The Magnus Carlsen Story – He Just Wanted to Beat his Sister – I Get It

Susan and Carlsen Family Bilbao 2008I just read a really nice story about a fellow named Magnus Carlsen who is the best chess player in the world. He might well be the best chess player in the history of the world. He also seems like a pretty nice guy.

The story goes into how Magnus took up chess at the age of five because he father was keen to teach both Magnus and his older sister, Ellen. According to Henrik Carlsen, Magnus didn’t immediately pick up the game as have other chess prodigies throughout history. He learned the moves but didn’t fall in love with the game and insist on playing it all the time. Then something happened.

About three years after learning the game his older sister started to get good at chess.

Now Magnus was interested in getting better at chess because, as Henrik says in the story, he just wanted to beat his sister. That’s a motivation I understand thoroughly. You see, I have an older sister also. I pushed her down the stairs once. I dumped an entire glass of water in her bed once, yes, she was in it at the time. I tried to beat her at Risk and Monopoly but generally came out on the short end of that stick.

If you look closely at the picture you’ll quickly note that Carlsen has two other sisters. The woman in the middle is mom who is not a chess player. I have five sisters including the half-sisters and step-sisters. So I’ve got Magnus beat there. If we just count up sisters I should be a significantly better Risk player than Magnus is a chess player. At least that’s the logic with which I’m running.

There’s not really a point to my blog today other than a shout out to my metaphorical sibling Magnus. I get it, my brother!

Now to try and figure out why I didn’t become the greatest Risk player in the history of the world. There’s got to be a reason.

Anyone other guys out there with a female, older sibling care to tell some stories in the comments?

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

She’s Doing Just Great and Happens to be Wearing a Bikini

meadow-walkerIck.

I’ve got nothing against a pretty girl in a bikini but when you paste a picture of a fifteen-year-old girl in a bikini on the front page of your site and claim it’s because you want to let the world know she’s doing fine then, well, ick.

That’s exactly what many media outlets did with a picture of Meadow Walker. In case you were worried about Walker, whose father Paul died in a horrific car wreck and who is now the subject of a nasty custody fight, well they want to let you know she’s just fine. Either that or they wanted to plaster a picture of a fifteen-year-old girl wearing a bikini on their front page hoping to get lots of clicks. You tell me.

A quick perusal of headlines show the picture on Yahoo Celebrity, Christian Today, Hello!, RadarOnline, ABC News, Good Morning America, Hollywood Life, Extra, and I’m sure plenty more.

Paul Walker was a star in the hit movies Fast and Furious and his death was big news. Following that there has been a nasty custody fight between Walker’s wife and his mother. Lots of news fueled by hungry clicks from people who relish in this sort of thing. Now we’ve got a picture of Meadow in a bikini. Well, if you’re a news outlet and you know how many men want to see pictures of young girls in bikinis and you can post one while pretending to be concerned for her mental state, win-win!

The world in general would like you to think it’s awful to look at girls that age with lust in your heart. They can’t just post pictures of various teenage celebrity daughters without a good reason or people would be up in arms. The reality is that men do like to look at well-shaped fifteen-year-old girls. They like to look at well shaped girls of just about any age. It’s really not such an awful thing to say, gosh, that young lady has a nice figure. She’s pleasing to look at.

Of course it’s another thing entirely for a man my age, or even thirty years younger, to try and get a date with such a young woman. Yet somehow it’s totally wrong of media outlets to post a picture of a pretty teenage girl if she isn’t somehow, however peripherally, making news. Everyone would scream about how they were posting pictures of underage girls online. However, once she’s in the news it’s apparently perfectly acceptable.

The only reason Meadow is on the cover is because she’s an attractive young girl and she’s wearing a bikini. You know it, I know it, and the media outlets know it.

I actually don’t mind the fact that they’re doing it for those reasons. Men like looking at pictures of this nature. It’s not an offensive picture. The bikini covers all the bits we’re not supposed to see. If the various outlets came out and said, “Look at Meadow Walker, she’s a hottie in a bikini”. I’d say a bit creepy but okay, it’s your show, she posted the picture on Instagram for all to see, whatever.

What really offends me, what makes my blood boil, is they’re trying to pretend they’re concerned for Meadow. That they just want to let us know she’s doing well. That’s a lie, pure and simple.

Am I overreacting? Do they really care about her? What do you think?

P.S. I posted a more appropriate picture of Meadow. If you want to see her in a bikini then go search for yourself. It’s not hard to find.

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

She's Doing Just Great and Happens to be Wearing a Bikini

meadow-walkerIck.

I’ve got nothing against a pretty girl in a bikini but when you paste a picture of a fifteen-year-old girl in a bikini on the front page of your site and claim it’s because you want to let the world know she’s doing fine then, well, ick.

That’s exactly what many media outlets did with a picture of Meadow Walker. In case you were worried about Walker, whose father Paul died in a horrific car wreck and who is now the subject of a nasty custody fight, well they want to let you know she’s just fine. Either that or they wanted to plaster a picture of a fifteen-year-old girl wearing a bikini on their front page hoping to get lots of clicks. You tell me.

A quick perusal of headlines show the picture on Yahoo Celebrity, Christian Today, Hello!, RadarOnline, ABC News, Good Morning America, Hollywood Life, Extra, and I’m sure plenty more.

Paul Walker was a star in the hit movies Fast and Furious and his death was big news. Following that there has been a nasty custody fight between Walker’s wife and his mother. Lots of news fueled by hungry clicks from people who relish in this sort of thing. Now we’ve got a picture of Meadow in a bikini. Well, if you’re a news outlet and you know how many men want to see pictures of young girls in bikinis and you can post one while pretending to be concerned for her mental state, win-win!

The world in general would like you to think it’s awful to look at girls that age with lust in your heart. They can’t just post pictures of various teenage celebrity daughters without a good reason or people would be up in arms. The reality is that men do like to look at well-shaped fifteen-year-old girls. They like to look at well shaped girls of just about any age. It’s really not such an awful thing to say, gosh, that young lady has a nice figure. She’s pleasing to look at.

Of course it’s another thing entirely for a man my age, or even thirty years younger, to try and get a date with such a young woman. Yet somehow it’s totally wrong of media outlets to post a picture of a pretty teenage girl if she isn’t somehow, however peripherally, making news. Everyone would scream about how they were posting pictures of underage girls online. However, once she’s in the news it’s apparently perfectly acceptable.

The only reason Meadow is on the cover is because she’s an attractive young girl and she’s wearing a bikini. You know it, I know it, and the media outlets know it.

I actually don’t mind the fact that they’re doing it for those reasons. Men like looking at pictures of this nature. It’s not an offensive picture. The bikini covers all the bits we’re not supposed to see. If the various outlets came out and said, “Look at Meadow Walker, she’s a hottie in a bikini”. I’d say a bit creepy but okay, it’s your show, she posted the picture on Instagram for all to see, whatever.

What really offends me, what makes my blood boil, is they’re trying to pretend they’re concerned for Meadow. That they just want to let us know she’s doing well. That’s a lie, pure and simple.

Am I overreacting? Do they really care about her? What do you think?

Tom Liberman

That’s a lot of Butter!

23 Sticks of Butter per DayThe misleading headline of the week is more like a mistake than an intentionally misleading headline. Americans consume 23 sticks of butter a day screams the headline but when you click the article it switches from Day to Year and all is well.

The article goes on to state that Americans ate up to 72 sticks of a butter a year back in the 1920’s before processed food began to take over. It also makes note that most doctors don’t consider the fat in butter to increase the risk of heart disease so essentially the entire article is completely different than the headline indicates.

The headline would have us believe that Americans are eating a huge and dangerous amount of butter but the opposite seems to be true. More butter is actually good for you if it is exchanged for trans fat.

So, there you go. Don’t believe everything you read, particularly when you just read the headline.

Congratulations Wall Street Cheat Sheet, you win this week’s competition.

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

 

Is it the Media or Our Perceptions? Eugenia Bouchard

eugenie-bouchardI used to be a huge tennis fan and played in college and high school. I remember with great fondness my many games with friends during that time. I used to follow tennis very closely but I generally only watch the major events these days. Something that is happening in the tennis world today reminded me of the power that so many attribute to the media but in reality belongs to us.

At Wimbledon a rising young star by the name of Eugenia Bouchard got a lot of publicity as she made it all the way to the final match. Bouchard is pleasing to look upon, there were a number of stories written about her, and she quickly became a darling of the media. Just like Tiger Woods this feeding frenzy of stories was not created by the supposed “media” but by the interest of fans in the stories. The more people who read the stories, the more who clicked on links, and the more who commented led to even more stories being written. Greater and greater optimism was expressed about her chances of winning Wimbledon and becoming the next “big name” in tennis.

I wasn’t really aware of all of this until I read the story about her loss in the final. Until I read the comments under the story. In the story itself Bouchard seems very reasonable. After the match, as the roof was being moved into place because of oncoming rain, she was asked to wait in the room where the engraver puts the name of the champion onto the wall. She had to watch while her opponent’s name went up. Here are the quotes:

It was a little odd. I was in the engraver’s room, so I was watching them work, wishing one day, dreaming that he’ll write my name somewhere.

Maybe it’s a bit cruel. She just told me to go in there. I didn’t ask questions. I was in there when I won the juniors. I got to go in the Royal Box, so while waiting, I waited in the engraver’s room, as well. So I had flashbacks to that time.

The comments on the story essentially brutalized Bouchard. Very nasty stuff. I was immediately puzzled because the quotes in the story didn’t match what I was reading in the comments about her “arrogant” and “spoiled” attitude. What’s up?

As I read further in the comments it became clear that most of the people writing negatives things in the story were not responding particularly to this story but their overall perception of Bouchard. They didn’t like all the stories anointing her the next queen of tennis and reveled in the heavy defeat she suffered in the final to the superior Petra Kvitova. They associated the media frenzy over Bouchard with the young woman herself. They blamed her for the plethora of stories and in their minds made her to be selfish, spoiled, and just plain evil.

It’s an interesting situation to me because I so often hear people blame “the media” for fooling people politically or favoring one side or the other side. I’m certainly not saying that there isn’t plenty of bias out there in the media but I am saying we make up our own minds about things. Whatever the media has done to promote or denigrate Bouchard, President Obama, Senator Paul, or any other public figure the reality is that we make up our own minds about them. When we come to erroneous conclusions it is not the fault of the media but our own.

If we choose to have a preconceived notion about a young tennis player and vent our anger and hate then that is what we choose to do. If that hate is completely out-of-line with the story in question then the blame should fall squarely upon our shoulders. If we cannot read the facts of the story and come to rational conclusions then we have failed a test of critical thinking. Each time we fail such a test we hazard making a poor decision. Each poor decision leads to … well you get the point.

Would that everyone was judged by their actual actions. When reading something about a public figure it’s wise to check your preconceived notions at the door. Read the story for the story. Look for biased reported. Check facts. Take the time to look for another point of view. Come to an informed conclusions. And if you still hate Bouchard then so be it. Even if you still hate Bouchard take the time to read this particularly story and her words. Just because you dislike someone in general doesn’t mean everything they say is wrong.

I know it’s easy to rely on what we want to believe. Try not to and you’ll be a better person.

Tom Liberman

Self-Publishing, Friends, and Family

Self-publishingI read an interesting Dear Abby column about a woman asked by a friend to read their self-published novel and post a favorable review. It’s a topic that strikes home in one way because I’m a self-published author. On the other hand, I’ve never asked anyone to give me a favorable review.

When I published my first novel I did offer it for free to family and friends and asked them to write a review if they enjoyed it. No one took me up on the offer and I haven’t given my books away since. I gave away a copy of that first book to a professional reviewer but found I wasn’t particularly satisfied with their review and the entire process seemed somewhat seedy to me.

As of today my family and friends have largely avoided reading and telling me their thoughts on my novels and I think the reason is probably related to that which is expressed in the Dear Abby column. They are afraid that the books are going to be awful and they don’t want to be put into the position of having to tell me they didn’t like them. I can’t say I blame them. It’s certainly awkward to tell someone their passion and hard work is no good.

What reviews I have gotten from family and friends have been good and they usually point out typos so I can fix them. One of the nice things about self-publishing is that I just have to jump onto Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Smashwords and quickly upload changes. I don’t usually do so for a few typos but after a while they accumulate and I upload a new version.

I ended up largely rewriting my first novel and edited a useless chapter out of my third novel because of comments from friends family about the books so I don’t mind criticism. The other novels have gotten updates as far as typos thanks to notes from friends but are largely the same book as originally written.

I also understand that a lot of people just don’t have an interest in the genre in which I write, Sword and Sorcery, and therefore my books just aren’t something they want to read. Still, to be honest, it hurts a little bit that most of my family hasn’t taken the time to read any of my books. That most of my friends haven’t spent $2.99 to purchase one of my books. I certainly understand the awkward situation they put themselves into by reading my books and I don’t begrudge anyone the choice of not reading them.

I have two work friends who have read all my books and like them very much and encourage me to write more because they want to read the next story in the saga. My mother proof-reads and edits my books and I certainly appreciate that help.

It’s an interesting situation. Do you hurt my feelings by not reading my books or read them and risk being put into an awkward situation?

Believe me, I’m not angry at anyone for failing to read my books. Reading one of my books probably takes about seven or eight hours of your valuable time and if the novels are awful, they aren’t, that is a waste of time.

Please don’t take this as a plea to read my books and write a review. It’s not. It’s just me expressing my thoughts.

I am curious if my friends and family have consciously avoided reading my books because they don’t want to be put in the awkward position of having to tell me they didn’t like them and that they were poorly written. Or is it simply a case of my friends and family just aren’t much interested?

Probably a little of both.

If you do like Sword and Sorcery novels I recommend my books. It’s your $2.99 and your eight hours. I’ll keep writing with or without your input.

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

 

Amazon v. Google and the Non-compete Clause

Non-compete agreement

I just read an interesting story about Amazon trying to enforce a Non-Compete clause for a former employee who went to work for Google. State rather than federal laws regulate Non-compete contracts and enforcement varies widely from state to state.

Libertarian Ideology

The reason I find this interesting is because the very nature of a non-compete contract goes against my Libertarian ideology. It undermines the capitalistic system by preventing people from selling their services to the higher bidder. The courts largely agree with me and generally refuse to enforce non-competes unless they involve the movement of trade-secrets or the poaching of clients. When a person simply moves from one job to another, and doesn’t approach clients from the first job, the courts have shown great reluctance to enforce the non-compete.

Purpose of a Non-Compete

The entire purpose of a non-compete in anyone’s contract is to prevent other companies from coming in and paying that employee more money. I ask you, why shouldn’t anyone be able to sell his or her services to the highest bidder?  Would any employee sign such a document if they didn’t think their hiring depended upon such a concession? I don’t think so. No one would willingly sign away the right to go somewhere else if offered a better salary or a better situation. It’s essentially extortion. If you don’t sign this non-compete, we’ll hire someone else.

Right now, California is the only state to explicitly forbid such contracts although, as I mentioned earlier, judges have proven extremely reluctant to enforce the contracts except in specific situations.

When I read stories about enterprise corporations trying to enforce 18 month non-compete contracts it infuriates me and reminds me of why unions came into existence in the first place. If companies let individuals seek those who will compensate them properly for their skills it is better for corporations and it is better for employees. Capitalism in its unfettered state is an excellent system but those who would chain it come in many different uniforms.

There are unions who forget their original purpose and spend more time counting their dues then trying to help their members. There are corporate leaders who believe accumulating more money is of greater importance than treating employees as partners. There are employees who forget that they owe it to their employers to always do their best job. There are politicians who pass laws so that unscrupulous business owners can bankrupt their rivals. There is no single enemy to capitalism and those who seek to pervert it will likely always be with us.

What works best for people is the freedom to sell their services to whoever is willing to pay the most or offers the most rewarding work environment. What works best for companies is providing an excellent place to work for their highly skilled workers. What works best for society is businesses with hard-working employees and owners who treat them as family. This produces innovation, advancement, wealth, friendships, and success. This is objectively good. This is what we should strive to achieve.

Conclusion

Non-competes work against this idea. They should be illegal and happily the courts largely agree. It’s a shame states like California have to pass such laws, it should be completely unnecessary.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman

Unmarked Police Car Bumper Sticker

unmarked-police-carPamela Konchinsky was pulled over by the police, questioned, and told to remove a bumper sticker from her car. The bumper sticker, “Unmarked Police Car”. The Indianapolis police argue that criminals might mistake the car for an unmarked police car and shoot the driver. Or at least that’s what they told Konchinsky after they pulled her over.

It’s an interesting case for a couple of reasons but there is one thing that really stands out in my mind. It seems to me that the police rationalized to themselves that the bumper sticker represented a real threat to Konchinsky and justified the entire incident because they were protecting her. The reality is they didn’t like the bumper sticker and their minds came up with a good reason to pull her over. I honestly don’t think the police officers in this case concocted the rather ridiculous argument, I strongly think they believe what they are saying.

It’s quite clear to me that the bumper sticker is designed as a joke. It’s rather subtle and funny at that. Some people are arguing she was falsely presenting herself as a police officer but I don’t think this can be construed as such. I wrote a blog quite a while ago about someone who was rightfully kicked out of Universal Studios for wearing a t-shirt that read: Police Street Crime Unit. That’s an instance of someone wearing something that could be misconstrued. In that case it wasn’t the person wearing the shirt who was in danger but others at the park who might look to that person for security. Not the point here but you can read that post to see my views.

Back to what I find so compelling about this particular case and why it speaks to Libertarian ideology. One of the things Libertarians argue is that the government has convinced both itself and those who support it that they do what they do for our benefit. I absolutely think there are times when the government is extremely useful but more and more I see in our politicians the same psychological mind-games we see from the officers in this case.

The bumper sticker is clearly a joke. An unmarked police car would not be marked as a police car. The officers in this case didn’t like what they saw and came up with a reason to get rid of it. They were wrong to do so and I hope Konchinsky gets her day in court. Likely it will be settled with an apology or two and that’s fine.

We want things so badly we twist facts around and around until we get the result we want. It happens to everyone. It happens to police officers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, and even web-developers! It’s really important for people in position of authority to be aware of this sort of thinking.

Be wary of those who claim they are looking out for you and try then try to take something away; be it freedom or just a bumper sticker.

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

Amanda Longacre and the Rules of Beauty Pageants

Amanda-LongacreThere’s a relatively interesting little case roiling the internet these days about a young woman named Amanda Longacre who won the Delaware Miss America Pageant but had her title stripped when it was determined she would turn 25 before the end of the 2014 calendar year. The pageant has a rule that all contestants must be under 25 by the end of the year in which they win their title.

Longacre has caught the attention of the national media and garnered a lot of sympathy for her cause. She’s planning on looking at legal remedies to her situation.

Her claim rests on the idea that she didn’t falsify her entrance form. It clearly stated her age and yet she was allowed to compete in the pageant. She argues that because the mistake was on the part of the Miss America panel to let her illegally into the contest they should allow her victory to stand.

This seems to me to be a rather ridiculous legal argument but I’m not a lawyer. It’s basically saying the police made a mistake and allowed me to get away with committing a crime but when they realized the situation came back and enforced the law. Certainly the pageant never should have allowed her to enter. I suspect she knew the rule all along and just hoped no one would notice the violation. Even if she wasn’t aware of the age limit it’s not an excuse to say that they didn’t notice my violation immediately therefore it doesn’t actually break the rules.

There have been a number of cases in the golfing world recently where a golfer’s violation was not noticed at the time of the infraction but was spotted later by a viewer on television. The violation is then enforced. It’s the rule regardless of when someone notices that someone broke it.

Let’s take the case a bit further just for the sake of argument. Let’s pretend no one noticed until after Longacre competed in the Miss America Pageant. Let’s imagine she won that pageant and served out her year as reigning Miss America. Would the pageant be wrong to strip her of the title retroactively? I don’t think so. We again have numerous examples in the sporting world of someone whose violations came to light after the fact, Lance Armstrong being a prime example.

Longacre is an attractive and charismatic young woman and this means she is generating sympathy for her cause. Certainly the Miss America Pageant might decide to reinstate her to generate good publicity and that would be within their right although certainly unfair to all the young women who didn’t enter because they understood the age restriction and honored it.

Rules are rules and when one person follows them and is defeated by someone who didn’t there is a problem. I don’t think it’s that big a deal either way but I do think the pageant should stick by their rules and their ruling. What do you think?

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

Ann Coulter Hates Soccer or is Really Bad at Satire

Ann Coulter Hates SoccerIn my endless quest for news I read lots of stories and today, thanks to a lead from Scott Meslow from The Week, I saw an opinion piece by Ann Coulter deriding everything soccer. Normally it’s not something I would take on but I’m going to make an exception in this case because there is a small part of me that thinks Coulter was trying to be funny.

Ann, trust me on this, the piece comes across as angry, petty, and just plain stupid.

For the purposes of full disclosure, I’m a soccer fan and all my great-grandparents were born right here in the United States of America. I’ve been watching soccer since Soccer Made in Germany was on PBS back in the 1970’s. I became a big fan of the Dutch side Ajax when they were dominating the soccer world in the mid 1990’s. I’ve rooted for Holland on the world stage ever since. That’s not really the point of course.

I can understand why some people don’t like soccer. It’s a nuanced game with a huge amount of continuous action but relatively little goal scoring. It’s not setup well for television as there are no natural breaks in the game except half-time. If you don’t like soccer, then don’t watch it. I’m not a big fan of car racing. I’ve got a couple of buddies who love it. I don’t get it, I don’t enjoy it, I don’t watch. I don’t deride them. They love it the same way I love baseball. Good for them. Enjoy life, do what you love.

Coulter seems to be just angry and plain wrong so often it’s astonishing. Her first point is that individual achievement has no meaning in soccer. Tell that to Messi and Ronaldo. She argues that boys and girls play soccer together and therefore it’s coeducational ignoring that girls play football until a certain level and it’s the same in soccer. She argues that humiliation and injury aren’t part of soccer and these are apparently things to be desired. Her point is wrong and wrong. Injuries and embarrassments happen in soccer all too frequently and it’s a shame they do.

Each point, one after the next, is wrong.

This is when I started to think maybe she was writing satirically, trying to be funny. But she’s not. It’s not light-hearted banter, or perhaps I just don’t have a sense of humor. It’s mean. It’s reaching. It’s trying to find reasons to dislike something and associate anyone who likes it with a political party. I’m absolutely certain there are many Republicans who love soccer and many Democrats as well and at least one Libertarian (me). I’m positive political affiliation and soccer love are not in lockstep with one another.

And I suppose here’s my real point. If you like something, I’m glad that you like it. It’s great you enjoy making Star Wars Lego TIE-Fighters. I’m thrilled you get enjoyment from doing it. I’m happy that you’re happy.

What sort of person hates the fact that someone else is enjoying themselves? It’s just nasty. It’s vicious. It’s an indication of a terrible poison burning inside a person. How can anyone be so angry because someone else is having fun at a big old soccer party?

Of course the other possibility is that it was an attempt at satire. Then it’s just bad writing.

What do you think? A poisoned mind that hates everything different? Failed satire? Successful satire and I’m just missing it? I’d particularly like to hear from anyone who is a Coulter fan.

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

The Largely Unregulated Supplement Industry

supplement regulationThere’s a rather humorous John Oliver video making the rounds on Facebook discussing the largely unregulated supplement industry in conjunction with the appearance of Dr. Oz before the Senate. I wrote about that appearance a week ago and I thought I should revisit the entire subject of the supplement industry from a Libertarian point of view.

It’s a nuanced issue for a Libertarian because as such I think government intrusion into our lives should be kept to a minimum but the government certainly has some duty when it comes to criminal activity. So where do I stand? Should supplements be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or should the buyer beware?

I’m of the opinion that the FDA should not be involved in deciding if a supplement is ready for the market or not. I do however think they have a role in making sure a particular supplement is not toxic and I absolutely think they have a right to make sure they do what they are reported to do. Barring that I think their regulatory powers are very limited.

I’ll try to explain what this entails from an enforcement point of view. The FDA has the right to test new and ongoing supplements to ensure they are not toxic. I have no problem with the agency testing supplements to ensure that they will not kill people and they certainly have the right to remove toxic supplements from the market. However, there is the much murkier ground of whether a supplement is actually effective or not. I don’t think the FDA has the right to ban a supplement that has no health value.

People can choose what supplements they take and anyone who ingests a supplement without doing a little background check on its medical value deserves what they get. The vast majority of supplements have no health value. I think the scientific community should be running tests to determine if a supplement works. It’s not the job of the government to protect people from themselves. If some people want to believe the outlandish words of Dr. Oz then that’s their fault, not the government.

What completely baffles me is that according to testing at least 33% of supplements have no trace of the items that they are purported to have in them. That’s just fraud. Plain and simple. It’s fraud on a vast scale because every bottle of those supplements that crosses the state line between Illinois and Missouri is a federal crime. Everyone from the owner of the company to the driver who took it across the state line is guilty of millions of counts of fraud and could be sent to prison for the rest of their lives.

Every bottle of supplement that cannot be scientifically shown to do what the advertisement claims it can do is a criminal act. It doesn’t matter if Dr. Oz sells the supplement or not. If he claims it does something while fully aware that scientific evidence says it does not, he’s guilty of a crime. It’s illegal to sell someone a coin claiming it is gold when it is iron. It’s illegal to have a booth where other people sell iron coins as gold when you know they are iron. It’s even illegal to tell people to go to the booth to buy gold when you know it’s iron if doing so benefits you financially. That’s all fraud. You are engaged in defrauding people of their money.

This is a huge point of Libertarians who are often accused of having no compassion. I think the FDA has no business telling a company not to sell a product. If a company says Green Coffee Beans might cause weight loss and people buy them, tough luck. But if a company says Green Coffee Beans will help reduce weight knowing full well there is no scientific evidence they do so, well, forget the FDA, let’s talk about the FBI. You are engaged in interstate commerce fraud. If such laws were enforced we wouldn’t need the FDA to regulate our supplement industry. Put some truck drivers in jail for transporting fraudulent material across state lines and watch how quickly the supplement industry immediately cleans out the bad apples. Why this is not happening mystifies me.

I do think your state legislature or even your municipality has a right to say, hey this supplement is useless, let’s ban it. That is a right reserved for the states and the people just as they can ban alcohol.

We Libertarians are compassionate. We do care about people and this country. We just think that asking the federal government to get involved in areas over which the Constitution gives them no jurisdiction makes things worse, despite the good-intentions of the laws so passed.

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

 

Monsanto an Inconvenient Truth – GMF Feeding the World

Monsanto GMFThe crazed anti-science wackos are at it again and I’m not talking about Climate Change this time. I’m talking about the opposite end of the political spectrum. When it comes to Genetically Modified Foods and Genetically Modified Organisms there is a lot of controversy but no scientific evidence they cause harm. All scientific studies to date show that such crops provide equal or better nutritional value while being resistant to disease and insects.

To date no scientifically approved study has shown that eating GMFs causes any ill effects.

And yet not a day goes by that I don’t see a science-ignoring liberal posting scary headlines and linking to discredited studies about the horrors and dangers of GMF. The hate towards Monsanto is palpable and the comments sections filled with outrage and indignation.

I repeat: To date no scientifically approved study has shown that eating GMFs causes any ill effects.

Monsanto itself is trying to make a profit, of this there is no doubt, but they have another goal. Feeding the world. Ending starvation. That’s a pretty noble goal and if they earn some money doing it, then as a Randian Objectivist and a Capitalist I have no problems.

What I find rather ironic about the situation is the science denying liberals are generally the ones most up-in-arms about how Republicans deny the science of Climate Change. The science is there. The Earth’s climate is growing warmer and there is substantial evidence to suggest that increased CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere is contributing to it. The science is there, GMFs do not cause any harm.

I’m not opposed to rigorous testing of GMFs but when the results of such testing prove them to be benign then I will support their distribution and use. Food has never been more abundant and cheap than it is right now. You spend a smaller percentage of your income on food than any generation in the recorded history of the world. You spend less time making sure there is food on the table than at any time history. This coupled with the fact that there are more people in the world than their have ever been is a remarkable accomplishment made in part with GMFs.

It’s an inconvenient truth, just as is human-driven climate change.

I know this post is going to generate some hate but I’d ask you to find a scientifically accredited study that shows GMFs are dangerous to consume. There are a lot of links out there filled with discredited studies so do your homework and then prove I’m wrong.

I believe the evidence of human-driven climate change and I believe the evidence of GMF safety. I don’t think scientists are out there lying in study after study to promote some agenda. I think they are educated men and women of good character who are out there trying to make the world a better place. My hat’s off to the scientist, not the naysayers and doom-predictors.

Monsanto is based here in St. Louis and I know a number of employees. They love their children and if they thought GMFs were dangerous they wouldn’t be working there. Monsanto isn’t some faceless corporation. It’s a company made up of people just like you and me. My friends work for a company that, through its product, has saved literally millions of people from starving to death. I’m proud to have the company headquartered in my hometown.

So to all you haters of Monsanto and GMFs, bring it on!

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

Fallacy Saturday – Confirmation Bias

confirmation biasI just read what appears to be a well thought out article from the Huffington Post about the decline of Olive Garden restaurants and the meaning this has for our overall economy. At first read it appears completely reasonable but it’s not. Happily it gives me the opportunity to talk about an incredibly important logical fallacy called Confirmation Bias.

The article itself looks into the declining market for Olive Garden and Red Lobster which are owned by Darden Restaurants. It then compares them to their high-end Capital Grill restaurants that saw growth in the most recent quarter. It then concludes that because the middle-class catering restaurants are seeing declining sales and the high-end restaurants are increasing this clearly means that the middle-class is suffering while the upper-class is thriving.

I’m not going to say the argument is completely false but it’s a classic example of Confirmation Bias. Yes, Olive Garden and Red Lobster have seen dramatic losses in the last few years but at the same time Fast Casual restaurants like Chipotle, Qdoba, and Panera (or St. Louis Bread Company as we call it here in St. Louis) are growing by leaps and bounds. These are clearly not high-end restaurants.

So what is Confirmation Bias? It’s the willingness to look only at facts that support your preconceived notion and either ignore or simple refuse to look at other factors that might not support your hypothesis.

It’s a very easy fallacy to fall into. When you see a post on Facebook that confirms what you believe there is the instant urge to Share and Like that post without even reading the article that is behind. This almost happened to me in regards to an article about Hospice Care that a friend posted on Facebook. When I went and actually read the article I saw that it was heavily biased.

We so badly want to believe that certain things are true that we are willing to accept any evidence that supports this point of view while ignoring those facts that seem to contradict our hoped for conclusion. This is an extremely dangerous fallacy. Just ask the brave men and women who served our country in Iraq ostensibly because they were going to stamp out the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This fallacy is pervasive in today’s political culture where ideology trump facts. When we make important political decisions based on what we want to be true then we are doomed to making horrific mistakes.

What I’m saying is that the reason Olive Garden and Red Lobster are struggling might be because of the changes in economics for the Middle Class but there are likely other reasons as well. Certainly other Middle Class aimed restaurants are doing quite well. I’m sure there are a number of fine-dining establishments that aren’t doing very well. Can we assume the rich have less money?

The next time you hear someone make a claim that seems to support your position pause for a moment. Examine the facts from a Critical Thinking perspective. Do your homework. Think twice before Sharing that Facebook post.

The bottom line is that when we make better decisions we experience more favorable outcomes. Better decisions are driven by complete information. When we fall into the trap of fallacies we make worse decisions. When the people of a nation make bad decision after bad decision there are bound to be serious repercussions.

Tom Liberman

The Science Gap – United States and Asia

earning comparison us chinaI just read yet another article about how China is churning out huge numbers of science graduates. This article went into some of the reasons for this changing face of education. In recent years China, India, Germany, and even Russia have taken the idea of producing a generation of technically savvy young scientists extremely seriously while the United States has not.

This has resulted in the explosion of engineers and other scientists in Asia and Europe while the numbers in the United States have remained relatively stagnant. I wrote about a fantastic space exploration mission accomplished by Indian scientists recently and this is only the beginning.

Many of my friends and people who comment on the articles are under the impression that young graduates in China and India are incapable of independent scientific thoughts. That they just steal the innovative technology from the United States and reproduce it. This was certainly true at one point but we’ve left those days far behind. This transition of scientific knowledge is coming at the dawn of what I call the Automation Age. We are quickly leaving behind the sorts of jobs that an unskilled laborer did. These jobs were the backbone of the Industrial Revolution. If you weren’t all that smart it wasn’t a huge impediment. If you had a willingness to work hard and do a less than glamorous job you could do quite well all the way until right about now.

The problem we see today is that we face an increasingly technical world. The workplace is filled with computers and just wanting to work hard, while a wonderful quality, is often not enough. If you don’t have the education and technical skills necessary to do your job, you won’t have a job. I’m not just talking about engineers and scientists but a mechanic, an electrician, an HVAC specialist, they must all be able to understand and work with computers. We’re still in the transition phase to the Automation Age but things are moving rapidly. Robots are becoming increasingly sophisticated and will only get more so.

I can speak from personal experience as a technical trainer. I used to teach every day. Now I teach maybe 25% of the time and do web development and other work most days. I’m learning a lot from the young graduates of the local technical schools my company has hired and I hope that I make myself useful enough to keep around. I certainly can’t keep up with them but I’m learning more all the time.

What I see happening is that science and innovation, as important as they were in driving wealth and creating a higher standard of living in the past, are going to become even more important in this era. The countries with the brightest minds will not only create wealth but business leaders will, by necessity, move their increasingly sophisticated factories to nations where people with the proper skills reside.

I’m not all gloom and doom. The fact that China, India, Germany, Russia and others are producing scores of technically savvy college graduates is not a bad thing in itself. It’s good for the world to have more and more intelligent and driven people in it. I’m just concerned that the United States is losing the battle. I’m not the only one who sees this, industrialists understand and new methods of education are being tried all over the United States. We are still producing many of the top minds in the world and our education system is churning out fine scientists, just at a lesser rate than our economic foes.

The one thing that really struck me in one of the charts in the article I read was that doctors and lawyers earn far more than the scientists in the United States while in China they earn less. In the United States engineers are still well compensated but much less so than in China. Engineers are in huge demand in China but apparently not as much in the United States. What does this tell you?

This higher rate of pay naturally encourages young students to pursue degrees in engineering.

This is Randian capitalism at its finest. What society needs it pays for and thus encourages more people to pursue the money. So why are we paying doctors and lawyers so much and engineers so relatively little? That’s the question. As time passes and we need more engineers and technically savvy people; so too will salaries rise to hire such qualified people. Nothing is forever and the gains China is making now may evaporate fifty years from now or a hundred. I don’t know.

I do know that the trend is cause for concern. If future breakthroughs come from China, India, and Europe then wealth will follow. We’ve been the richest country in the world since the conclusion of World War II, some seventy years. When we’re not anymore I don’t think the nation will crumble. Maybe we’ll be better off as the second biggest economy in the world, as the third. It’s impossible to say.

What I think seems inevitable is that we face a new age with new problems. I’m confident we’ll survive and thrive but change is coming and it’s best to recognize it, plan for it, and understand the ramifications before it happens. Putting your head in the sand and pretending it’s not happening is a bad idea. I see too much of that from our politicians and from ordinary people in comment sections and personal conversations.

Just because you want the United States to stay scientifically ahead of our foes doesn’t mean we will.

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

Tim Lambesis – The Murdering Christian/Atheist

Tim-LambesisThere’s apparently been a big story roiling the Christian Rock world for the last year or so although until I spotted a headline I was completely unaware of the turmoil. It seems the death-metal band As I Lay Dying’s lead singer, Tim Lambesis, was arrested for trying to hire someone to kill his estranged wife. Happily the person he tried to hire was an undercover police officer.

Good job San Diego Sheriff’s department!

The arrest and accusation apparently sent deep shock waves through the Christian Rock community. Now Lambesis is saying that he actually was no longer a Christian but had forsaken his religion for Atheism.

So why am I talking about this? Because I’m an Atheist and in reading the comments about the story I found what I think is a common theme among many Atheists and Christians. The Christians were all blaming his Atheism for his “turn” in behavior while the Atheists were all blaming his Christian underpinnings. I see this quite a bit in the Atheist community and the religious community. Both sides blaming a person’s religion or lack thereof for that person’s lack of ethics and criminal behavior.

An Atheist will argue that religious fervor has been responsible for an incredible amount of violence throughout the history of the world. A religious person will argue that an Atheist has no moral compass at all because there is not the carrot of heaven or the stick of hell to keep them ethical.

I have a different take.

Some people are without morals or ethics. Some people will hire someone to kill their estranged wife because they lack the ability to control their emotions. It has nothing to do with their religious beliefs. There are wonderful religious people in the world who are kind, caring, considerate, and would never hire anyone to kill their spouse no matter the provocation. Many Atheists fit that profile exactly as well.

We are quick to lump people into classifications these days. Christian? You must hate homosexuals. Atheist? You must hate Christians. I drive a Prius. On at least a dozen occasions since I’ve been driving my 2006 Prius I’ve parked near a large vehicle as the owner of said vehicle was emerging or going into it. They’ve rather sheepishly asked me if I hate them. I don’t. I think people should drive the car they want to drive but that’s not the point I’m trying to make.

It’s this general lumping of people together that gets us into a lot of trouble in life. The car a person drives, the religion or non-religion a person practices, the suit he wears, the beard on his face, the tattoos on his body; where he lives, who he votes for; these things mean nothing. What is important are a person’s actions. Is he kind to his wife? Does she help co-workers when they ask her? Does she help her friends when they need something? Does he call his mother when she’s not feeling well? (Get better soon, mom).

Lambesis, murderous scum. Why? Because he tried to hire someone to kill his wife. That’s all I need to know.

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

Suspended for Tweet – Reid Sagehorn Story

Reid-SagehornI’ve written in the past about social media and the dangers it presents because our words are forever preserved and a case involving Twitter and a young student suspended from school is making the news in Minnesota. It’s an interesting case from a legal perspective but my take is that it never should have come to what has happened. Read on!

In this case the student, Reid Sagehorn, was subject to anonymous tweets that he had kissed one of the teachers at his school. He responded to this with a tweet reading, “Actually yes.”

Other parents apparently saw this tweet as confirmation of the idea that he was engaged in an illegal sexual relationship with the teacher in question and reported it to the authorities. An investigation ensued. It was determined that there was no such relationship and Reid says his reply was intended to be sarcastic.

The problem is that the teacher in question had her reputation unfairly besmirched and the school had to institute an investigation which took time and resources. Thus they decided to suspend Sagehorn. First for five days and then for ten days. Eventually they even moved towards an expulsion which forced him to enroll in a different school to finish out the year. Now he has filed a lawsuit claiming the school violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

The legality of the suspension is a fairly interesting question in its own right because schools are generally given pretty wide latitude in dealing with speech that causes a disruption in the school. The tweet clearly caused a disruption and just as clearly was not taken as sarcasm even if it was intended as such. I’m of the opinion the school does have the right to suspend and even expel Sagehorn. I’m also of the opinion that doing so was absolute nonsense.

Sagehorn’s tweet was potentially damaging and ill-advised to be certain. The school pretty much had to institute an investigation and I think Sagehorn owes the district and the teacher in particular a big apology. However, that’s where I think things should have stopped. It would have been a good “teachable moment” as we like to say these days. In my opinion punishment should have been a public apology to the assembled students, a private apology to the teacher in question, and a one day suspension. End of story. Move on with the business of educating young Sagehorn and the rest of the students.

Such an approach was not taken and now we are where we are. Sigh.

What do you think? Was the long-term suspension merited? Is this a First Amendment violation?

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

 

Dash Cams are a Good Idea

Dash CamI was browsing through all the news that’s fit to print when I came across a story at Yahoo Odd News that caught my interest. A fellow by the name of Randy Kratofil was driving through the Pennsylvania town of Jefferson Hills when he came to a three-way stop sign. He stopped and then proceeded forward. A pair of police officers, clearly staking out the intersection, then pulled him over and wrote him a $127.50 ticket. They told him that residents were complaining of people running the stop sign.

Kratofil has a dash-cam in his car. He took the video to a local news station which then showed it to the Jefferson Hills police chief and the ticket was rescinded although the chief of police stands by the officer that wrote the ticket. Which in itself is ridiculous. If you stand by the ticket then you wouldn’t rescind it. That’s another story.

A factor in the case which I did not see in the reported story is the nature of the intersection where the non-infraction took place. If you watch the video it is very apparent that the intersection is extremely dangerous. It’s a three way intersection which sort of bends around and away to the left; after the original stop it’s very difficult to see oncoming traffic from that direction.

The problem appears to me to be that the white line is not painted in the right spot. From the video I couldn’t even see the white line. For everyone out there not familiar with traffic laws it’s important to note that you are required to stop at the white line, not the stop sign. This rule is designed for intersections exactly like the one in the video. The nature of the road made it impossible to put the stop sign where it needed to be and there should have been a white line painted another ten feet or so forward.

The fact that the white line is either absent or badly painted leads me to the conclusion that someone is either incompetent or the police use the intersection as a revenue generator. I’d like to know how many tickets are written at that intersection. I’d also like to know how many accidents happen at that intersection. If the white line is intentionally absent in order to generate revenue for the police department there is serious criminal misconduct going on. It is creating a dangerous situation in the pursuit of money.

I do not know if any of that is actually true. It’s possible the white line is there but just not visible because of the lighting condition. It’s possible that the white line is missing for other reasons but the events here make me extremely suspicious of the Jefferson Hills police department. If someone was injured in an accident at that intersection there should be criminal liability.

The moral of the story is that it’s not a bad idea to purchase a good dash-cam for your car. They have a nice selection at Amazon but you can pick them up just about anywhere you do your electronic shopping.

As an added bonus for me, I can upload video to YouTube and show off how all those other drivers are out there trying to kill me. I drive about seven minutes to work everyday and about the same back home. Now that I have a food service bringing me food I don’t even stop at the grocery store. In that fourteen minutes of driving I have least one person try to kill me every day. People think I’m paranoid but I’m not! I tell you they’re out to get me! Now to get that dash-cam and prove it!

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

Wealth Transfer – Misleading Headline

Wealth TransferI spotted this doozy from Business Insider and it’s only Monday.

We’re on the Verge of the Greatest Transfer of Wealth in the History of the World screams the headline. With wealth inequality making headlines all over the news and being a talking point of the Democratic party one cannot be blamed for making the assumption that the article will be about that subject. Wrong.

The article is about the fact that the Baby Boomer generation is reaching the end of their lifespan and their wealth is passing on to their heirs. This large amount of money will transfer largely from parent to child. That’s the entire article. It’s such an obvious headline troll I couldn’t leave it out of my Misleading Headline of the week series even though it’s only Monday.

Even at it most raw form I’m not sure the headline is even true. While there is more currency in circulation now than at any time in the history of the United States I’m not sure that translates directly to wealth. I suppose it is probably true as there are more people and that means more people will be dying and passing their money on to their heirs.

Still, it’s an awfully misleading headline and a rather dull story at that. Don’t bother reading it. Just head on over to my Books Page and transfer your wealth to me $2.99 at a time!

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

If you Know the Outcome it’s not Gambling – Atlantic City Casino Case

Baccarat_tableI just read an incredibly interesting legal story from the Associated Press about a case that happened in Atlantic City a little over two years ago.

A group of gamblers was playing the game of Baccarat at a table in Atlantic City when they noticed that the cards were coming out of the deck in original order. The decks themselves came from the manufacturer to the casino with the stipulation that they be shuffled beforehand. In this case the freshly opened cards were not so shuffled and emerging from the deck sequentially. The gamblers immediately noticed this and began making maximum bets winning over $1.5 million in short order.

The casino figured out what was happening and detained the gamblers and that’s when legal proceedings began. The gamblers filed a case against the casino for what they consider an illegal detention and that case is still being reviewed. Meanwhile the casino argued that they shouldn’t have to pay the money to the gamblers who still have the chips from the event but not the actual money.

Originally a judge ruled against the casino and a settlement was attempted but the gamblers refused to drop the illegal detention case so the other case went forward as well. Now the Superior Court of the region has agreed with the casino. Judge James Isman ruled that because the cards had not been shuffled, the game of mini-baccarat was illegal under state casino rules.

When I first read the case I was definitely on the side of the gamblers but I started to think about why the judge would thus rule and I’m no longer certain of my original opinion. I haven’t read the details of the case and I’m certainly not up on New Jersey gaming laws so my opinion here is largely speculation but that won’t stop me!

I think the judge ruled the way he did because the situation as described was no longer gambling. Let’s reverse the sides and say the casino had the deck setup in a way that the dealer knew about and used this to win hand after hand. This would clearly be a violation of the law even if the casino didn’t intentionally stack the deck in this manner. In order for it to be gambling I think there has to be an uncertain outcome.

An example would be the events in the movie The Sting where the antagonist hoped to cheat the house by laying down bets on races that had already finished. Would this case not fall under the same laws? Is it even possible that the gamblers themselves are guilty of a crime? The judge ordered that the casino doesn’t have to pay out the “winnings” although no charges have been filed against the gamblers.

Then there is the ethical aspect of the entire story. If you were presented with a way to win at a gambling game in which you knew the outcome; would you do so? For example, you know that a certain ticket will be pulled from a jar during a raffle and you are offered the ability to go through the ticket roll and purchase what will be the winning number. Would you do so? Is not doing so stealing in every sense of the word?

Judging by the comments below the original story I think most people are sympathetic with the gamblers and angry with the judge and the casino with the ruling. As I said, it’s an interesting case.

What do you think?

Any lawyers? Any lawyers from New Jersey familiar with gaming laws? I’d love to hear from people.

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

Dr. Mehmet Oz Testifies about Weight Loss Scams

Dr OzI’ve long known that most diets are merely money-making scams designed to fleece desperate people from their money and I don’t really follow the industry with much interest. Today I spotted a blog post about a fellow named Dr. Mehmet Oz who has been invited by Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill to testify to the Senate about weight-loss scams.

I’m a bit jaded when it comes to irony, hypocrisy, and outright lying from our elected officials but when a senator from my home state invites possibly the biggest purveyor of fake diet scams to the rather less than hallowed halls of Congress to testify about the dangers of weight-loss scams, well, how can I not write a post about it?

The original post from Orac at Science Blogs does a great job of providing all the links you need to determine for yourself the nature of Dr. Oz and his various business operations. Oz is a recipient of the Randi Pigasus Award for Refusing to Face Reality and his various forms of weight-loss and medical advice are cited as doing more harm than good.

All that is well and good. It’s clear to me that Oz is a charlatan preying on people’s desire to lose weight quickly and easily so as to fleece them of money. As far as I’m concerned he’s allowed to do that as long as his actions don’t cross over into criminality. Apparently he has not yet crossed that line so he continues to sell goods on his television show without interference.

We live in a free country and if people are gullible enough to believe his obvious fabrications and exaggerations and want to hand him their money then that’s their right. Those who see through his lies don’t give him money. That’s the way freedom works. You’re free to do what you wish even if it’s foolish.

What really bothers me is this invitation to appear before the Senate. It’s not even that he is going to be railing against that which he is himself guilty of that bothers me. It’s not that I think the Senate still has the gravitas of the old days and that anyone who testifies there must be of good character. Those days are long gone. Still, why should he be a given legitimacy by our government that he clearly does not deserve? Are my tax-dollars going to house him, feed him, and transport him to these sessions?

Why does the United States government need to be involved at all? There are laws on the books about false advertising both from the Federal government and from various states. If Oz is breaking the law, arrest him. If he is skirting the law then it is up to people like Orac and the Randi Foundation to spread the word. It is up to people who want to lose weight to do due-diligence when looking for solutions.

The government can’t protect us from ourselves. If you’re foolish enough to purchase Green Coffee Bean extract in order to lose weight you deserve what you get. If Oz lied about the studies which showed its value in weight-loss he should be charged with a crime. Our politicians should focus on the real problems that this nation faces and not on inviting likely snake-oil sales representatives to speak to them about weight-loss scams.

The entire visit is a classic example of our politicians doing things that appear to be good in order to gain political capital. Look, we’re here to help you, they say. Vote for me.

I’ve got news for Congress. They are not here to help me. They are here to run the country properly.

I’ve got news for all my readers out there trying to lose weight. It’s hard. You have to cut your caloric intake not just today, not just this month, but long-term, day after day after day. You have to exercise regularly. Eat more fruits and vegetables. Go to the gym at least four days a week. I’m not saying it’s easy, I’m saying it’s hard. You can listen to me or you can listen to Oz. Your choice.

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