Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Of Bananas, Fruits, and Bunches

Posted on by

Dear readers,

I just read this story. You tell me. Real or fake.

Man Faces Felony Charges for Pointing Banana.

For those of you who don’t want to read, I’ll sum up.

A man named Nathan Rolf Channing from the town of Fruitvale, CO went up to a police officer named Joshua Bunch (and one other) and pointed a banana at them. The officers mistook it for a gun and arrested him. He is facing felony charges.

So, I ask you, loyal readers. Is it the Onion? April 1st? Or just an astonishing series of coincidences?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
The Black Sphere Coming Soon!

 

Claims and more Claims

Posted on by

Walking on MarsI’m not sure I can actually file this one in the Misleading Headlines category because the headline pretty much tells it the way it is.

Walking on Mars. Former NASA Employee Claims Men Walked On Mars In 1979.

The story is exactly what the headline purports it to be. An anonymous person claims to have been working for NASA in 1979 and seen live footage from the Viking Lander in which two human figures walked by the lander. She ran upstairs to another room which was covered up and was denied entry. She asked supervisors if what she saw was real but they refused to answer her questions.

With the recent landing on Rosetta and several Mars rovers and Mars orbiters going about there business there seems to be a plethora of stories pretty much like this one. Rocks look like something and are thus evidence of life on Mars. Figures are seen on Mars. It is simply one story after the next. I can only assume that people, besides me, are clicking on these stories and therefore there is an interest.

Are people clicking out of curiosity to see how ridiculous the story is or do they actually believe the headline? I’m sure a bit of both but the sheer volume of such nonsensical stories does surprise me. Yahoo news has at least two or three new ones every week.

I think it’s great people are interested in space and Yahoo has many hard-science stories as well. This is encouraging to me because it means people are clicking on them.

I suppose I’m curious. Do you click on these crazy stories just to see the level of insanity they reach? Do you not click on them? Do you click on them because, hey, it might be true?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
The Black Sphere Coming Soon!

Is a Boy with Long Hair a Bad Thing?

Posted on by

English Boy 1871I just read an interesting article written by a mother whose son prefers long hair and is often mistaken for a girl. My own opinion is that young boys and girls haven’t begun hormonal changes and are largely the same from a physical standpoint anyway, so who cares? I expected the comments to be along the same lines and I was sorely surprised.

It appears that a healthy percentage of people think it’s wrong for a boy to look like a girl when young. That long hair on a boy is a bad thing. I wonder what they would make of the fact that until modern times it was pretty common to put boys in dresses until they were older. I suppose nowadays we’d be criticizing mothers who did such a thing as turning their children gay. At least that’s what seemed to be a fairly widespread point of view among those commenting. That and the poor boy would be traumatized for life.

I think the problem largely rests with a sexualized society in which people apparently judge a young child by the length of their hair. It’s ridiculous because they are merely children. As I mentioned earlier, hormones have yet to kick in. Except for a boy’s penis and a girl’s vagina there’s hardly an outwardly observable difference between the two. You’d pretty much have to do a blood test to see the difference. They are interested in things that interest children. Sexual roles aren’t part of the equation and when we try to force them on these children I don’t think we’re doing them a service.

Be a man? Girl’s are supposed to be pretty? How about be a child! Enjoy it. Play with your friends. I can’t believe that forcing a young male child to look like an adult man is good for his long-term mental health. It’s society that is somehow embarrassed by a boy who looks like  girl or a girl who looks like a boy. The reality is they pretty much look the same until hormones begin to turn them into adults.

I’m reminded of the recent incidents where a man smacked a two year old boy for wearing a pink headband that belonged to his mother and then verbally abused the woman and the airport brawl where a drunken traveler attacked a man for wearing a pink shirt.

The problem is not with the child, it’s with the person who has an issue with long hair or a ribbon. How many boys with older sisters didn’t play dress-up or wear their mother’s heels and clomp around the house? It’s not a matter of gay or straight, boy or girl, man or woman. It’s a matter of pre-pubescent child.

We are far too interested in other people’s business in this country and the politicians we elect reflect that misguided ideology. Back when men were men, as we like to say, no one gave two rats asses about a boy wearing a dress and having long hair. No one! It doesn’t make us more manly to care about it now, it reveals our own insecurities as a society. Our own paranoia and fear.

It seems the more we care about things that just don’t matter the less we care about important things. That can’t be good.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
The Black Sphere Coming Soon!

 

What was Dodge Ball Really Like?

Posted on by
Dodge Ball

Dodge Ball in the Media

I was watching one of my favorite shows, The Goldbergs, on Hulu this evening and sighed when I noted the oft used theme of Dodge Ball. It seems to be an ubiquitous episode for every show which has school aged protagonists.

The only purpose of my blog today is to educate those who probably have the wrong impression about Dodge Ball. I do not pretend that my description of the game is the only interpretation. I played dodge ball from elementary school all the way through high school. That doesn’t mean I played it in all its forms. My experience might well be different than others.

The media portrays Dodge Ball as largely one of two things. A sadistic exercise invented by gym teachers to hurt and humiliate weaker children. Or a strength building exercise that helps children gain character. It might well be a bit of both but first a quick perusal of the various rules by which I played.

The Dodge Ball Rules

Most versions of the game have the following rules.

  1. Teams line up on both sides of a divide with a limited number of balls to hurl at one another.
  2. Anyone hit by a ball is out.
  3. A caught throw results in expulsion.
  4. The team that loses its last player loses and the other team wins.

An optional rule often invoked during games I played was that after a period of time a signal would extend the dividing line between the teams so there were fewer places to hide. If a game proceeded long enough another whistle invoked essentially a free-for-all where anyone could run anywhere and throw their ball at an opponent. This usually ended the game quickly.

Balls came in several sizes with the most dangerous being smaller and easily held in one hand. These could be thrown with fairly significant force and cause a moderate amount of pain although little in the way of serious injury.

Dodge Ball to Me

So, what was Dodge Ball to me? A game to be won. I wasn’t the fastest, strongest, or quickest athlete on the court but I was far from the least coordinated. I could throw a ball with good velocity and excellent accuracy. My hand-eye coordination was my biggest strength and I was dangerous to throw against because I could catch almost anything hurled my way. I can understand how others found Dodge Ball terrifying but the same look of fear was in their eye during a kick ball game when it was their turn to perform. Those rubber balls could sting, particularly the little ones, but I suffered far more pain in other sporting endeavors. Those who were frightened allowed themselves to be hit early and retreated to the sidelines. I was not one of them.

My experience is of a simple children’s game and a lot of fun had by at least this participant. I remember a few free-for-all sessions where bigger and stronger players, upset that I had put them out in earlier matches, simply knocked me down and bounced a few balls off me but the anger I felt was in losing the game.

I’m not discounting the terror that some surely remember from the game but I don’t think it was any worse than other gym class endeavors. The humiliation of waiting to be picked was probably far more damaging in a psychological, if not physical, way. Yeah, I got popped in a face by a few of those rubber balls but suffered no serious injury. As I’ve said, it was a game to won, and I wanted to win!

So there you have it. One man’s memory of Dodge Ball. I don’t think it built much character for me but it didn’t terrorize me either. I hope I’ve helped dispel some of the myth. Your experiences may have been different.

Tom Liberman

Heddon Street Kitchen No Shows – Rude and Rude

Posted on by

Heddeon Street Kitchen and Gordon RamsayThere’s an interesting story in the news this evening about celebrity Chef Gordon Ramsay and the opening night for his new London restaurant.

On opening night his restaurant endured 100 no shows out of a total of 140 bookings. The inference that Ramsey makes is that a rival restaurateur was behind all the false reservations.

When I perused down to the comments, as I always do, I anticipated a lot of people expressing their joy and this comeuppance for Ramsay. The reason I suspected as much is because Ramsay comes across as arrogant and cruel on his various television shows. He yells at young chefs and calls them names when they fail to prepare a dish to his standards. He is harsh and abrasive to say the least.

According to those who know him, this is somewhat of a facade to generate ratings and interest in his various restaurants. I don’t have any doubt that Ramsay is somewhat of a perfectionist who doesn’t tolerate stupidity. He also seems very loyal to those who are good at their jobs and it is well-documented that he has helped other chefs in their careers. So when I got to the comments I was prepared for the worst.

I was quite surprised that the comments were largely along the same line as my thoughts on the subject. Whoever pulled this “prank” is a selfish prick. In addition to hurting the owner of the Restaurant they also financially hurt every employee. Ever person who worked very hard to get that place open on that night and was hoping to be rewarded for their hard work. That’s what a Libertarian like myself believes is one of the most important societal events. People who plan, work hard, and accomplish something must be rewarded.

It’s entirely possible the new restaurant will fail. Perhaps Ramsay was counting on his reputation to carry Heddon Street Kitchen to success and he cut corners. On the other hand, it’s entirely possible the restaurant will be a great success. That the employees of that restaurant will go on to create their own dining establishments. That they will learn from Ramsay what it takes and eventually create dozens of great restaurants; and thus we all benefit. That’s Objectivism.

This action, by whomever took it, was not a prank. It was a violation of everything a Libertarian holds dear. It was also theft and not just from Ramsay and his employees. There were surely many people who wanted to go that night but couldn’t because it was booked. They were robbed of a meal. They were robbed of spending their money willingly and happily.

If you want to beat Ramsay then open a better restaurant next door. That’s the Libertarian way. This? Rude and wrong. For shame!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
The Black Sphere Coming Soon!

Rams Fans Taunt Broncos Fans? Really?

Posted on by

Denver+Broncos+v+St+Louis+RamsAs most of my loyal readers know, I’m a huge sports fan and living in St. Louis that means when it’s football season I’m all in on the Rams. I know, I know, it hasn’t been good for a long while but I just love going to the game and I have Rams season tickets. On Sunday the Rams played, by far, their best game of the season and defeated the heavily favored Denver Broncos.

The Broncos were 7-2 going into the game while the Rams were 3-6. Broncos fans arrived early and in very strong numbers. I sit near the 40 yard-line on the Rams side of the field and generally there aren’t that many opposing team’s fans in my area as they prefer to be on the other side of the field. Yesterday was an exception as thousands of Broncos fans were everywhere in the stadium including a woman right next to me and two young boys behind me.

During the game they cheered their Broncos on, as should any fan, but they did it in what I would describe as a respectful way. As the game entered it’s final minutes they began to file out of the stadium and that’s when what I want to talk about today happened. A couple of fans not far from me started to taunt the Broncos fans. Really?

Just a quick recap for those of you who aren’t football fans. The Broncos were in the Super Bowl last year and have made the playoffs the past three seasons and it’s looking quite likely they will make it again. The Rams last made the playoffs in 2004 haven’t had a winning record since 2003 (they went to the playoffs with an 8-8 record in 2004). The Broncos have a tradition of winning and while the Rams do as well, it has been a bad ten years for the team.

When I heard those taunts I saw red. I mean, really? Here we are, sad-sacks of the NFL for the last ten years, and we manage to win one game against the team that lost in the Super Bowl last year and you’ve got the nerve to taunt their fans for leaving in the last couple of minutes of a game? Believe me, I’ve dragged my sorry behind out of Dome after losses on many occasions and when I hear a fan on the winning team taunting it gets my goat.

I turned around and yelled, “Be a gracious winner”. I wanted to yell something with a little more sting but I seem to have made my point as the taunting stopped, at least in my section.

It brought something to my mind though. What is it to be a gracious winner? What sort of person wins and then, unsatisfied with being victorious, has to taunt the losers or their fans? What does it say about the character of that person? When you win you should be joyous, not filled with rancor. It don’t even see how it’s that difficult to be magnanimous in victory. It’s a natural feeling to say something along the lines of, “well, we just played better today but you’ve got a good team“. Certainly fans from other cities have said something like that to me as I filed dejectedly out of the Dome on any number of occasions.

Defeat with dignity? That’s tougher. You’re mad your team got beat. You hate the other team and their fans. That’s a true test of character. Hold your head up and say “Darn the luck, we’ll get them next time.” That’s not easy but that’s what people with character do.

I don’t have a lot of room in my heart for Rams fans who taunt their opponent in victory. I suppose you could say our fans just aren’t used to winning but I don’t buy that excuse.

To all those Bronco fans at the Edward Jones Dome on Sunday I say this: Thanks for coming to St. Louis. I hope you had a good trip. You’ve got a great team and despite the outcome I’m sure many good days lie ahead.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
The Black Sphere Coming Soon!

Matt Taylor and the Woman Hating Shirt

Posted on by

MattTaylor ShirtI spotted a headline the other day but didn’t get around to clicking on the story until just now. It’s a doozy.

A fellow by the name of Matt Taylor is a member of the Rosetta team that guided the Philae lander onto a comet. During the hours leading up to the landing a number of news outlets were interviewing the various scientists. Taylor chose to wear an interesting shirt to work that day and his choice is raising some questions.

My initial reaction to the headline was that some feminist organizations were over-reacting to a relatively harmless shirt. Then I clicked on the story and saw the shirt. I do think Taylor should be able to wear whatever shirt he wants and if his employers have no problem with such attire in the workplace, so be it. However, if I wore a shirt like that to work I’d be sent home. I’d be told to change it. It’s clearly inappropriate for the office and to wear it on the day you know news media is coming in droves is clearly a poor judgment call.

I’m sure Taylor is very good at his job and that should outweigh what shirt he chooses to wear. However, there are dress codes for a reason. I’d certainly be uncomfortable if one of my co-workers chose to wear a shirt like that at work.

I’m certainly not saying that Taylor views women solely as sex-objects. He could be, and probably is, a great guy. He could love women and be turned on by intelligent, attractive, and powerful women with an attitude; I know I am!

He is probably not in the slightest bit misogynistic. That’s why it’s a shame he chose to wear that shirt to work on that day. He portrayed himself in a certain light. By choosing to wear that shirt on that day, he presented himself in a particular fashion willingly and knowingly. If people are offended then he only has himself to blame. If people have no problem with it then that’s their business as well.

Certainly only his employer has a right to enforce a particular dress-code. The media has no say, nor does anyone offended by the shirt. If I find it inappropriate it has no weight with Taylor or his bosses. It’s their company, it’s his shirt.

Now, off to go find some hot pictures of Supergirl. (I prefer my intelligent, attractive, and powerful women more towards the trim and athletic side, but hey, that’s me).

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
The Black Sphere Coming Soon!

We were Blindsided – Misleading Headline

Posted on by

School District Bans HolidaysI just read an interesting article and was “blindsided” by the blatant and disgusting misleading blurb that accompanied the headline.

The story  comes from Yahoo news and involves a Maryland school district that decided to remove all religious holiday references from their calendar rather than include references to Muslim holidays.

The headline itself is accurate: School district strikes Christmas from calendar. It’s the blurb that is an example of the vile reporting that causes stories to enter into my Misleading Headline posts. “We were blindsided,” it states authoritatively.

I want you to think for a moment about the intent of that quote in this blurb. It’s an absolutely accurate quote. One of the parties involved in the situation said those exact words.

Ready?

It was the Muslim organization’s representative. They are dismayed that the other religions had to have their holidays stricken from the calendar. They simply wanted Muslim holidays mentioned on the calendar. That’s it. Mentioned. Instead of mentioning a Muslim holiday the school district decided to strike all references. The reason is, of course, because they are not comfortable listing Muslim holidays but are keenly aware that they cannot exclude one religion while including others. Their solution is to remove all such references.

That’s certainly the choice of the school district and as an Atheist I’ve got not problem with such a decision. Good riddance, I say. If they wanted to include the Muslim holidays along with Jewish and Christian I wouldn’t have a problem with that either. Frankly, I don’t care either way.

My problem is with the blurb on the headline. Completely and totally misleading. It’s clearly designed to make people think the school board was somehow blindsided by the request from the Muslim organization. It’s not even misleading. It’s really just a flat-out lie.

Congratulations Yahoo News. You win Misleading Headline of the Week!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
The Black Sphere Coming Soon!

 

666 is not the same as 6 – 6 – 6

Posted on by

Monster Energy DrinkI’m rather ashamed I’m even posting this. The great Monster Energy Drink is Satan debate bores me to tears. Honestly. It’s so stupid that even talking about it makes me feel dumber. Just a quick fact and I’ll let you go on your way.

The Hebrew numeric system was not like the Arabic Numeral system we use. I’m going to go with a Roman Numeral equivalent just so it’s a little easier to understand. Hebrew numbers were like Roman numbers. They didn’t go by base ten. So the number eleven was not the same as two number ones next to each other.

Let’s examine the number six expressed three times in Roman Numerals.

VI – VI – VI

Now let’s examine the number six-hundred and sixty-six in Roman Numerals.

DCLXVI

There you have it. Not the same.

Does the number six-hundred and sixty-six have any meaning? No.

Is Monster Energy Drink a sign of Satan? No.

Are we all dumber for having discussed this? No. Hey, at least we learned something about numbers!

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

Marketing Power – Alex from Target

Posted on by

Alex from TargetAn interesting social media phenomenon swept through twitter when a young employee from Target had his picture posted on Twitter and immediately began to get tens of thousands and now millions of view. #Alexfromtarget is a good-looking young man and these tweets and retweets were largely pushed by a highly desirable marketing demographic called Fangirls. These tween and teen girls tend to be high purchaser and thus attract a great deal of marketing attention.

A Social Media marketing company now claims they were, to some degree, responsible for the explosion of tweets. At this stage there are some doubts about the claim and the company has modified its initial statement. They now say their various employees retweeted the picture of Alex, which was taken and initially posted independently of any marketing ploy, and spread it to likely Fangirl twitter pages. From there the picture gained momentum organically.

The people at Breakr claim it was merely an experiment to see what might be done. I have no way of knowing if what they are saying is accurate but I also have no problem believing that what they claimed happened, could easily happen. We’ve seen the same thing with microcap stocks with what are called Pump and Dump schemes. A social buzz is generated by a company with something to gain and the instantaneous nature of social media takes over from there.

It is clear in this case that Target and Alex knew nothing of the scheme but the implications that stem from this event are intriguing. I’ve known for some time now that a large number of reviews for self-published authors like myself are bought and paid for by the authors themselves. I wrote about this some time ago. It is also well known that companies solicit and repost good reviews for their various products in an attempt to generate sales.

Marketing buzz is highly desirable and can lead to millions of dollars in sales. If a marketing company is adept at generating such buzz then it is clear that businesses will beat a path to their door. How much good publicity has Target received in conjunction with the #AlexFromTarget twitter viral sensation? While it might seem difficult to quantify it is actually a trivial exercise. Target is well aware of their sales from week to week and month to month at various stores. They can now look at the numbers and tell us exactly how much of a boost in revenue that particular store received based on what has happened. It is bound to be significant.

Other companies will look at this increase in revenue and consider generating such viral campaigns. While the Alex from Target event brings such manipulations into the eyes of the mainstream population it is something of which businesses have long since been aware. What makes this story fairly interesting to me is that a third party company picked a tweet not started by the company to publicize. Had Breakr gone to Target with this plan before they implemented it, it is almost certain they could have realized some revenue. In this case it seems to have been an experiment. But what about next time?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think Breakr did anything wrong. I don’t think if Target had contracted with Breakr to instigate the viral sensation that anything would have been amiss. It is in a company’s best interest to promote sales. It is in the job description of a marketing agency to create buzz. Alex remains a handsome young man who works at Target. The vast majority of those who fed the viral sensation were not on the payroll of Breakr. They did so willingly.

It does make me consider contracting with Breakr to promote my books!

What do you think?

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

What’s in a name? Ask Spider-Man

Posted on by

alt=During lunch today we were having one of our typical highly technical, web-development, database intensive discussions when it occurred to us (Mainly Mike and Kerry) that Spider-Man has a hyphen in his name whereas Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Green Lantern, and others with a similar two-part names do not. What’s up with that?

Search Engines provided the answer quickly enough but what I want to talk about is why a name is important. The reason the topic is interesting to me is that as an author I’m often coming up with names for my characters. I think it’s important to name them appropriately and Stan Lee (who named Spider-Man) seems to think about these things himself. Anytime I can compare myself to the great Stan Lee is a good day for me, although possibly not for Mr. Lee.

When I name a character in my novel Murray Finkelbein it brings forth certain images to mind. There are a number of philosophies about naming characters. It many cases a character is named the opposite of his actual physical traits. Slim Jones might be an obese man. Sometimes a name is meant to more accurately display their traits. Big Ralph might be a large man. A name carries with it certain expectations and for a major character in a novel or comic book, it’s an important consideration.

Stan Lee chose to give Spider-Man his unusual hyphen simply to more clearly distinguish the cover of the comic on the newsstand from that of the very popular Superman. It was a perfectly logical choice and clearly has proven successful. One is not surprised. Mr. Lee has a track record of good judgment in this sort of thing that is undeniable.

My latest novel is currently at the proof-reader and will be out in a few weeks and our discussion about Spider-Man and my subsequent research got me thinking about the names of the character in the upcoming book, The Black Sphere. The book is somewhat of a sequel to the Staff of Naught and thus several of the characters did not require any thought in regards to their names. Ariana, Lousa, Tenebrous, and Shamki were already named. However, one of the other main protagonists, Aydon, was not. Aydon is opposed by his brother Jaylen. I did actually put a fairly significant amount of time thinking about their names.

Truth be told they had different names originally and as the novel progressed I altered them. I don’t know how interesting it will be for my readers, few though they are, but I thought I’d give you some insight into how they were named.

I knew the brothers were going to serve an extremely important role in the novel in that although brought up in the same household they were very different young men. They thought differently about life and this contrast between the two is meant to display my Objectivist and Libertarian ideology. Suffice it to say that I think they are important characters in the novel. Thus getting their names right was important to me.

I wanted their names to be similar but not too close. I ended up with sort of a combination of Aaron and Ryan for Aydon. I thought it was solid without being pretentious. Easy to remember and say. Jaylen went through several permutations (I hope I caught them all in the book). I started with Jaydon but that was too close and might cause confusion, as Stan Lee surmised with Spiderman. Eventually I settled with Jaylen which is also simple but also distinct from Aydon.

No earth shaking revelations with this blog. Just a quick look into the minds of a very successful author and one not so much so: Stan Lee and myself. It’s good to know Stan worries about this sort of thing also.

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

Best Whiskey from Japan – Subjective or Objective

Posted on by

yamazaki-sherry-cask-2013I just read an interesting story about a whiskey tasting contest which is adjudicated by a panel from the Whiskey Bible. The winner in past contests has often been a Scotch Whiskey and usually at least one brand from Scotland makes it into the top five. That was not the case this year, and at least judging by the comments, there was some consternation over this result.

The winner is called Yamazaki Sherry Cask 2013 and it is from Japan. As I wrote about earlier, Japan’s Suntory recently purchased Jim Beam and there was a lot of tumult about a Japanese company owning such an iconic U.S. whiskey brand. I don’t really want to discuss why Japan is now producing some of the most delicious tasting whiskeys in the world and if this is a good thing or a bad thing. What I’d like to discuss is the nature of the comments below the article. I’d say about 80% argued that either there was bribery involved or that no one could tell if a whiskey was good or not because taste was subjective.

I can’t tell you if bribery was involved and certainly the whiskey that is ordained as the best tasting will certainly enjoy a large increase in sales. This would indicate the potential for financial shenanigans. I can tell you that while there is certainly a subjective view about what whiskey tastes good to you there is also, absolutely, a difference in the quality and taste of one whiskey over another. What is determined to be a good whiskey is objectively good. It is not a matter of personal taste preferences.

Let’s start with extremes. I have a bottle of urine and a bottle of Virgil’s Cream Soda. One is objectively better tasting than the other. That’s a fact. Subjectivists will argue that if they like the urine better that it is better. This is the argument of those who prefer a different brand of whiskey to that chosen as the best. If this argument is true, if best is a completely subjective idea, then there really is no such thing as best. I would even argue that there is no such thing as good and bad. Urine and Virgil’s Cream soda cannot be compared at all. I think this is nonsense. It is clear that one thing is better than another.

In a more nuanced argument, like the one between the Yamazaki whiskey and it’s competitors, the judging becomes more difficult. A panel of experts samples the various whiskeys based on certain criteria and they vote. The votes are tallied and one whiskey emerges as the best. It can certainly be argued that the panel used inaccurate judging methods. It is possible that financial incentives swayed the vote. It can even be argued that the scoring methodology was flawed. What I say cannot be argued is that this year the Yamazaki whiskey was victorious. That it is better than its competitors based on as good an objective rating system as exists. What else is there?

This same argument can be made for any food, television show, or business decision. You must weigh the various factors and make the best decision possible. If you do so then you will generally succeed in life.

It’s undeniably true that people personally prefer one brand of whiskey over another but that does not mean that particular whiskey is, in fact, better than its competitor. I reject the notion of a subjective world. This doesn’t mean I’m taking away your right to love Evan Williams over Yamazaki Sherry Cask 2013. That’s your business. I’m just telling you that the Yamazaki is better, objectively.

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

Tricks of the Wine Trade

Posted on by

grove mill pinot noirI like wine. I’m not an expert but I do enjoy drinking a nice glass of wine with friends over a meal or even watching a football game. I don’t drink very much, but wine is always an excellent item for a single guy to bring to a party.

I usually look at the price on the bottle and pick something in the $10 to $25 range figuring that’s probably pretty good. I look at the reviews and the rating number but I hardly know enough to make an informed decision. Why do I mention all of this? In my endless pursuit of news stories about which to blog I happened on a wine story and from there onto an excellent wine site called Snooth.

It offered something I was actually interested in trying. I purchase wine periodically, as I mentioned, but I never really knew what to get and always purchase something different. I generally like a relatively hearty red but I’m fairly flexible. Snooth offers the ability to create a personal wine list. This seemed like a good opportunity for me to start tracking what I like and hopefully get good ideas on purchases in the future. It’s not a big deal but I’m a data guy and the more information you have the better your decisions will be.

I had recently purchased a bottle for a little get together and decided I’d look it up. It was a Pinot Noir and I’ve had mixed success with that grape in the past. I enjoyed this bottle. It was labeled as a $30 bottle on sale for $19.99 which seemed like a good deal. I was certainly happy with my purchase.

So I headed over to Snooth wondering if the price I paid was reasonable for the bottle in question. It was a Grove Mill Marlborough Pinot Noir 2013. I looked up the exact name and year and found nothing. Then I broadened my search to Grove Mill. There it was! The price was $29.09 which indicated that I got the deal I thought I was getting. Then I looked a little more closely. The price was for a 2009 bottle which was given 3.5 glasses as an aggregate review.

That’s when it dawned on me what happened. I don’t know if this is a common practice or not but I’m more than willing to bet it’s pretty standard. The Grove Mill Pinot Noir 2009 is a nice bottle of wine that generally sells for $29.09. The Grove Mill 2013 is not the same quality most likely. It is a newer grape and has not had time to age properly. But the name Grove Mill Pinot Noir has a good reputation. The wine stores are well aware of the difference between the two. The price on the 2013 was probably right in line with what I should have paid for it. I’m not saying I was ripped off. I’m saying that the wine store wanted to move that particular vintage and year. So they put a sale price tag on it that wasn’t really a sale at all.

If I had seen the Grove Mill 2013 as one bottle on the rack next to a hundred others of its ilk I would most likely not have purchased it. But because it was on an endcap with a big sale sign, I made the buy. The distributor paid the retailer, in this case Whole Foods, money to put the endcap out there. I’d say it’s all but certain that I’m not the only one fooled with the endcap and the signage of the sale price.

Let me reiterate that I’m not complaining. I enjoyed the wine and I think the price was reasonable.

I will tell you this. I’m going to be a lot more wary of endcaps with “sale” prices in the future. I’ll probably visit Snooth and try to pick out the wine I want before I leave the house or, if I ever get a smart phone, while I’m doing my shopping.

This should mean that when I show up on your doorstep with the look of dread at having to face an evening of socializing with real people instead of my computer friends, at least I should have a better bottle of wine with me!

Huzzah!

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

Colorado Officials Paint Edible Marijuana as Hazard to Children

Posted on by

edible marijuana productsThe Centennial State of Colorado was the first in the Union to make marijuana legal to all adults and ever since those opposed have been trying to find loopholes in various regulatory laws to peel back the stated will of the people. It’s enough to make this libertarian have a sip of his wine that is sitting in his unlabeled glass looking an awful lot like grape juice.

The latest attempt to override the fair and legal vote of the people comes from the Department of Health and Environment of Colorado. They are of the opinion that marijuana infused chocolate and candy poses a threat to children because they could accidental ingest it. This is true. It’s certainly possible for a child to eat a brownie that has pot in it. It’s also possible for a child to drink any of a number of alcoholic drinks that taste like candy. It’s also possible for a child to eat a slice of rum cake or a bourbon infused chocolate. It’s possible for them to eat a pill that looks like a vitamin. Parents that have such things in the house would be wise to inform the children of their danger and keep them in safe places.

Marijuana chocolate and candy is clearly labeled. It is only when the label is peeled and a person starts to consume the item that it is no longer labeled. A lollipop in its wrapper is marked as having marijuana in it. The forces at work here hope to convince you that they are doing it on behalf of the children just as they were against the legality of marijuana to save the dogs. The reality is they are against the legalization of marijuana for other reasons but they lost fairly in a voter initiative and don’t like it. This is modern government at its worst.

If they really believe that marijuana is such a danger then they need to take their chances with the voters. I’m guessing they know this route is hopeless and therefore have decided on another avenue. I’m certainly not saying they don’t have the right to try and convince legislators to overturn the will of the people. That’s what a Representative Republic is all about. The will of the people is secondary to the legislative power of the people’s representatives. If the representatives pass laws we don’t like then we have the ability to remove them. They have the right to pass any law they want as long as it doesn’t conflict with our rights as laid down in the Constitution.

What I especially despise is the largely Republican led effort that tells us quite clearly the state needs to be in charge of our lives. That we cannot manage to keep our children safe without the government telling us what we can and cannot have in our houses. That because a few people are not careful with their marijuana infused products that the rest of the people of Colorado must give up their freedom so that the government can protect them.

Marijuana products are clearly labeled. That’s enough. The government cannot and should not protect us from every ill that might befall us. I despair for this country.

I always tell my friends that if they truly understood the core philosophy of a Libertarian they would join us. I’ve always believed that most people really want a limited government that helps where required but largely allows people to make their own way in life. I’m beginning to suspect that perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps most people really do want to tell everyone else how to live. That they want to tell me what weapons I can own, what food I can willingly and eagerly put in my body, with whom I can have sex, and what I should believe as far as religion is concerned.

People apparently want a police state that guarantees them safety while looting them of their freedom.

Not me.

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

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