Forgery Equivalent to Original

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Forced out of Walmart because of Resume Discrepancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

 

Corporal Discipline and a Child’s Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Lies in Ohio – Political Lies Protected by First Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ray Rice and Double Jeopardy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s Cardinal Nation … Win or Lose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we go, Cardinals, here we go!

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

Michael Sam Reporting – Pandering to Gay Bashers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what has the NCAA done this time?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mo’ne Davis Misleading Headline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go get ’em Mo’ne!

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

Misleading Headlines – Plunging Asteroid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014 PGA Championship and the Rules of Golf

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

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

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

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

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

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 …

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?

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

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

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