Author Archives: Tom Liberman

California Eggs and the Commerce Clause

Posted on by

Commerce ClauseThe Attorney General of my home state of Missouri just filed a case in federal court over a California law concerning purchasing chicken eggs. The basic premise is that the California legislature has decided that chickens kept in small coops are being abused. Having watched a few videos (graphic content, beware) I can’t say I disagree.

No one is disputing that California can pass laws regulating their own state but what Missouri, Iowa, and other chicken egg producing states are questioning is the effect that it will have on them. Missouri sells about 1.7 billion eggs to California consumers. This represents about 33% of their total sales. When California passes regulations about purchasing it affects states like Missouri.

If Missouri wants to keep those sales it must comply with the California regulation. Thus the lawsuit. Missouri says they are being forced by California to comply with regulations designed for that state. That California is forcing many states to comply with its own regulations. This all falls under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The clause is short and sweet but has had a huge impact on laws in the United States. I will end the suspense right away as to where I stand on this issue. As a Libertarian it is my opinion that the Commerce Clause has been stretched, twisted, and maimed beyond all recognition. It is used in all manner of things well beyond what I consider to be its original intent. It reads: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

In this case largely republicans dominated states are angry that they can’t sell to California without abiding by its rules. If you feel that way, go sell your eggs elsewhere. California is a massive state with a huge population and a giant impact on our economy. If you want to do business with them then abide by their laws. The same goes for Texas where there is much debate about the content of schoolbooks based upon Texas laws. If you decide their laws are burdensome and you don’t wish to participate, then don’t. If the price of eggs in California skyrocket maybe they will change their regulatory laws. Maybe other states will decide that the torturing of chickens is disgusting beyond description and pass the same laws themselves. It’s not up to Missouri to decide what California should do or vice-versa.

Anyone wishing to lambaste one party or the other over the implementation of the Commerce Clause merely needs to look at the various cases that include everything from milk, to guns, to health care, to marijuana. Both sides have eagerly and repeatedly attempted to use the clause to extend their own view of government power while attacking the other side for doing the same.

It is an incredible complex question and directly affects the power of the Judicial Branch to overrule the Legislative Branch. It speaks to State’s Rights. When the Judiciary restricts a law it means that judges are overriding the power of elected officials. When states pass laws that hurt other states and this is overruled it means that Congress has power over the states. There are many, many cases and a great deal of literature on the Clause.

I think where the law often goes wrong is when it assumes the federal government has the authority to create a “fair” commercial field. There are examples of the Commerce Clause being used for ostensibly “good” reasons. Result of which made commerce easier and better for American citizens. This is not, in my opinion, a legitimate reason to grant the federal government this power.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Why you Should Ignore Rules and Procedures

Posted on by

Slavish Insistence on Following RulesI’m a big fan of rules and procedures. I’m rather a pest in the office when it comes to such things. Well written procedures are extremely useful in running an efficient operation. There are any number of ways to do something but generally one method has emerged as the best. When rules and procedures are not followed there are often problems.

I’m a proponent of stop-signs and no right hand turn on red regulations at particular intersections. There are generally good reasons for these things and following the rules and regulations is a benefit for everyone. When people stop following the rules things can become chaotic, inefficient, and error-prone.

So, why am I writing about ignoring rules and procedures? Because rules and procedures don’t exist without purpose. They are merely an attempt to codify a method by which things are most efficiently done and to prevent mistakes and even tragedy. If we do not understand the purpose of rules and procedures and follow them slavishly under all circumstances then we not only undermine efficiency and safety but we give up our freedom.

This is the world of zero-tolerance. This is a world bereft of personal responsibility. This is a world where creativity is crushed and mindless obligation to duty praised.

In my office we have a lot of computer equipment. This equipment ends up coming into the office and going out of the office. It moves from location to location in our office. It is very easy to lose track of this equipment and then there is a problem. Projectors go missing, laptops go missing, servers go missing. These things cost a lot of money and where there is inadequate tracking there is the opportunity for theft.

I teach training classes and we have a group of machines that have Microsoft Office 2007 on them and another with Office 2010. This week I have a very small class, two students, for Office 2007 followed immediately by a very large class for 2010.

The room where I teach is generally setup for Office 2010 with thirteen machines. For the small class I had to get three (one for the instructor) computers from our lockup and put them in the room. I wrote down the asset tag numbers for these computers and notified the appropriate person that they had been moved.

I was asked what happened to the three machines that had been removed, did they go back into lockup? No, I just stashed them behind my podium as the next day I’d be returning them to their original station.

That’s not the procedure I was told.

It’s not a big deal but this what I’m getting at. I wasn’t punished, no one is in trouble. Those three machines were in the room, stayed in the room, and will be replaced in their original position after being displaced for about 48 hours. The purpose of the procedure was to make sure they weren’t misplaced. It is my assertion that there was no danger of that in this case, and therefore the procedures can safely be ignored. It was agreed I was correct and the tracking was not performed on those three machines.

This is a reasonable outcome. The procedure didn’t make sense in this particular case. If we had followed procedure it would have taken time for me to note the three moved machines and taken time for the tracking person to fill out the appropriate forms in SharePoint both “moving” from the room and the back into the same place. This would have been a waste of time with no gain. Not a huge thing but an effort nonetheless.

This is the sort of slavish reliance on regulation that a fearful society embraces, that a tyrant embraces. This is a police officer giving you a ticket for an illegal right-hand turn on red early on a Sunday morning when there is no traffic for miles. This is a student suspended from school for cutting a cookie into the shape of a firearm. This is a society afraid of personal responsibility.

It’s a recipe for tyranny and I don’t like it, much though I love rules and regulations.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Websites Designed to Deceive – Modern Politics

Posted on by

Misleading WebsiteI just read an interesting story about how the National Republican Congressional Committee has launched a series of websites designed to raise funds. What’s interesting about the sites is that a quick perusal suggests that are designed to raise donations for a Democratic candidate.

If you go to the site that is mentioned in the article you will see that at first glance it pretty clearly associates itself with the Democratic candidate and only when you notice one word do you realize that it is actually a fundraising site for Republicans.

There is a picture of the democratic candidate with her name and the word Congress on it. It apparently uses the same color scheme as the candidates own website but it notes that you will be contributing to defeat that candidate, not to that candidate.

The article mentions that democrats are not innocent in all this nonsense as there is this site that is designed to deceive.

I’m sure my democratic friends will call the republicans evil lying schemers and my republican friends will laugh at how stupid and gullible are democrats. If the situation was reversed the reaction would be the same from opposite sides.

People don’t care if you lie, steal, and cheat to win an election. They expect it. They pat you on the back when you win. As long as its your side doing it, it’s fine.

Any news story that has factual information crediting one side is dismissed by the other. Any movement in a reasonable direction by one side is attacked by the other.

There is little rational discourse. The talking heads blame each other and the citizens of our nation get down on their knees, lap up the lies, and beg for more. As long as the lies come from their side.

There is an unwillingness to play fair, to behave with honor.

In the United States greed is good. Winning is the only thing. Integrity has no place in our nation anymore and certainly not at the voting booth.

Then the voters are absolutely stunned to find someone from their party is involved in campaign finance shenanigans. Dismayed I tell you!

Well, if you keep voting for the best liar, what sort of person do you expect will represent you in Congress?

Here’s the thing. For all my gloom and doom; we vote in an entirely new government every six years. Two years for the House of Representatives, four for the Presidency, and six for the Senate.

At the end of every six-year period we have had a chance to elect men and women with integrity. Men and women who want what’s best for our nation, not their political party.

I’m not giving up! I’m going to continue to vote entirely Independent be it Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, or Gary Johnson. I’m going to continue to write this blog.

Maybe my votes and my blog won’t solve what ails this nation, but they sure can’t make it worse.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Fellatio, Homosexual Couples, SodaStream, and the Super Bowl

Posted on by

Fellatio InnuendoI wrote earlier last week that Fox Network refused to air an advertisement from a company that sells soda making equipment because it referenced rivals Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

They didn’t give any explanation as to why they refused to air the ad but the assumption is that they didn’t want to offend two of their largest sponsors; Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Certainly both of those companies mention each other in advertisement and significantly more negatively than the Soda Stream ad mentions them.

However, Soda Stream is a small company that doesn’t spend millions of dollars on advertisement on many other shows; therefore Fox made their decision. Offending Soda Stream will not cost Fox potentially huge amounts of revenue. I explained in the first article why I thought Fox had the right to advertise what they wanted but that this forced alteration smacked of censorship and was certainly an example of the Crony Capitalism that is subverting the economic principles of our country.

That is not the focus of today’s blog. Today I want to talk about how it is apparently perfectly acceptable for an advertisement to state pretty openly that a man wants oral sex from the woman next to him. That it’s completely all right to have a homosexual couple in an advertisement. That a halftime show can be filled with sexually suggestive songs and dances (this year was largely bereft of such displays but I’m talking more generally). There can even be wardrobe malfunctions that are intentionally planned to expose a woman’s breast.

Personally I don’t have a problem with any of these things. I’m actually rather fond of women’s breasts. I’m not opposed to fellatio from an attractive woman, and I don’t have a problem with a homosexual couple. Let’s face reality; some people will have problems with all of these things. I have a problem with commercials where couples (gay or straight) are sticking tongues down each other’s throats. There are always going to be some things, that someone, somewhere, will find objectionable.

The question I want to explore is the remedy to this problem. The people who find these things objectionable now go to our government, namely the FCC, to try to get that agency to penalize those who create and display the content.

I don’t doubt that the FCC will see a litany of complaints this morning. To me this is the heart of the problem. We look to the government to redress grievances over which they should have no jurisdiction. You don’t like seeing a man ask a woman for oral sex and the woman apparently relishing the idea? Then organize a few friends and boycott the network or the product. It’s easy today with the internet to find like-minded people. If enough of you make a fuss, there will be changes.

If you don’t like seeing homosexual couples on your television during the Super Bowl but the majority of people have decided that it’s ok to show them? Well, don’t watch the Super Bowl.

If a friend makes a very sweet comment about breastfeeding her newborn son and that offends you, then tell your friend. If you think it’s sweet then Like the post. The internet is the age of the individual. It is a Libertarian’s dream world.

Take charge of your life and don’t look to the government to do it for you. If you empower the government to ban things, don’t be surprised when they ban something you like. Power to the people! Better yet, power to me!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Say What? Bad Oppo Dump Stupid Headline

Posted on by

Oppo DumpIn an era of bad journalism, sensational headlines, and opinion pieces that masquerade as news, The Daily Beast stands out for the latter. It’s almost a joke of a website with their articles so biased and slanted I’ve largely ignored it for stupid headlines.

But I couldn’t pass up this one:

Chris Christie’s Terrible Horrible No Good Very Bad Oppo Dump.

Huh? I’m guessing it has to do with the bridge incident in New Jersey wherein aides of Christie ordered a major commuter bridge closed as punishment for a rival’s actions.

After trying to read the article and failing because it makes about as much sense as the headline; I present to you the Stupid or Misleading headline of the week!

Congratulations on your first winning entry Daily Beast!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Kansas and the Anti-Google Bill – Capitalism at its Finest

Posted on by

Ban GoogleI’ve been railing against Crony Capitalism on this blog for about as long as I’ve been writing it. There are any number of instances where a business decides that the best way to get a bigger market share is to bribe legislatures to pass laws destroying their competition.

There’s an blatant case of this going on in Kansas although because the company that was being legislated out of business is a big boy, Google, the fight just got ugly.

Basically the large cable companies that “serve” the people of Kansas; Comcast, Cox, Eagle Communications, and Time Warner Cable, submitted, on their own, a bill to the Kansas State legislature. You can read all about the bill but it basically prevents any municipality in Kansas from providing broadband service to their customers or hiring anyone to do it.

The stated reason for the bill is that legislatures, bought by campaign funds from cable companies, don’t think it’s fair for tax dollars to be used in competition with private companies. It seems reasonable on the surface but try to remember how you get your water, electric, and gas. The real reason for the bill is that communities are starting to provide, on their own, wireless access to the internet. Kansas City partnered with Google to provide fiber-optic speed internet access to their community.

This bill hasn’t passed yet and the uproar has already forced the legislature to offer tweaks but the reality is that is the way business is done in the United States and it’s not good for consumers.

The cable companies have essentially had monopolies in their communities since their inception. Read this article from the Cato Institute. Basically cable providers pay municipalities huge sums of money so they can be the only source of television in an area. Yet somehow the legislation being proposed doesn’t outlaw this sweetheart deal.

Changing technology in the form of broadband internet is altering the game organically but cable companies fear they will lose their audience because people are unhappy with the service they get. The solution, of course, is to try to legislate away competition, not actually provide a service that people like.

I strongly suspect that this particular piece of legislation will fail and their will be general rejoicing. However, the reality is that this is the way business is done in the United States and it is destroying capitalism, destroying our faith in our country, destroying our faith in elected officials, destroying our trust of the judiciary, and contributing greatly to the trend of monetary inequality.

Liberals argue that big business is the source of this inequality while conservatives cite over-regulation. The real culprit is Crony Capitalism. When a business conspires with a government agency to eliminate competition through legislation rather than providing a better product the fallout is dangerous to us all.

True competition is the best wealth distributor. Crony Capitalism concentrates wealth in the hands not of the best business but with those businesses that know best how to bribe their legislatures into eliminating competition.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

 

Why Writing Posthumous Notes to your Children is Selfish

Posted on by

posthumous lettersI’m not going to win any friends with this post but there’s a trend I’ve noted of late that I find unhealthy. I just read yet another story in which a soon to be deceased person plans to write a long series of messages to their child.

This trend apparently took its cue from the movie P.S. I Love You.

I don’t doubt for a moment that Garth Callaghan has only the best intentions as he pens a note a day to his young daughter. He wants to express that he loves her and offer her advice as she moves on in life. He knows that he might die in the near future and wants to let his daughter know he loves and cares about her.

As well-intentioned as these notes are, I think they are ultimately selfish. They are about him and not his daughter. They are about his unwillingness to accept the fact that death might be imminent. He wants to remain alive and imagines he is doing so by writing these notes. I’ve not see P.S. I Love You but the premise, from what I can tell, is the same. That the dead husband has only the interests of his widow at heart. That he wants to help her move on with life. I’m certain this was exactly the result of his letters in the make-believe world of movies.

It’s my opinion a series of posthumous letters from a dead relative cannot possibly ease the loss but only exacerbate them. Constant reminders of your dead father, husband, wife, or dog cannot be good for a person’s mental well-being. Yes, it’s good to have memories, loving memories. I’m not even saying a long-farewell letter shouldn’t be written. I’m suggesting this constant barrage of letters telling a loved one how to act or how much you still love them, even after death, is purely selfish and not in the interest of your loved one.

I’m not questioning the motivation, just the action. If we want to tell someone we love them we should do it, now. If we want to give someone some advice, we should do so. This idea that I have all the answers and will continue to do so even from beyond the grave is delusional and selfish.

I know my opinion on this isn’t going to be popular. I don’t think Callaghan is intentionally doing harm.

Some people might argue that this very blog is all about Tom Liberman and not about the reader. They’d be right! It is about me. It’s my opinions. I’m expressing them because I think they should be heard. But have no doubt, this blog is selfish and it’s largely about me, me, me. I want you to read the blog, click the links to my books, and purchase them.

Before you lay into me about how wrong I am, I would like you to honestly answer one question. After that, do as you will.

If you were to write a bunch of letters or emails or whatever to a loved one to be delivered after your death; are you doing it for your loved one or are you doing it for you?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Doffing and Donning the Final Decision

Posted on by

Donning and DoffingI recently wrote about the case before the Supreme Court which asked the question of whether or not a company must pay their workers for time spent putting on and taking off required clothing and safety gear. The main issue being safety gear.

Well, the court has ruled!

In my original blog I discussed how difficult a question the court was examining. I found it not surprising that most of the commenters didn’t think it was a tricky question and wondered why the court was examining something so “simple”. Most people thought the case was rather silly but the reality is that industry was watching it very closely. There are many jobs which require a uniform or considerable safety equipment and the amount of time spent changing clothes can run from a few minutes to more than an hour for “clean room” laboratories. Police Officers, Firemen, food industry workers, mill workers, the list goes on and on and it was an important question. Are companies required to pay people for the time they spend doffing and donning?

My suggestion was that some minimal change time be the responsibility of the employees and anything over it be the responsibility of the company. Let’s say five minutes to change in and out of clothes at the beginning and end of the workday. So, if it takes an emergency technician eight minutes to change in and out of clothes they must be paid for the three minutes over the “free” period.

What did the Supreme Court decide? In a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia they decided it was not their business. If a contract between employees and a business stipulates that donning and doffing should be paid time then, it should be so; it not, it shouldn’t.

This is viewed as a “win” for U.S. Steel because the current contract with the union does not pay for such time. The reality is that the union will just have to negotiate such pay in future contracts. It’s not really a “win” for anyone, it just clarifies the law. If you want to be paid for donning and doffing then you have to make sure it’s in the contract.

Upon reflection and reading the opinion I’m in agreement. My system would, as Justice Scalia points out, convert federal judges into time-study professionals.

It’s good when laws are clarified so that everyone knows the rules and can write contracts accordingly. People may view this as a win for business and a loss for employees but I don’t see it that way. Employees who spend considerable time donning and doffing will have to make sure their contracts cover such events. Companies that want to attract the best and hardest working employees understand they will have to offer such compensation where a large amount of time is spent in such activities.

I would tell the Justices “good job” but I don’t think they much need to hear it from the likes of me.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Scarlett Johansson and the Banned Phrase

Posted on by

Scarlett and SodaStreamSuper Bowl 48 (yes, I wrote 48, not LXVIII) is fast approaching and that means it is time for advertising executives to get their game face on. I suppose the players need to prep as well.

There’s an interesting controversy that gives me the opportunity to write a blog about Scarlett Johansson, football, capitalism, and my libertarian ideology.

Win, win, win, and win!

Scarlett is doing an advertisement for a company called SodaStream that allows people to make soda in their home from raw ingredients rather than having to purchase finished soda.

There is another controversy over the fact that SodaStream is an Israeli company with a factory in the West Bank but that’s not what I’m going to talk about today. What I want to talk about is a commercial SodaStream planned to run during the Super Bowl in which Scarlett says, “Sorry, Coke and Pepsi“.

This was apparently enough for Fox, who is airing the game, to refuse to the show it. They have told SodaStream to change those words to something that doesn’t mention the two beverage giants by name.

Some countries have laws against comparative advertising but the United States actually encourages it as long as the comparisons are clearly identified, truthful, and non-deceptive.

So what’s the problem? Pepsi and Coca-Cola are both sponsors of the Super Bowl and advertisements shown by both companies are much more aggressive against each other than is this SodaStream advertisement against them. Coca-cola representatives claim they didn’t put any pressure on Fox to refuse to air the commercial.

I suspect it is an effort by someone at the Fox Network to curry favor from Coca-cola and Pepsi. Normally I would say that it’s their network and they have the right to refuse a commercial. I only wish they had censored the Go Daddy, Bar Refaeli kissing scene from Super Bowl 47. I’m eating here!

But this refusal seems to be for no good reason and smacks of censorship, favoritism, and particularly crony capitalism.

Of course, it accomplishes the opposite of what was desired in that it gives SodaStream a huge amount of free publicity and everyone will want to see the original ad.

That being the case, I can’t get overly angry about Fox’s decision but I don’t like it. It’s difficult enough for a small company to take on an Enterprise Business in the world today. If small businesses aren’t even allowed to advertise as they desire, within the realms of legality, then their uphill struggle is even greater.

Competition is good. Suppression of competition is bad. What’s good for our country is the free exercise of capitalism, not Crony Capitalism.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Misleading Headline Crowdfunding and Zach Braff

Posted on by

ZachBraff and CrowdfundingZach Braff tried to destroy crowdfunding, at least that’s what the headline seems to proclaim.

Despite Zach Braff, crowdfunding Continues to Grow.

The article goes on to explain how Braff’s crowdfunding movie project, Wish I Was Here, brought a whole new level of interest to the idea of crowdfunding which is exactly the opposite of what the headline suggests.

For those of you who are not familiar with the idea of crowdfunding I’ll explain. The concept is that you start a project and anyone donates money towards it in exchange for future rewards dependent on the level of money given. For a movie perhaps you would get entrance to the screening and attend an after-party with Braff.

As I read the comments below the story there was a distinctly negative tone to them. People were angry that the wealthy, like Braff, were asking regular people for money to fund projects. The comments were filled with angry people suggesting that anyone donating money was a fool.

I shook my head, why this animosity, why the anger? Time to put on my Critical Thinking cap. Who would be against crowdfunding?

A quick perusal of the Wiki article brings immediate clarity to the subject. Bankers. Legislation is already signed and regulation is on the way. I expect a veritable flotilla of articles and politicians trying to convince us how dangerous is crowdfunding and how it must be regulated. All for our own protection, of course.

Let’s imagine for a moment a community needs a road repaired. In the past the government would contract out to do this using bonds. Perhaps a business needs to make a capital improvement and they raise money by borrowing it from a bank. The money is returned with interest.

In a crowdfunding situation who is left out of the equation? Banks.

I contribute to a cause of my choosing directly. I’m aware of exactly what my “interest” payment will be. Perhaps I fund a Kickstarter campaign for a Pathfinder Compatible Role-Playing Game called Throne of Night. I give $150 dollars and, if it is completed, get all the books in the campaign signed by the authors.

Naturally there is a risk. The books might not be finished; although there are then legal remedies to get my money back. Crowdfunding is considered a legal contract.

Crowdfunding appeals directly to my Libertarian ideology. If a community cannot raise the funds for a road improvement then perhaps the improvement was not needed.

The idea is certainly appealing to people as more and more projects are funded this way. Imagine a world where projects that are the most worthwhile to people are the ones that get financial backing. Wasteful projects that appeal to a very few cannot get funded. You loan directly to friends; you take out loans not from banks but from a group of people who believe in you. Tax dollars not needed because projects were funded directly by the willing.

Is there danger? Certainly. Is it possible that a hugely valuable project isn’t appealing to the masses and doesn’t get completed? Yes. Can you lose your investment to shady operators? Absolutely. Are your neighbors going to crowdfund your gutter replacement, probably not.

I’m certainly not suggesting that crowdfunding can pay for all capital expenses but each project funded by people is one less funded by banks. That’s money out of someone’s pocket.

I expect to see a big push to vilify crowdfunding. It’s a danger to a certain group of people. People who have a lot of money and a lot of power in politics.

Where do you stand?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Psyche Mission – How Big is Big?

Posted on by

Psyche AsteroidI read an article the other day about how scientists would like to send a probe to an asteroid called Psyche (16 Psyche). The article itself focused on the fact that the asteroid is thought to be made up almost entirely of iron-nickel. It is irregularly shaped at 240x185x140 kilometers.

This was not a particularly “sexy” science article and didn’t attract the usual stream of trolls. A healthy number of the comments were from science geeks like myself. I’m not sure they would embrace the term geek, as do I.

Much of the talk centered around bringing Psyche into Earth orbit and mining the metal. One person mentioned the weight of Psyche 2.27x10E+19 (10 times 10 times 10, nineteen times) kilograms and how moving such a massive object would not be easy. Most people skipped right over this reality. I think because the number is really too large to fully comprehend.

I wanted to see if I could figure out the math and maybe get an idea in my mind how big is BIG. The NASA calculation is based on the influence that Psyche has on the orbit of objects around it but I hoped to figure out how much a roughly 200 kilometer sphere of iron would weigh. Math is not my strong suit so off to the Internet I went.

We need to be able to calculate the volume of a sphere and know the density of iron.

The volume of a sphere is calculated by this formula: 4/3*Pi*radius^3 (cubed).

Iron has a density of 7.87 grams per cubic centimeter.

So to get the volume comparable with the density we need to convert the roughly 200 kilometers into centimeters. Easily done. There are 100 centimeters in a meter and 1,000 meters in a kilometer so there are 100,000 centimeters in a kilometer. Multiply that by 200 and we get 20 million centimeters.

Our equation thus reads 4/3*Pi*20,000,000^3.

The next thing we need to know is that math isn’t always done left to right, it’s done by something called an Order of Operations. Some of you might remember Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally. The operator takes precedent over left to right.

  1. Parenthesis
  2. Exponential
  3.  Multiply and Divide
  4. Add and Subtract

The upshot of that is we take 20 million cubed first. Then go back and take 4/3*Pi and multiply the cubed result by that. The volume is 3.35103E+22.

From here is relative simple to multiply that result by the 7.87 grams per cubic centimeter density of iron and then convert grams into pounds for many in my audience. I ended up with a result of 5.81E+20 lbs or 2.64E+20 kilograms.

My numbers don’t match the official mass of Psyche likely because I roughly guessed the spherical size and based the entire weight on the density of iron. Both of these were estimates but the result I got is fairly close to the official mass and I think I’ve done my math right.

What’s the point of all this?

When it is noted that Psyche has a mass of about 2.27x10E+19 kilograms what we are really saying is that it weighs this much:

  • 22,700,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms
  • 50,044,933,515,967,200,000 pounds.

No wonder most people just skipped over it. That number is so big it’s almost as if it doesn’t exist at all. We cannot imagine such a thing and yet Psyche is just a fairly large object in the asteroid belt. The biggest object in the asteroid belt is called Ceres and contains more fresh water than is found on earth.

What’s the point of all of this?

I suppose I’m suggesting that we stop and smell the density. Having a great idea, mining iron from Psyche, is a good thing; but don’t ignore obstacles because they are difficult to grasp. They are the most important thing to consider in any plan.

Think about how Big is Big and what difficulties it presents. Not just in mining an asteroid but in everything you do.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

What’s the Best Thing that happened to you Today?

Posted on by

Happy MomentAs I walked into my yoga class today the instructor asked me the following question: What’s the best thing that happened to you today?

People have accused me of being too literal, of over-thinking, and of other general traits wherein I take something apparently simple and make it difficult. I’ll run through my thoughts about that question and then you let you decided if I do exhibit such traits.

So, what did I think when asked that seemingly simple question?

Today is the day I published my new website and that was pretty nice but the act of publishing was not a particularly great accomplishment. All the work I did in making it, building the pages, styling, creating the navigation, writing the content, and more led up to a relatively simple moment.

Once the site was published came the task of trying to figure what was wrong, with the help of Dave Mueller, and fixing it. Eventually most of the mistakes were ironed out but a few tasks need still be finished.

So I asked myself, what was the best part of all of that, and was any of it better than the fact that on a snowy, blustery, bad driving sort of day I timed every light perfectly and barely slowed down all the way from my driveway to my favorite parking spot at work?

So much happens to us in a day and most of it is good. The alarm goes off when it could have failed. The power stayed on overnight and everything was warm when I awoke despite the cold outside. Was this the “best” thing that happened to me all day? For if the power went out and I woke to a frozen house with bursting pipes,well certainly that would have been much worse than delaying my website for a day.

Many people when asked about the best thing that ever happened to them will recall weddings, graduations, births of children, and things of this nature but none of them happened in isolation from the rest of life. You did not instantly marry your spouse but made a series of decisions, presumably good ones, that led to that moment. Is there in fact such a thing as a best thing in a day or a life?

Each incident is part of the whole. How am I to rank them? In my drive to work which of the several green lights I arrived at in succession was the best? Were they all equal? Was the last the best? The first?

I ran these thoughts by my yoga instructor who looked at me with wide eyes, I didn’t think I was asking that complicated a question, she said.

That’ll teach her. Ha!

Then I realized my answer. The question was the answer. For the question inspired me to think, and thinking is the thing I love the most. It also inspired me to write this blog and I truly enjoy writing this blog.

What’s the best thing that happened to you today?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

New WordPress CMS Website

Posted on by

New WebsiteI’ve had a website for a couple of years now but it was hand-coded and difficult to maintain. I decided to update to a WordPress based website using a Responsive Theme. I’m not the best at site design but I think the new one looks lots better than the old one.

WordPress makes it so easy to edit content that I’m sure I’ll keep this one much more up-to-date than the old one.

https://www.tomliberman.com

I think it’s a lot easier to navigate and if you want to purchase any of my books there are easy to find buttons that will take you to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Smashwords.

All in all I think it’s a huge improvement.

Check it out and tell me what you think.

Thanks, WordPress!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

 

Netflix Doomed! – Stupid Headline of the Week

Posted on by

Netflix Stupid HeadlineThe financial sector seems to be the most rife with stupid headlines although this week it’s The Street instead of Motley Fool that takes the prize.

Netflix Could Crash – Hard – Next Week boldly screams the headline.

When you click on the article you find a highly speculative piece of fluff wherein the author has a hunch, based on the assumed ulterior motives of another story, that this might be the quarter that Netflix doesn’t meet its subscriber expectations.

Now Rocco could be correct about Netflix, but this article is so speculative and filled with assumption, rather than any actual metrics, that it’s hard not to ridicule the author. Let’s just say I wouldn’t want him providing me with financial advice. It’s not only a stupid headline but the article is probably worse.

Enjoy.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (buy it, read it, write a review, buy it again!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

 

Robert Gates and the War Powers Resolution

Posted on by

Separation of powersFormer Defense Secretary Robert Gates is out hawking his book Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War and he’s making a few people angry. He’s a man who tells it like he thinks it and there are some candid criticisms (and praise) about the men and women he’s served with; including Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and others.

The man is trying to sell books and make some money, an endeavor I intimately understand. That being said his latest criticisms struck a nerve for me. He accuses Congress of abrogating their responsibilities in regards to the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Robert Gates

Gates presided as Secretary of Defense over two wars he now seems to think should not have happened. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars started during the Bush administration. One continues to this day and the other of which we will face consequences from for the foreseeable future.

I’m not going to debate the wars (Or Gates’s various criticisms) but I do want to discuss that idea that Federal and State elected representatives continue to weaken themselves and allow an increased amount of power to flow to the Executive branch. In particular the War Powers Resolution.

As an Independent I hear the complaints of friends who are both Democrats and Republican and it might come as a surprise to my partisan friends (but not fellow independents) that the complaints about concentration of power in the Executive Branch are exactly the same from both and always come from the side not currently occupying the office.

War Powers Resolution

It was argued the War Powers Resolution was designed to make the United States a safer place by allowing the President to make aggressive war, on short notice, without approval from Congress. The reality is that Congress didn’t want to be held responsible for the unpopular decision to send men off to war, off to die. It should be an unpopular decision, it should be a difficult decision to make. We shouldn’t be in the business of making the decision easier and laying the blame on others.

Voting

President Nixon vetoed the act but Congress override the veto.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 244 – 170, the Senate by votes of 75 – 20 and 75 -18 (on the veto override).

The breakdown by party for those interested is:

House of Representatives (65 not voting)

Yes: 162 Democrats, 75 Republican

No: 38 Democrats 84 Republicans

Senate (3 not voting)

Yes: 47 Democrats and 27 Republicans

No: 7 Democrats and 12 Republicans.

The override vote was largely the same with a few more Yes votes from both parties.

One must be cautious assigning blame or credit to one party or the other because it’s a fairly common tactic for those that are actually for a bill to vote against it once they know there are enough votes to pass. Because the Democrats were in power they largely made the decision although if enough Republicans had united it likely would have been blocked.

Republicans have had sole control of Congress at times since 1973, and so have Democrats, and yet the War Powers Resolution remains in force. It could have easily been repealed at those times by either party. Easily. It has not because those in charge like the trappings of power, it is those out of power who scream of the abuses only to become silent when they get elected.

Solutions?

I don’t see any because, from what I can tell, the average US citizen is as adverse to accepting responsibility for mistakes as are elected officials, no surprise that.

The next time you get into a debate and your opponent brings up a valid point do a little self-analysis on your response. Did you acknowledge the opposing idea or did you deflect, launch a counter-attack, and blame someone else? Did you even listen to the other side?

I leave you with a single thought. The Founding Fathers created a government with Separation of Powers for a very good reason. If that separation is eroding, what does it mean for our future?

Tom Liberman

No Shoppers, No Stores

Posted on by

Retail Foot TrafficWarning – Warning – Warning! Boring economic blog ahead.

I just finished what I think is a great article about how foot traffic at retail stores is dropping dramatically and how less retail space is opening each year in the United States.

Great news? For the doomsayers it means that Americans have no money and aren’t doing any shopping. I take an entirely different view. Firstly, Americans aren’t going to the store nearly as often because they can do most of their shopping online. That much is pretty obvious and is a trend that has been going on for a number years. The second thing I think it means is that Americans are more wary of going deeply into debt to purchase things.

The most recent economic crisis made us wary, just like it made those who survived the Great Depression big savers. For too long the government has encouraged us, nay, bribed us to spend, spend, spend.

From 1946 to 1973 the US economy grew by an average of 3.8% a year and median household income grew by 2.1% a year. The children of the Great Depression died and their children grew up expecting an expanding economy that would go on forever.

Since 1973 the economy has grown at an average rate of 2.7% a year and median household income has grown by 0.3% per year. Even these number were largely propped up by your tax dollars in the form of “Stimulus”. It started under President Reagan, the Democratically controlled House, and a Senate controlled by Republicans from 1981 to 1987. They managed to triple our national debt trying to stave off economic recession.

It’s been nothing but the same since. Ever increasing national debt in the pursuit of economic growth to match the post World War II era. That’s not my point today. My point today is that it just might be possible that Americans are voluntarily tightening their belts!

I know the naysayers will claim we are still in a depression, the unemployment numbers are higher than they seem. It’s funny, when a republican is President it’s my democrat friends who claim the numbers are rigged but when it’s a democrat in the White House it’s my republican friends who make the exact same argument. Thus you gain a little glimpse into the life of an Independent.

The reality is the numbers are rigged, but they are the same number so they are useful as comparison tools. The equations are largely unchanged, and if they show the economy is growing and the deficit is shrinking, it is doing so in comparison to numbers from previous years.

I can also judge by personal stories of friends in various businesses. Things are going much better, for virtually everyone I know, than they were in four years ago. Not that I think the policies of the democrats or republicans are to be credited or blamed, it’s more of a natural cyclical event.

So, if the economy is growing, certainly not booming, why are retailers not building, why are shoppers not shopping? Online spending is up immensely but not quite enough to cover the losses of the retail brick and mortar stores.

It’s certainly possible I’m wrong and that Americans are not becoming more frugal but it’s undeniable that we’re staying home to do our shopping. This is something I’ve spoken about in before. Read that blog to understand why I think it’s such a great thing, I won’t reiterate here.

So, when I hear fewer shopping malls are opening, when I hear that foot traffic in existing malls is way down, well, it brings a smile to my face. Then again, I’m an introvert. See you online!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (buy it, read it, write a review, buy it again!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Why I’m Against College Football Playoffs

Posted on by

BCS National ChampionshipI saw an article this morning about how Aaron Rodgers, quarterback of the Green Bay Packers, didn’t like the Bowl Championship Series in college football and would prefer a sixteen team playoff. I think he is likely in the majority. Most people would prefer to see a playoff and we’re going to get one starting next year when the top four teams will playoff for the NCAA National Championship.

The arguments for a playoff center around the possibility that the eventual NCAA football champion generally has not proven itself to be the best team on the field. There are often multiple teams with equal records and the champion is picked through a series of formulas and human driven polls. This leads to a murky picture when it comes to a single champion.

In many forms of college sports there is a championship at the end the year with the most notable being basketball with March Madness. It is the same in wrestling, baseball, swimming, and other sports so it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the same with football.

I’m not going to say that people who want a playoff, be it sixteen teams or just four teams, are wrong. I’m just saying that I prefer the Bowl Games.

My rational is simple. It’s better for the kids playing the game. The vast majority of the seniors will be playing their last organized football game. Most of them won’t be going on to a professional career. These Bowl Games give those seniors one last memory, and for half of them, one last win.

As an example; the college team I most identify with is the University of Missouri and they lost in the SEC Championship match against Auburn. If there had been an eight team playoff it’s likely Missouri would have been invited. That means that they probably would have lost the last game of their season although it’s possible they would have emerged as the National Champion.

What happened is they got a great trip down to Arlington, Texas for the Cotton Bowl and managed to win a hard-fought battle against Oklahoma State. Those kids ended their college football career on an amazing high. Many of them were playing their last game of football, as I mentioned before. I think this is a good thing. I think it’s great that a young athlete can go out with a win, a memory. It think it outweighs the public’s desire for an outright National Champion.

I realize that most people disagree with me. I realize there is a lot of money to be made in a playoff system. I realize people find the current system unsatisfying.

My reasoning boils down to the rather simple idea that the game is for the players; not the fans, not the networks, not the college presidents, not the highly paid broadcasters and sideline reporters, not the NCAA enforcement bureau, not the stadium contractors, and not for me.

Maybe the Aaron Rodgers of the world disagree with me but I’d like to think that there are a lot of guys out there, sitting in an office, who won their last game and cherish the memory and the trophy.

I guess about some things I’m just hopelessly naive.

I doubt I will make many converts with this blog and I’m certain I won’t bring about any change, but I wrote it anyway.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Can Bourbon be Japanese? Jim Beam Sold to Suntory

Posted on by

Jim BeamAs I get older I find that I don’t enjoy drinking as much as I did as a lad but I still enjoy a beer, scotch, gin, or whiskey now and again. I started drinking whiskey about twenty years ago when a friend of mine and I frequented a little place here in St. Louis that doesn’t exist anymore. We decided to have a little taste-testing excursion with bourbon. I’ve never looked back!

None of this is really pertinent to the story but perhaps explains why I was a little distressed to find that the iconic bourbon maker Jim Beam was being purchased by a Japanese company called Suntory. Judging by the comments I read at the bottom of the story; I think most people had my initial reaction to the sale, distress. I thought I’d write a blog on why it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Jim Beam is certainly an iconic American whiskey but those of us who imagine the romantic ideal of the family owned business that is beyond the globalization of today’s market are living in a fantasy realm. Beam purchased National Brands and renamed it Fortune Brands in 1987. This purchase brought with it a number of liquor brands and other products. By the time 2010 rolled around the company wasn’t doing so well and Fortune Brands began to spin-off their non-spirit components. The remaining company ended up being called Beam Inc.

During this time they worked hand-in-hand with a number of foreign companies namely Pernod Ricard of France. In addition they sold much of their wine operations to Constellation Brands. For most of the time they were also working directly with a Japanese brewing and distillery company named Suntory.

Beam acted as distributor for Suntory in a number of nations while Suntory did the same from Beam in other countries.

This is reality. We live in a global market and business leaders understand this. The next time you speak with a wealthy person ask them what percentage of their portfolio is in U.S. stocks. It’s not just about average folks purchasing Asian goods at Walmart. This is the world in which we live and those who don’t understand it are doomed to fall by the wayside.

We can spend our energy writing vitriolic comments about how United States has less economic power in the world but it’s not going to reverse the trend. We can complain and moan about how a great American Distillery has been sold out but the other option is worse; they are swamped by larger and more profitable companies and vanish.

While there are certainly dangers to globalization it is the reality of modern business. If you want the United States and the companies therein to bury their head in the sand, to wave their flags and ignore the economics of the actual world, well, be prepared for what happens.

I know we don’t like to hear it but its embrace globalization or be buried by it. This isn’t a joke, ask the CEO of any Fortune 1,000 company. Ask Parker and Craig Beam. They get it.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

When 3rd Place is really 4th – Mirai Nagasu and Ashley Wagner

Posted on by

Nagusa WagnerThe 2014 winter Olympics in Sochi are fast approaching and many of the US athletes vying to get into the games are entering their final stages of preparation.

The US Olympic Figure Skating Championships, in which no figures are skated, just finished up in Boston and the third place finisher in the Senior ladies side was a young woman named Mirai Nagasu. The Championships are the last big event before the Olympics and generally, but not always, the top three finishers are chosen to represent the team.

I’m not going to go too deeply into a rant here because the reality is that events such as Non-Figure, Figure Skating are judged. Where there is judgment it is difficult to define a quantitative winner. Non-Figure, Figure Skating, Gymnastics, Diving, Ice Dancing, jumping up and down with ribbons and balls, and any number of other Olympic sports are scored in this way. They’ve tried to quantify it by assigning values to particular moves to remove bias and favoritism but there is no way to eliminate such inequity completely in a judged sport.

Even though the media darling Wagner finished in fourth place she was chosen ahead of Nagusa for the Olympic team. The committee in charge of the selections came up with the usual excuses for such a change but it likely comes down to marketability and television ratings. I spoke about the potential demise of wrestling in the Olympics not long ago and before that about the spirit of the Olympics; which ain’t what it used to be.

This particular contretemps which is roiling the Non-Figure, Figure Skating community is so familiar to me that I can’t even get up enough energy to roll my eyes although apparently I can manage to write a blog post.

Is there a point to all this anywhere on the horizon? I suppose.

The thing I love about sport is that the best player or team usually wins. Now, sometimes an official makes a huge error in judgement and changes the outcome but far more often than not there is a battle on the field of a play, and someone wins and someone loses. It is a test of ability and if all sides give it their best effort they can all leave the field with pride. Sure, one team or player lost but if they gave it everything they had, they are a winner.

In sport it doesn’t matter if you’re the huge favorite, if you opponent is an unknown qualifier, you must take the field and beat them. It’s anybody’s game, as they say.

Not so in these heavily judged events. It’s about money, it’s about influence, it’s about popularity on television (money), it’s about how much your friends and family donate to the committee (money).

So, the committee chose not the best skater, but the young woman they thought could generate the most interest. Ho hum. Nothing to see here.

To those who are fans of Non-Figure, Figure Skating I ask one simple question. Why does this incident surprise you?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

The Worst Investment Ever – Stupid Headline

Posted on by

Warren Buffet Investment StrategyMotley Fool once again rises to the top of the weekly heap with what is truly a stupid headline but for different reasons than usual.

Warren Buffett Says This Is the Worst Investment You Could Ever Own blares the headline.

The headline is so stupid that most rational people will assume it is a nonsense, sensational story. That’s why this headline wins my weekly award. The story is well-written and gives solid financial advice. Avoid large sums of cash as an investment and put your money where it will grow.

The article notes that the majority of people in the country believe that holding cash is your best investment and that purchasing stocks is your fourth best choice. There are a number of graphs and other items sprinkled throughout the article but its basic message is extremely sound. A small amount of cash (as a percentage of your portfolio) is a good idea but if you are not taking advantage of growth funds you are essentially throwing money away.

My message to Motley Fool this week? Don’t hide useful articles behind sensationalist headlines. Something simple like Warren Buffet explains why Cash is a Bad Investment would suffice and, I think, draw in far more viewers.

When you persist in wild headlines you eventually become the boy who cried wolf too much and people will simply ignore your articles, or at least rational people will do so. At least rational people who aren’t scouring the headlines looking for stupidity!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne