into something else; not that I’ve ever heard it used in the way Whedon describes.

Maybe it’s a Hollywood thing. Maybe it’s a cool-kid thing, of which I’d clearly not have heard. I’m mystified not only by Whedon’s declaration but by those who seem to support it in ever-growing numbers.

Did I mention I’m old and out of touch?

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

 

Mysterious Hole not Mysterious – Disappointment Predictable

Posted on by

Siberia HoleI read a lot of science and nature stories in my endless quest to find something to blog about and I noted a plethora of stories about a mysterious hole that was spotted deep in Siberia. I didn’t bother to read about it because I figured that eventually they would get some observers out there and find out there was something perfectly natural going on.

When news surfaced today to that very effect I decided to check out the story, not so much to find out the actual cause but to read the comments on the story. I was not disappointed although those who predicted or were hoping for a conspiracy or world-wide disaster type explanation certainly were. I pretty much expected there to be a lot of denial and cover-up claims and, again, wasn’t disappointed.

It does make me wonder, again, why people want their to be sinister explanations, why they so desire a terrible conspiracy, and why they dream of world-shattering consequences every time such a story makes headlines. It’s certain that such stories attract interest because people click on them in huge numbers thus feeding the frenzy of more stories about what turns out to be a perfectly natural occurrence.

What’s really going on? A natural gas event likely created the crater and such processes formed the many lakes in the region with similar topology. Not too exciting although I find it interesting and will read eagerly the full report of what the scientists at the site find. I also expect to read many comments about how the government of Russia is covering up a much more dastardly explanation.

I’m actually a little concerned with the large number of people who are predicting such disaster with a fervor that seems fanatical. It’s not like they are analyzing the facts carefully and coming to a reasoned conclusion, it’ s like they desperately want there to be some horrible disaster in which millions if not billions of people are killed. They are combing the news looking for any story that gives the remotest whiff of potential danger and immediately begin to hope it is true.

I really like my life, my friends, my family, the games I play, writing novels, my work, and my co-workers. I don’t want there to be a zombie apocalypse or an apocalypse of any kind for that matter.  I don’t want the United States to crumble and then be forced to give up Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream. I mean, who’s going to mass produce that when the people of the world are all falling into an ever-growing hole in the middle of Siberia?

I like my computer, my phone, my car, my food-service (down 16 lbs and feeling good, thanks My Metabolic Meals), and all the other luxuries of modern life brought to us by great innovators and unavailable in the world before now.

I want the world to prosper and become more magnificent. I want scientific breakthroughs in medicine, energy, transportation, and food. I want a world where everyone is free to make their own way, where there is less suffering, more energy, more food, more happiness, and more friendships.

So, that’s my question, I guess. Why all the euphoria and desire for disaster? Anyone?

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

Baby Pix – To Like or Not to Like?

Posted on by

Baby Pix on FacebookI’m single, never married, lacking immediate prospects, and have no children.

While I’m happy not to have any children myself I’m not unhappy to see baby pictures of friends and family on Facebook. I’m not one to begrudge a doting parent a bit of pride in their child. I have a policy that I don’t “Like” the pictures because I feel I’m leaping into an bottomless pit. If I like my sister’s baby pictures then what does that say if I don’t like my friend’s baby pictures?

What if I like it but don’t comment?

I probably worry to much, it’s a family trait, but still. Do my friends and family count up Likes on each baby picture. Is there a  pecking order? Tom gave me three likes but Bill gave me seven so I’m inviting him dinner this week. Tom didn’t give any Likes so he must hate that I post baby pictures on Facebook.

I’m certainly not saying that parents of young babies are trolling for Likes. I have no doubt they are proud of their little bundles of joy and the ability to post pictures online is very useful for grandmothers, grandfathers, and other interested parties. I think people should post pictures of things they love on Facebook. I’m just concerned when I find myself Liking the fact that ESPN is going to be televising the Dota2  Championship while completely overlooking the adorable picture of my friend Diana with her husband and baby. Is there something wrong with me?

Do my friends and family think I hate babies?

I will admit that I’m not a big fan of holding babies because goo tends to spill out of them at inopportune moments but that distaste doesn’t carry over to Facebook pictures.

What’s the rule in these matters? Should I Like pictures of nieces and nephew but refrain from more distantly related or unrelated pictures? Is my policy of no Likes the best policy? Should I just like every picture on general principle?

Help me out parents! Let me know what I should be doing.

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

Dallas Buyers Club – Objectivist Perspective Movie Review

Posted on by

Dallas-Buyers-ClubI recently watched Dallas Buyers Club and it occurred to me that I might start giving movie reviews from a Objectivist point of view. By this I mean not so much judging the acting, the story, and the cinematography as much as looking at what sort of message the movie delivers from the philosophical perspective of an Objectivist .

So, onto the review. Dallas Buyers Club tells the story of Ron Woodroof who is diagnosed with AIDS in the mid 1980’s and given thirty days to live. Woodroof then acquires a drug called AZT which is in clinical trials to combat the disease. He immediately grows worse and ends up in Mexico seeking alternative treatment where the doctor thinks AZT is a poor choice of medicine and offers other options which seem to help.

Woodroof realizes these alternative therapies are illegal in the United States where they haven’t seen clinical trials, begins to bring them into the United States in bulk, and sells them to other AIDS patients using the front of a “Buyers Club”. It is illegal to sell drugs directly so patients pay a monthly fee and get all the drugs they require. This goes over very well and soon Woodroof is making money but also helping those in need. Eventually the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conspire to put him out of business. By now he is providing the drugs more to help the patients than to make money.

So, what did I think?

One of the core philosophies of the Objectivist ideology is that we must do our best regardless of circumstances and that by doing so we elevate those around us. Dallas Buyers Club certainly passes the muster in this regard. Woodroof doesn’t accept his diagnosis and fights for life although he certainly breaks a few laws to do so. He eventually comes into contact with an overbearing government agency and works to circumvent it.

It must be pointed out that the FDA has stringent policies in place to prevent fly-by-night drugs from entering the mainstream marketplace. There is a testing procedure and it is good that such is in place. However, as a result of Woodroof’s activities new laws were enacted for the terminally ill where they can take such untested drugs at their own risk. The idea being that they have nothing to lose. Therefore its seems to me that Woodroof’s struggle was in the very spirit of the Objectivist Ideal. Not to say he didn’t do a few shady things along the way.

Another major theme of the movie is Woodroof’s friendship with Rayon who is a transgender man with AIDS and eventually Woodroof’s business partner. In the movie Woodroof is rather homophobic although there is some debate about his feelings in real life. That doesn’t really matter to my review. In this movie there is a man who dislikes another man not because of his actions but because of his sexuality. Over the course of the movie this changes because of their growing understanding that they are pursuing the same course. Again we see a positive Objectivist message. You should dislike someone because they don’t do their job properly. You should dislike someone based on their deeds, not on their appearance or sexual persuasion. This is wholly a Objectivist philosophy.

Another character in the movie, Dr. Eve Saks, initially refuses to help Woodroof because of her own loyalty to the medical community and her supervisor. This in itself is good. Loyalty is an excellent trait and when the movie begins Saks has no reason to trust Woodroof over her colleagues. As the movie progresses it becomes clear that large doses of AZT are more harmful than helpful and she begins to change her attitude as well.  The change in attitude of Saks is another classical idea in Objectivism. The willingness to discard preconceived notions and go where the facts lead.

In the end Woodroof dies but he has helped thousands of people and also become a better man. This is a very important idea. Woodroof begins bringing in the drugs to make money, a fine pursuit, but in doing so ends up helping many other people. This is very typical of Objectivist ideas. That by making money we end up helping those around us. By being a success we end up elevating those around us.

So from a Objectivist point of view: 5 stars!

What did you think of the movie?

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

The Message – Buy Gold or Regret it – Beware the Messenger?

Posted on by

Gold PricesWhenever someone tells you something; whether it be in person or through one of the various forms of media available today, it’s a good idea to think about the motivation of the person delivering the message. I just read an article in that most foolish of websites Motley Fool wherein a fellow named Robert Baillieul tells his readers in no uncertain terms that the value of gold will skyrocket in comings months and they should purchase it now!

I wrote about another fellow named Jim Rogers and his advice about gold back in July of 2013. The article by Rogers describes men like Baillieul exactly. They are mystics who believe the price of gold must go up. This is based on the idea that the price of gold has rise from $35 an ounce in 1971 to it’s current price of $1,310 in the last forty-some years.

I wrote an article on the nature of the Gold Standard, our exit from which freed gold to be traded as a commodity instead of having a set price. This has resulted in a mystical outlook on gold from many people.

I’m not saying that gold won’t rise in the coming months. There are many mystics out there who believe that gold has inherent value, that it is a commodity that can be traded for goods when paper money is eschewed. The reality is that paper money has about an equal inherent value to gold. Gold has some value as medium for artists and some conductive value but it is otherwise equivelant to paper in that it cannot be eaten, burned, drunk, or otherwise used in the manner of water or a chicken.

This is not my point here today. My point is that your money, whatever form it takes, has real value. You want to grow that money so that you can retire securely. So that you can purchase the things you desire. When someone from Motley Fool tells you to sink a lot of money into a commodity like gold that has no dividend you should be wary.  Motley Fools makes a lot of their money through sensationalist headlines that people click. These stories are filled with advertisements that make Motley Fool money. The crazier the headline the more clicks and the more money.

So what should you do? If you like researching and learning about the financial markets I encourage you to spend time and effort learning what are good purchases and what are risky purchases. Just be aware that such a job is what many people do for a living. If you do it as a hobby think about how a hobbyist would do at your job. You studied for years and learned a craft and so does a reputable broker.

It’s your money. Do with it as you will. Just be aware that there are those out there who want to take it from you and they often dazzle with tales of profit taking.

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

CYNK Technology – $6 Billion of Foolishness

Posted on by
Microcap-stocks

How much does being foolish cost? It’s not easy to count that high and this was demonstrated in a story that recently hit the news.

In this world there are publicly traded stocks and while much of this activity is regulated by the SEC there is another group of stocks often called Microcap, Nanocap, or penny stocks. These stocks have a great deal of appeal to investors with a relatively small amount of money to put into their portfolio.

Low Buy In

The idea is that for a few thousand dollars you can purchase millions of shares of such a stock. Generally these companies promise they are working on some technology that will become mainstream. Thus the stock will increase in value dramatically. This means for a minimal risk you hope to reap a reward of millions of dollars. My father has invested in such companies. By coincidence just hours before I read this story I found out a friend is investing in such a way. The general attitude seems to be, what the heck, it’s a few thousand and I can afford it.

Nanocap Stock

Now to the story in question. CYNK Technology is a Nanocap stock. According to their filing they have one employee and no revenue. That’s zero dollars in declared revenue. As recently as June the stock traded for about $.10, a dime. As of this afternoon, although this is extremely volatile information, it was trading at over $20 giving it a market cap of over $6 billion because of the hundreds of millions of share available.

What does all this mean? We call this a Pump and Dump scheme. Generally the people involved in running the company, who own the vast majority of the shares, engage in practices designed to make the stock seem attractive. This brings in people like my father and my friend. They purchase the stock in huge amounts, although with a minimal outlay of cash, on the hopes the stock will rise.

This sends the stock to a high value but the problem is that unless you time things perfectly you can’t really sell it. There aren’t that many buyers out there willing to purchase such an inflated stock, only those, like you, who are looking to sell it quick as soon as it rises to a certain point. This happens so quickly that most people are left holding millions of shares of worthless stock when it immediately plummets back down to its real value.

In the end a lot of people are out money and the scam artists who own the company abscond with the profits. There is an entire industry that preys on those who spend a few thousand on such investments. They are wolves in the forest watching you. Waiting for you.

My Point

Don’t be foolish even if it’s just a fraction of your net worth. When you make foolish decisions you set a pattern for yourself. I understand the temptation but it’s far easier to fall into patterns than we realize and we’re also setting an example for those around us. If I purchase these things on a flyer and lose a few thousand it’s not going to change my financial situation but perhaps someone who admires me, if such a person can be found, might emulate my actions. Perhaps I might even convince myself that I was going to hit it lucky eventually. That’s the compulsive gambler’s story. Just one more spin they say and eventually they have lost everything.

I’m certainly not saying that one Microcap investment is going to ruin my father, my buddy, or you. I’m just asking a simple question, why be foolish, even once? Making good decisions can be just as habit forming as making bad ones.

Tom Liberman

How I Feel Talking to a True Believer

Posted on by

uzz_Aldrin_Describes_His_UFOI’m an atheist. I’m not a what I would call a fundamentalist atheist in that I’m not out there trying to convince every Christian, Jew, and Muslim that atheism is the only right thing to believe but I do get into conversations with religious people on occasion. I think religious freedom is extremely important to the survival of the United States and people have every right to believe what they want and every expectation that the government cannot try to influence those beliefs.

I just read an interesting article from Yahoo Finance, of all places, about Buzz Aldrin‘s supposed experience with an alien space-ship during the Apollo 11 moon landing. It was during this mission that Aldrin saw a light apparently moving in tandem with his own craft. His words on the experience have long fueled those who believe aliens are among us.

So what’s the connection between Aldrin’s supposed alien experience and my atheism? If you scroll down and read the comments on the Aldrin story you will encounter what I frequently see when discussing the existence of God with the faithful. In the article Aldrin states specifically that when debriefed by NASA after the mission both he and fellow astronauts were of the opinion the light was sunshine reflecting off just released panels. He was interviewed about the matter years later and during that interview said the same thing but the producers of the show left that out of what was later aired.

While reading the comments below the article I was struck by how often those who truly believe in aliens were willing discount Aldrin’s explanation. They believed the original quotes without their attendant explanation were his true opinion and that he was hiding something now by giving a new explanation. This, of course, defies the fact that Aldrin’s original explanation is the one that makes the most sense and is a story he has told from the beginning although it wasn’t always published.

I’m not here to discuss the merits of aliens or religion but simply the idea that it is all but impossible to convince someone that the thing they believe is false. I can present all the evidence I want for the lack of a divine being in the universe. I can trot out all the Flying Spaghetti Monster arguments that illustrate the bad logic of many religious claims. I can point out the huge gaps in logic in the Bible and other religious texts. I’m not getting anywhere with the True Believers. They have faith and you can’t argue logically with faith.

So what’s the point of my little blog? I’m speaking to those of religious faith who think the idea of aliens visiting the earth is a rather silly notion. Have you ever tried to convince a True Believer that their pet alien theory is nonsense? If you have, you know exactly what experience I have had trying to talk to people about the notion of God. I know this comes across as insulting, even demeaning but I hope that it will give those of faith some insight into what the atheists among you feel when discussing such topics.

Believe what you want, that’s not only your business but a Constitutionally guaranteed right. I’m not here to convince you you’re wrong. I’m here to tell you that I know you’re wrong. There’s a difference, however subtle.

Care to tell me that you know I’m wrong? The comment section awaits.

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