Author Archives: Tom Liberman

The Staff of Naught – Edition 2

Posted on by

The Staff of NaughtI finished the rewrite on my first eNovel, the Staff of Naught, and it is now available from Amazon (Kindle), Barnes & Noble (Nook), and Smashwords (multi-platform) for $2.99.

Because it was my first novel there were a number of things that I could have done better. After I finished the rough-draft on the Spear of the Hunt, my fifth novel due out in a few months, I decided it was time to go back and try to fix some of those things.

The biggest problem was that I had too many characters. I wasn’t able to completely fix this issue as a number of character are integral to the plot but I basically eliminated two characters  who didn’t play much of a role after the first few chapters.

There were also just some general stylistic problems with the writing and I cleaned up a lot of those.

Finally, I think the ending was confusing and I tried to make it more clear.

Over the same stretch of time I tend to notice punctuation errors and what not in the three other published novels and I went ahead and republished The Staff of Sakatha, The Hammer of Fire, and The Sword of Water as well. None of those three underwent any major changes though. They are essentially the same with a few errors cleaned up. All are available at Amazon, B&N, and Smashwords. All for $2.99.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

PAC Money – Chris Hansen and Corruption

Posted on by

Chris HansenWhen the Supreme Court ruled that Political Action Committees could collect unlimited amounts of money from anyone to support political campaigns most people thought it corrupted politics. The same thing is destroying business in the United States turning us, some would say has already turned us, away from capitalism and onto Crony Capitalism. Perhaps even past Crony Capitalism to what’s called commercial bribery.

In a recent case a fellow named Chris Hansen attempted to purchase the Sacramento Kings NBA team and move them to Seattle. This deal did not succeed for a number of reasons but that’s not the point of my blog today.

The Sacramento Kings were instead sold to another bidder but there was a timetable laid out by the NBA that the Kings had to have a new arena in time for the 2016 season. The new owners immediately began to seek funding for this new stadium. There were some opposed to building this stadium and Hansen realized that if they succeeded in blocking funding he might again have a chance to purchase the team.

His interest in the stadium case is clearly a conflict of interest. Hansen stands to gain by stopping the stadium purchase. Therefore he should stay out of contact with those parties. This would be fair business practice. This is something honorable business owners did quite regularly in the past.

Hansen knew that it was a conflict of interest and so gave money to a third-party who then donated it to the PAC responsible for spending money to try to stop the stadium. The state of California has strict rules about disclosure when it comes to a PAC. Those organizations must reveal donor names. In this case the time frame for disclosure passed and his name was not revealed.

A watchdog group insisted on seeing the records and Hansen’s role was revealed. Only after this did he suddenly regret his decision and apologize. His third-party donation could be illegal and the courts will eventually determine that, but my point is that this sort of thing goes on all the time.

This is the way a business succeeds in the modern-day United States. If you don’t sabotage your competition through commercial bribery or crony capitalistic government intervention they will destroy you first. A business succeed not by providing a better product but by being better at destroying rivals through underhanded methods.

Thus the company that is most unscrupulous wins. That’s not a good formula for consumers and it’s dangerous to our freedom. This trickles up to politicians and community leaders who side with the “winning” business in order to maintain their own position.

We live in the information age. Donations to a PAC can be almost instantly revealed via something as simple as a tweet. I’m not saying people don’t have the right to give to a cause of their choice I’m just saying this donation must be transparent and that conflict of interest laws must be enforced.

Do you think Hansen would have made that “mistake” if the law mandated that the amount and origin of money received must be posted immediately to some online forum?

These sorts of laws don’t erode our freedom, they enhance it. If a politician succeeds because of ideas, if a business succeeds because it is properly run, then we all win.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 at Amazon)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

The International Space Station – Countdown to Bust

Posted on by

International Space StationWe are now seven years from the likely end of the International Space Station or ISS.

Good riddance, say I.

Not everyone is going to agree with me on this one and there are a lot of people out there hoping to extend the mission past 2020. There are many passionate people on both sides of this debate and I’m open to listening to other opinions. But as things stand, I think of the ISS as a colossal waste of time, effort, and money. That’s not even the worst of it. It’s sucked in so much money and effort that other NASA missions were scrubbed for lack of funding.

In addition to producing almost nothing in the way of useful information it has also prevented us from learning so many other things. Now, I’m sure people will look at the list of what I call “nothing” and tell me how wrong I am. I think that until we actually need to grow tomatoes in space it is not really worth studying growing tomatoes in space. The effect of radiation on people is well-known, it is deadly. Any space travel will require shielding from radiation. Zero gravity is dangerous for human organs and skeletal structure. How much testing of this do we need and what benefit does it give us?

When this thing was proposed it was promised as a laboratory, observatory, and factory in space. It was also planned to provide transportation, maintenance, and act as a staging base for possible future missions to the Moon, Mars and asteroids. It’s been at most a glorified lab.

In the Yahoo article a proponent of continuing the ISS through 2028 says: We don’t know whether we should care, because the utilization [of the ISS] is really still in its early stages. The station hasn’t had a valid chance to demonstrate its research value.

He supposes that perhaps, maybe, in the next four or five years there might be a breakthrough to justify the cost of the thing.

Hasn’t had a chance? It’s been in continuous orbit for nearly thirteen years and currently the cost is about $150 billion and going up fast.

The price of this thing is shared between the US, Russia, Japan, Canada, and Europe (11 partners). Everyone else is backing out as fast as their obligations let them, or faster.

Meanwhile robotic missions continue apace exploring our solar system and giving us real and useful information. Robotic missions are far cheaper, last longer, produce more results, and do not risk the loss of life.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for exploration of space, of the mission of NASA, and of the long-term prospects of colonizing our solar system. I’m just firmly convinced that the best way to achieve those things is with long-term, robotic, exploration missions. I think we already know pretty much what we need to know about low-earth orbit.

Every tax dollar that goes into low-earth orbit exploration competes against private organizations attempting this sort of mission. NASA should be doing things that private industry cannot achieve.

Meanwhile the James Webb Telescope sits doing nothing. It’s total funding capped at $8 billion in no small part because of the ISS. I’m not saying the JWT wasn’t a badly managed project, I’m just saying let’s not pour another $100 billion into the ISS to keep it operational through 2028. Let’s not throw good money after bad.

If I had my way I’d bring back the current residents and shut the ISS down today.

I’d like to hear from those who disagree.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (a bargain at $149,999,999,997.01 less than the ISS)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Ford Motor Company – A Long Strange Trip

Posted on by

Ford MOtor CompanyI saw a story today that showed the Ford Focus automobile is now the best-selling car in the world. The company has had a long and tumultuous history that I think is quite instructive in the ways of capitalism and the ideas of libertarians.

The company was founded in 1903 by Henry Ford and twelve investors including Alexander Y. Malcomson as an equal partner.

Ford was antisemitic. His newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, published false information called The Protocols of the Elders in Zion which is used by those who hate Jews to this day. He was praised by Adolph Hitler and given medals of honor by the Nazi Government.

He was just as virulently anti-union and in 1941 almost closed his entire company rather than unionize, only being convinced by his wife not to do it.

In the early years the Ford company had a Social Department which actively checked up on workers personal habits including those Ford himself found distasteful: drinking, gambling, and fathers who did not support their families.

By 1918 almost 50% of all cars sold in the United States were Model T vehicles, what would almost certainly be considered a monopoly today.

The company appeared near bankruptcy in 2008 and applied for government loans to stay in operation.

So, we know Ford was an anti-Semite, overly involved in the personal lives of his employees, anti-union, essentially ran a monopoly, and the company ran to the government to bail them out from their self-induced financial problems. Now, let’s look at his business practices.

While Ford personally disliked Jews his newspaper disavowed violence and he was never charged with discriminating against Jews. He also hired blacks and the physically disabled which was extremely rare at that time for a major US corporation.

His quickly growing company required heavy work from its employees and to combat turnover ratio he instituted extremely high wages for his employees and offered profit-sharing. He also introduced limited work hours and eventually abandoned his Social Department saying that “paternalism has no place in industry.”

He was anti-union because he thought union leaders, although meaning well, would end up harming workers more than helping them. He thought a good manager did right by workers because it improved profit margins. He practiced what he preached offering high wages and limited working hours.

Despite the fact that by 1918 he had a virtual monopoly on car sales his high wages and low working hours had decreased turnover and increased productivity to a point that he continually lowered prices on his vehicles!

He never engaged in monopolistic practices like Gouging, Collusion and Cartels. When competition arose it often did so by following his labor friendly practices. Competition did arise organically and consumers and workers benefited tremendously.

He never went to the government asking them to pass laws to help his company and destroy competitors. He ran for office in 1918 at the behest of Democrat Woodrow Wilson in order to support the League of Nations. Ford was a strong pacifist and felt war was a tremendous waste of time and effort.

Ford insisted that war was the product of greedy financiers who sought profit in human destruction and that true capitalist brought prosperity to their nations. Be aware that when Ford used the word financiers, he meant Jews. I find disgusting his assessment that this was some Jewish led conspiracy but the idea that war and misery is profitable for a certain kind of person is absolutely true. He believed true capitalist disavow war and help improve the lives of everyone by driving down the cost of goods and increasing the quality of life for employees. That the pursuit of riches is not the point although those who run a business properly bring prosperity to all around them.

In 2008 when the other US car companies went to the government and took money from them, Ford instead sat down with their unions and hammered out an equitable arrangements. Credit goes to both Ford and the unions. Now the company is thriving to benefit of all parties.

I can’t help wonder what he would think today about the Crony Capitalism that has descended on this country. The men and women of all races, creeds, and colors who fit his profile of financier.

Ford’s antisemitism leaves a lasting legacy to this day but so do his fair-minded business practices. His goal was to a run a company that employed people at a good wage, sold a product people wanted at a fair price, and make the world a better place. He got rich doing it.

A lesson for us all about both business and the folly of unreasoning hatred.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (Fairly priced at $2.99)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

1912 8th Grade Exam – Difficult?

Posted on by

8th Grade ExamThere’s an interesting story in the news today about an 8th grade exam given to students in 1912 Kentucky. The questions are of the sort that anyone who hasn’t been studying recently would find difficult. Judging by the comments that dominate the story it appears that most people think these questions are significantly more difficult than those faced by 8th graders today.

I’m not an 8th grade teacher but I thought the questions were somewhat below what I’d expect to see on an exam given to children of that age today. I base this on my various nieces and friend’s children who I’ve helped study over the years. I may be completely wrong and I’d love to hear from some teachers on the subject.

Sample questions:

  1. A man bought a farm for $2,400 and sold it for $2,700. What was his percentage gain?
  2. What waters would a vessel pass through if traveling from England, through the Suez Canal, to Manila?
  3. Name the organs of circulation?
  4. To what four governments are students in school subject to?

None of those seems like it would present much challenge to a student who had been studying such material. Perhaps I’m totally wrong, perhaps these question are much more difficult than those faced by 8th graders today. That is certainly the overwhelming opinion of those making comments.

The main difference that I noted is the lack of multiple choice questions and I’m of the opinion that this is actually an important distinction.

In the past students were expected to be able to write out complete answers rather than pick answers. Picking answers means that most people will be correct 25% of the time even if they have no clue as to the answer. 25% isn’t a good score but in the past the same students would be correct 0% of the time.

The change to largely multiple choice questions is simply a function of classroom size. Teachers are expected to grade hundreds of quizzes and tests weekly and this is a heavy, heavy burden. I’m of the opinion that this trend can be reversed by automatic grading using tablets and computers. No more handwriting. Computers are getting intelligent enough to recognize partially correct answers and grade accordingly.

However, back to the topic at hand. I really don’t see these questions as anything that would be a great challenge to today’s students; except perhaps the geography which I don’t think is taught as heavily in today’s classrooms. I could be wrong about that as well.

In any case, I’d absolutely love to hear from parents of 8th graders, teachers, and other who have more direct knowledge of the current educational system for students of that age.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($20.00 for a hardback – $17.01 discount for an eBook = $???)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Against a Cure for Down Syndrome?

Posted on by

Cure Down SyndromeI just read an absolutely fascinating article about health care and Down Syndrome. Scientists are moving ever closer to being able to turn off the effects of the extra third copy of chromosome 21. Eventually they might even be able to prevent the disease altogether.

The new therapy promises to alleviate or eliminate some of the symptoms of the syndrome by switching off the genetic material responsible.

What makes the article fascinating? How do these quotes strike you:

  • If Down syndrome were completely cured, the world would lose something from the absence of that culture.
  • We’re not looking for a cure. We’re looking to help and support people with Down syndrome live healthy and productive lives …
  • But ethicists fear that genetic manipulation could spell the end of the disorder …

In other words, we don’t want a cure.

I understand that relatives of people with the disease are worried that their loved ones will be forever changed by a cure. That the cure might turn off other genetic functions and come with its own peril. Particularly in the early years.

However, the reality is that someone with Down Syndrome is limited in their life’s potential. Their life is radically diminished from what it could be. Maybe they are happy but they cannot experience life fully. With modern therapy and understanding they have things better than throughout history but their intelligence is limited and their lifespan shortened. They often suffer from awful diseases.

I have friends with a Down Syndrome child and I’m eager to hear what they think about the possibility of a cure. My friend is a big, strong, athletic guy and his son will never be that. I know for a fact that they love him just as much their daughter who does not have the disease.

When I read these quotes from parents who do not want a cure, fear a cure, I certainly understand. They love their child the way they are. They fear that their child, if cured, could be forever changed, will have to suffer the trials of a full life.

Ignorance is bliss as they say. But it’s bliss with a price. A heavy price, too heavy a price.

Given a choice between going through life mentally challenged and happy or less happy but with a greater capacity to understand the good and bad that the world offers; which would you choose?

It’s like not playing the game because you might lose.

As for me, I’d rather play than sit on the sidelines. Yes, I might well lose, but the experience of life is worth it. I think everyone should have that chance. Everyone should be given the opportunity to live their life to the fullest. Maybe they will be unhappy and miserable, but maybe not.

I’m for a cure but I don’t have a Down Syndrome child. I do have a mentally challenged niece and if there was a way to cure her I would absolutely be for it.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Bernie Kosar and Jeff Fisher

Posted on by

Bernie KosarJeff FisherIt seems to be a week for media personalities butting heads with sports personalities here in St. Louis. I’ve been writing about the Jack Clark/Albert Pujols situation but now we have the Bernie Kosar/Jeff Fisher brouhaha.

Fisher is the head coach of the St. Louis Rams and Kosar is the color commentator for the Cleveland Browns. The two teams played a preseason game this year and Kosar made some comments during the game that apparently caught the attention of Fisher.

Kosar was a standout football player for the University of Miami and then the Browns. Fisher is a well-respected and moderately successful NFL coach. Both men should do their job with professionalism, as should we all.

Kosar’s criticism of the Rams play in the game centered on two things; the receivers dropping well-thrown balls and the third-string quarterback, Kellen Clemens. I didn’t hear the broadcast so I can only go by the quotes I’m reading.

Apparently Rams receivers dropped a number of passes and Kosar said that their mothers would be embarrassed. He also made a comment about the receiver coach. That doesn’t seem to be what drew the ire of Fisher as much as what happened next.

Apparently Kosar has a bad history with Clemens. Before Clemens came into the game Kosar said that he, Kosar, was essentially being punished because he didn’t like Clemens. It’s not really clear what he was trying to say because it doesn’t make a lot of sense. It is clear he doesn’t like Clemens personally. He took a couple of more shots at the quarterback, that had nothing to do with his play on the field, saying he wouldn’t want his autograph and that Kosar needed divine intervention because he had to watch Clemens for the fourth quarter of the game.

It doesn’t help that Kosar is suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy which make his speech patterns slurred as if drunk.

Still, I have to question Kosar’s professionalism in letting his personal feelings interfere with his work. He said nasty things about Clemens not only before he was in the game but admitted that the problems were personal in nature. That’s extremely unprofessional.

At my job I do web development work and we do this for a number of clients. One of these is a Christian organization. I’m an atheist. I would never let that influence me in doing my job properly, in helping make the best website possible without any cost overruns. Nor would I publicly criticize the people I’ve met from that organization. I actually like them! They are quite nice and I’ve really enjoyed working on their site.

When we let our personal feelings for a person or an organization prevent us from doing our job fairly, as best we can, then we are unprofessional. It is a reflection on us, on me.

But, back to the situation at hand. A number of people are saying that Fisher should just ignore Kosar. I disagree, when someone is unprofessional they should be called out as such. Otherwise how will they know? I don’t think Fisher will dwell on this and it will go away rather quickly; but I think he is right to lose respect for Kosar. I certainly did. As a head coach it’s part of Fisher’s professional responsibility to stand up for his players. All coaches who care for their players, and all the good ones do, would do the same.

Fisher went out of his way to mention that he has great respect for the Browns’ organization but had a problem with the way Kosar went about doing his job.

Finally as to the Browns themselves. I feel for Kosar, he’s suffering from a terrible brain problem caused by sacrificing his body for the Browns. I can totally understand how they want to employ Kosar. It just seems a little odd to me that you would employ a man who has a difficult time communicating as a commentator. Apparently he is extremely intelligent and knows football very well but has trouble speaking, stringing together coherent sentences.

Maybe we’ll see some good out of this. Kosar will try to be more professional, Fisher and he will make up and that will be that. We can only hope!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eBook, and it’s good!)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Golf – Sport or Game?

Posted on by

Sport or gameWhat is a sport and what is a game?

I’m watching the live stream of the 2013 PGA Championship, that’s golf for all you non-golf fans, and they are having a vigorous discussion about that very topic.

The Wiki article is pretty broad and comes to no conclusions on the matter.

It’s an interesting question and there is a lot of debate about physicality, the presence or absence of certain pieces of equipment, the method of winning, and other factors. I first thought about this years ago and came up with a definition that I find works quite well for me.

Let me cover one of the main ideas before offering my own solution. A lot of people claim there must be a physically demanding aspect to the endeavor for it to be a sport. Thus baseball is a sport but chess is a game.

My problem with this definition is that baseball is unilaterally ruled a sport. When a dozen kids play a pickup game in the park, like that happens anymore, then it is sport. I disagree. That’s a game of baseball. When major league players vie on the field of play, I consider that a sport.

I think two requirements must be met for it to be a sport.

  1. There is a paying audience
  2. There is a quantifiable winner.

There are three possible permutations of those rules which result in Sport, Game, and Spectacle.

  1. There is a paying audience but no quantifiable winner – Example: Opera. Category: Spectacle
  2. There is a paying audience and a quantifiable winner – Example: Major League Baseball: Sport
  3. There is no paying audience but a quantifiable winner – Example: Kids playing baseball in the park: Game

Thus I think golf can be a game or sport depending on the circumstances surrounding the event. The paying crowd at the PGA Championship along with the fact that a winner is determined by quantifiable methods make it a sport. When the guys and I head to Ruth Park for a quick nine after a day of work, it’s a game.

This is a relatively broad definition and makes the upcoming World Chess Championship a sport even though there is a lack of physicality to chess.

That being said, I’m happy with my definition.

Tell me where I went wrong!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eBook)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Albert Pujols – Then and Now

Posted on by

The Albert Pujols – Jack Clark story continues to get bigger here in St. Louis and the sporting world. One thing I see from a lot of people making comments is the difference in Albert’s body and head since he was younger. I found a picture of him when he was playing baseball as a younger man and a recent picture taken from about the same angle at the same distance.

What do you think?
2/21/13: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim player headshot Young Albert

Jack Clark Accuses Albert Pujols of Steroid Use

Posted on by

Clark PujolsThe Situation

I’m from St. Louis, Missouri and a huge sports fan. Yes, that means I barrack (Australian for root) for the Cardinals. There is a moderately big story in Cardinal-land today.

Jack Clark recently mentioned on his radio show that Albert Pujols used steroids. Clark claims he knows this because Pujols trainer told him so thirteen years ago. The trainer denies this conversation took place.

Jack Clark History

Clark is a former player who came to the Cardinals late in his career and helped the team to two World Series appearances in 1985 and 1987. He retired in 1992. Pujols was the star player for the Cardinals from 2001 to 2011 after which he signed a large contract with the Los Angeles Angels.

I’ve mentioned my belief that most players are using Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) in a number of blogs. I would not be at all surprised to find that Pujols was among those doing so.

That being said, Clark’s story raises a number of red flags in my mind. Clark claims Pujols’ trainer, Chris Mihlfeld, and he worked together in 2000 and that Mihlfeld asked Clark if he wanted to use steroids. According to Clark, Mihlfeld at that time told him that Pujols was using them.

Red Flags

My first red-flag is that Clark had been retired for eight years and was forty-four years old at that time. It’s certainly possible Mihlfeld was just looking for a new customer but it seems odd to ask a player retired that long if they wanted to use steroids. Pujols was a minor league player that year.

My second red-flag is that Clark waited for thirteen years to reveal this information. He says, “I really never thought too much about it because steroids were really not on my radar screen at that time.” Possibly true, but five years later in 2005 Jose Canseco wrote his tell-all book, Juiced. Pretty much from that moment forward PEDs have been on everyone’s radar. For the last eight years Clark has been keeping this conversation secret. That just seems very odd to me. Particular so because in 2010 Clark had strong words for Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, Rafael Palmiero, Roger Clemons, Barry Bonds, and Sammy Sosa. Not a word about Pujols, the reigning MVP in the National League.

My third red-flag is that Clark recently became host of his own radio talk show and when it comes to radio talk shows; outrageous statements that get you noticed are almost a requirement for success.

My fourth red-flag is that Clark also accused pitcher Jason Verlander of PED use based on the “evidence” that Verlander lost velocity on his fastball after signing a big contract.

On the other side, Mihlfeld did work with a pitcher named Jason Grimley who admitted to steroid use. Mihlfeld was thought to be part of that case and but this proved to be false.

Summation

As to Clark’s character there isn’t a lot good to say. He said some awful things about Tony Gwynn in 1990. He likewise said terrible things about San Diego Padre manager Greg Riddoch.

I’m certainly not saying Pujols didn’t use steroids, I’m just saying Clark is not a trustworthy source of information. As much as I think most of the players are using PEDs; I don’t think it’s right to call them guilty without evidence. To let hearsay destroy a career.

To my mind, there is no way Clark could have gone thirteen years without mentioning this to people. PEDs have been big news for a long time. I’d like to see if anyone comes forward confirm that Clark has told this story before. If not, I think it’s pretty scummy of Clark to make such an accusation to promote his radio show.

Tom Liberman

Enforcement of the Standard Patent – Obama Ruling

Posted on by

Samsung vs AppleI was astonished to read the headlines that the Obama administration essentially voided a trade panel ruling in the ongoing Apple/Samsung patent wars. Without even reading the stories my immediate reaction was the administration overstepped the separation of powers but I’m learning more and more about this case and my opinion is evolving.

The Essential Patent or Standard Essential Patent is a patent different from non-standard patents. It sounds more complicated than it is. Let’s say I invent a device that makes walking easier, the Easy-Walk. This is a non-standard patent and other people cannot produce anything that is too similar to the Easy-Walk.

On the other hand there are technical standards that everyone who creates particular device follows so that consumers have a standardized product. Plumbing pipes are a certain size for the kitchen as an example. The owner of such a patent is generally required to sell licenses rather than keep the technology for themselves. Otherwise an entire industry, and consumers, suffer.

Watch this video for a better explanation.

Most countries do not enforce patent claims on Standard Essential Patents although Germany is an exception which is why much of the litigation between Samsung and Apple is taking place in that country.

The ongoing dispute between these two technology companies has descended largely into trying to enforce Essential Standard Patents to prevent a rival from selling their technology. If these sorts of lawsuits are allowed to continue there will undoubtedly be a negative effect on the consumer electronic industry which could easily spread to other industries.

The injunction the Obama administration voided was of this kind. Samsung has a patent on an Essential Standard which Apple used in some of their older models. Samsung insisted that Apple should not be allowed to sell them. The Obama administration decided that this pattern of abuse with Essential Standard patents needed to stop. They stepped in with the hopes that the action will discourage others from filing similar claims.

These injunctions represent a real threat to capitalism and, in a way, freedom. If a large company is allowed to enforce Essential Standard Patents then it inhibits, in a significant way, the ability of others to compete in a free and open market. Companies are attempting to destroy each other in the courts rather than making a superior product.

I’m not completely convinced the Obama administration did the right thing in this case but I’m leaning in that direction. Normally I would suggest that the courts impose fines for lawsuits of this nature but the fines are minuscule compared to the loss an injunction against sales causes. Fines are essentially useless in this fight.

If these sorts of lawsuits stop because of the action then it was the right thing to do. If the suits continue then another remedy must be found.

Still, I learned a lot about this because rather than just leaping to a conclusion I stopped and learned more. Always a good thing.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 and you can read it on your phone!)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Pat Tillman – Atheist in the Foxhole

Posted on by

Pat TillmanThere is a relatively innocuous story in the news about a Marine Corps memo that indicates lack of faith is a potential risk indicator. It’s not a big deal but as I read the comments I saw something I’ve seen often in the past when it comes to atheists in the military.

“There are no atheists in foxholes.”

I’ve got one for you and he’s a braver man than anyone reading this post. A more patriotic man than anyone reading this post. A better man than anyone reading this post. His name was Pat Tillman and he died when one of his friends shot him three times in the face at point-blank range.

Then the army covered it up. They ordered soldiers to lie to his family. The doctor who examined him hours after the incident called it murder. The army continues to deny it and we’ll probably never know the name of man who murdered this great hero.

There is another rifle, with better long-range accuracy, that uses the same rounds that killed Tillman and a soldier with that rifle was in the general vicinity when it happened. Therefore the Army says they don’t know if Tillman was shot by his friends or not.

Lies. Filthy lies. Vile lies. Sick lies. Lies to the mother, father, brother, wife, and friends of Pat Tillman. You can bet he had a lot of friends because he was a great man.

I want to be clear, Tillman was not a hero because he was an atheist. It had nothing to do with it. Judging by the comments I read on stories like this the military is slowly moving towards accepting atheists in their ranks. I trust the military to do the right thing in the long run, sometimes it just takes time. I’m not mad at the Marine Corps for this silly little memo. I’m proud of the soldiers who serve this great country of ours regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

I’m proud of the Marines, the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force but I’m not proud of every single member of the service. Those who covered up Tillman’s murder are scum.

I guess I’m just saying to all those people who wrote there are no atheists in foxholes; you’re wrong. I’m asking everyone else to do the same thing the next time you hear that lie.

Are there atheists in foxholes? You bet. Pat Tillman, a far better man than I’ll ever be.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

NCAA in Violation of their Own Rules

Posted on by

CompensationThe Johnny Manziel situation that I wrote about yesterday continues on and now Texas A&M has hired an attorney to essentially represent the quarterback.

I don’t want to keep reiterating my point that the NCAA runs a corrupt and hypocritical organization but this lawyer hire brought a new angle mind.

The NCAA forbids athletes from receiving any compensation for their services. The athletes are not allowed to have jobs, boosters cannot purchase so much as a lunch for the students without being in violation.

However, the university can hire a lawyer for him? When you think about it, that’s nothing. The university takes profits from ticket sales, luxury booths, television rights, and other revenue streams and spends them on the equipment the players use, the stadium they play in, the laundering of their uniforms, the salary of their coaches, the transportation to various games, and much more.

Isn’t this a violation of their own rules for compensating athletes? If an agent flew an athlete somewhere it would be violation but the team does it multiple times a season. If a booster gave one of the players so much as a baseball cap it would be a violation but their uniform is provided by the school. The only compensation an athlete is supposedly allowed to receive is free room, board, and tuition.

Texas A&M has a huge vested interest in Manziel playing football for them this season. His playing and winning will not only bring immediate financial rewards but help the coaches bring future stars to the team. They recently moved to the highly competitive, and lucrative, Southeastern Conference, and they see dollar signs.

As I said yesterday, I’m not against Texas A&M making money off the player’s efforts. Good for them. They have every right to do so. They have every right to equip, transport, and legally defend a player on their team as well. I’m just saying, unequivocally, that the player also has the right to any and all compensation they can get.

As more and more money pours into the coffers of the NCAA and the universities the situation gets increasingly seedy. It begins to resemble the company store, involuntary servitude. The players have no other reasonable choice. If they want to pursue their chosen profession they must forego monetary compensation, essentially their freedom to make money.

Freedom is an important word to me. I don’t like to see it taken away from people. I will speak out!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Johnny Manziel and the Autograph Scandal

Posted on by

Johnny ManzielI’ve posted about the rank hypocrisy of the NCAA often in the past but there’s another story in the news today and I can’t stop myself from trying to make my point yet again.

There is a young football star who plays for Texas A&M named Johnny Manziel. Johnny Football as he is called has had an eventful career considering he’s just heading into his sophomore season. He’s been kicked out of Peyton Manning’s football camp, he’s made several questionable tweets, and he seems to be a bit of a spoiled kid.

His latest transgression is apparently getting paid to sign autographs. At least there is the appearance of such although nothing has been proven. My argument here isn’t that he shouldn’t be judged until found guilty, my point is that if someone wants to pay him $10,000 to sign a couple of hundred autographs, who is the NCAA or anyone else to tell him he can’t?

If he is found “guilty” of getting paid he will lose his college eligibility and have to turn professional.

Those who support the NCAA in this will say that it’s their organization and they get to make the rules. I think there is some truth to this argument. If a private organization makes a rule that you’re not allowed to say, wear red on Thursdays, and you choose to do so, they can kick you out of the club. They make the rules, you knew the rules going into the situation.

What bothers me about this particular rule is that the NCAA says a player cannot make any money off his name but the University sure can. Texas A&M sold football helmets with Manziel’s signature for $13,000 a helmet. They sold seats at the table where he will sit for $5,000 a seat. They have a plan to improve the stadium to the tune of $450 million dollars with seating for over 100,000 and a large number of luxury suites starting at $64,000 and a top end so high they aren’t saying (sold out by the way).

This is not all because of Manziel but he’s a big part of it, as are his teammates.

The situation is so inequitable it boggles the mind. Libertarians like me will argue that the player’s don’t have to play but this is not really an option. There is no competition. The NCAA is the only game in town. Let’s say one University allowed the players to sell autographs. You can bet they’d immediately get all the top recruits.

The NCAA and the universities are essentially colluding against the players. It’s in their best interest to keep the players from getting any money, so they rig the game to make it impossible to play anywhere else. What would you say if the NFL attempted to pass this rule? What’s amazing is that it doesn’t apply to non-athletes. When Natalie Portman was at Harvard she made a lot of money acting in movies, as have many other young actors who chose the college life. Many students have jobs but athletes are not allowed.

The NCAA mumbles about protecting the game but it’s about protecting their greed. I’m not saying the NCAA and the universities are wrong to make money, more power to them, they provide a great product that people want to see. That’s capitalism. I love it.

I want the players to reap that reward also, it’s the fair thing to do, the right thing to do, the ethical thing to do, and the American thing to do.

In the immortal words of Otter, “We’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!”

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eBook)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Misspelled Jeopardy Question – Thomas Hurley III

Posted on by

Jeopary Alex TrebekThere’s an interesting story in the news about a young teenager who misspelled the Final Jeopardy question which was ruled incorrect.

The young man told a media outlet in his home town that he was “cheated” out of being given credit for answering the final question correctly.

Money is not at stake but something far more important, accuracy. Thomas Hurley III was not going to win the game in any case. He was far behind the teen who won that particular episode and even if his answer had been ruled correct he would have finished in second place and taken home the exact same amount of money.

What happened is fairly straight forward. In Jeopardy, for those of my readers who don’t know the game, the contestants are supplied with an answer and then must formulate the question. In this case the question should have been, “What is the emancipation proclamation?” In Final Jeopardy contestants must write down their answer as opposed to simply saying it as they do the rest of the game. In this case Hurley wrote, “What is the emanciptation proclamation?” Essentially inserting one extra letter.

The host of the show ruled that answer incorrect. The show’s judges later confirmed this decision. Incorrect decisions by Alex Trebek have been overruled in the past.

His feeling about being cheated is, in my opinion, quite interesting. I could not find any official rules about spelling but the show is notoriously strict about these sorts of things. If the answer was “The First President of the United States” a question of “Who was Washington” would be correct as would “Who was G. Washington” but “Who was J. Washington” would be incorrect. The idea being that you must know the answer generally but also fully. Clearly, anyone who put “Who was J. Washington” meant George Washington. They had the essence of the answer correct but not its detail.

The show does accept phonetic spelling of a word, spelling the word the way it sounds. That was not the case here. I don’t watch the show regularly but reading the comments on the story it seems spelling is a judgment call. Some misspelling are accepted and others not, this might not be true, as again, I couldn’t find any official rule about misspellings.

The comments were generally hostile to Hurley calling him entitled and worse.

I see Hurley’s point here but also see the show’s. Hurley knew the right answer and he misspelled the word by inserting a single extra letter. Trebek felt the extra letter was enough to declare the answer incorrect.

But, as always, I cannot simply comment. I must give my opinion as to who is in the right and who is in the wrong even when the difference is relatively narrow. In this case I side with the show. It is their show, their rules, and Trebek is the initial arbiter. If the answer was wrong, in even the most minor way, they have the right to rule it incorrect. However, I do think they should apply that rule across the board. If one spelling mistake is wrong then all spelling mistakes, except intentional phonetic spellings, are wrong.

As for Hurley, I don’t have as much hate and derision as the internet seems to have for him. He knew the answer, misspelled the word very slightly, and certainly wasn’t complaining about money, simply about what was right. In this case I think he misses the point but not by much. It was a minor technicality and in life getting the answer correct is often the most important thing.

If you feel you were cheated then you should speak up. If the situation is investigated by the proper authorities and it is determined you were not cheated, then it’s time to move on with life. I’m sure that’s exactly what Hurley will do.

No harm, no foul. Jeopardy gets some publicity and Hurley gets a lesson about complete accuracy. Not a bad outcome in the end.

Tom Liberman

The One Pitch Strikeout – Vinnie Catricala

Posted on by

Vinnie CatricalaJust when I thought I’d seen everything!

As my readers well know, I’m an avid sports fan and when I saw this item in the news at Yahoo I had to check it out.

A minor league baseball player struck out on a single pitch. That’s right. It wasn’t some crazy circumstance where he came to bat for another player with an inherited two-strike count. Nope, there was one pitch.

The umpire called a strike on a pitch that looks low and outside. Vinnie looks back at the umpire and argues the call, even going so far as to gesture as to the location of the pitch.

I’m going to step away from the story to give my non-baseball fans some information. What Vinnie did there is a huge no-no. It’s one of those unwritten rules in baseball. You can complain to an umpire about a strike call a little bit but you cannot look back and start talking to him while you’re still at the plate. Let alone start gesturing with your hand.

It seems like one of those tyrannical situations where the arbitrator of a game, in this case the home-plate umpire, is being far too sensitive. However, there is actually a pretty good reason for this unwritten rule. If players are allowed to turn around and argue every strike call, if catchers and pitchers are allowed to do the same for every ball, then the pace of the game is destroyed.

Generally speaking what happens when an umpire makes a bad call or repeated bad calls at home plate is that the players in the dugout start to yell. The batter or catcher might complain but without looking back at the umpire. This is tolerated to some degree although eventually will result in ejections.

Anyway, back to the story.

Catricala continues to argue with the umpire who motions him to get ready for the next pitch. Catricala then steps out of the batters box completely. The umpire motions for him to get back in the batters box. Catricala essentially thumbs his nose at the umpire and starts to adjust his batting glove.

Now, the umpire calls on the rule I did not know existed, 6.02c. This rule allows the umpire to start calling strikes if the batter refuses to step up to plate. The umpire calls a strike. Catricala was only out of the batter’s box for about three seconds but his attitude is clearly dismissive of the umpire telling him to get back in.

After the umpire calls strike two he motions for Catricala to get back into the box. Catricala continues to ignore him and fiddle with his equipment. Another four seconds pass. The umpire calls strike three. Catricala starts to yell at the umpire who then kicks him out of the game!

Wow!

When I first read the story I was on the player’s side but after watching the video I find myself sympathetic to the umpire. If he allows any player to act this way then the umpire’s authority is in question. The umpire is going to have a very difficult day from that moment on. Every player will complain about every pitch, there will be endless delays, it will become an insanely boring game.

Watch the video, tell me what you think. Egotistical umpire out of control or strong umpire doing what he had to do.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eBook)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

The Spear of the Hunt

Posted on by

The Sword of Water

I just wrapped up the rough draft on what will be my fifth novel, The Spear of the Hunt.

Whew. The picture is the cover of my last novel.

I don’t have a lot of fans but I appreciate the few kind words I do get from those who’ve taken the chance on spending $2.99 and hours of their time reading the efforts of a self-published author.

Be warned, the outline on the website is not completely accurate. Things change as I’m writing and will change again as I start on my working drafts. I’ll get around to fixing the web page fairly soon.

My writing process is that I think about the book for a period of time, maybe six months, maybe less, jot down ideas, characters, plots, themes, conflicts, figure out a good ending, and what not. Then, suddenly, I can’t say why, I start writing.

My goal is 5,000 words a day and I pretty much hit it. I wrote 97,246 words of the rough draft in twenty days. Naturally, much of it needs work. When you write that fast a lot of mistakes get made. That’s why I’ll get started on the working draft soon. I’ll probably have at least two of those, more likely three although each one requires fewer changes.

Then it’s off to the proofreader and finally self-publishing at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Nook.

I’d say maybe two months until publishing. Maybe less. We’ll see. Right now I’m a little tired of writing.

Tom Liberman

Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Shea Allen and the Confession that got her Fired

Posted on by

Shea AllenThe last time I talked about a social media post getting someone in trouble it involved a seventeen year girl wearing a bikini. I broke records for number of blog hits! I say, why not try again? Although this time it’s an adult woman and other than apparently going sans-bra now and again there are no racy images.

A young reporter in the great state of Alabama wrote a blog post confessing a few fairly innocuous things and was fired from her job as a reporter at WAAY-TV in Huntsville, Alabama.

The station first asked her to take down the blog and she complied but upon having second thoughts she put it back up defiantly. In the blog she admits to turning off her microphone during interviews if she feels the subject is blithering on too much. She also apparently has failed to wear a bra during a newscast or two. She is disturbed by the elderly and is good at sitting in such a way as to conceal her weight from the camera.

 

** EDIT **

The updated stories indicate Shea was not asked to take down the blog before she was fired. This certainly puts a different light on her actions. I still support her honesty in talking about her real flaws but she seems to be complaining now about the firing. If she posted the blog knowing she was going to be fired that is, in my opinion, admirable and was largely my point in this blog. If that’s not the case, and it appears not to be, then my admiration for her actions is diminished. I still think people should be allowed to express their true opinions without being subject to discipline. That we get a society of people who live in fear of being themselves, of admitting mistakes, and that hurts us in the long run.

** CLOSE EDIT **

I’m not sure what the law is in Alabama but it’s likely the station had the right to fire her. I don’t want to discuss if what she did was a something for which she should be fired, nor do I care to discuss her right to say such things. What I would like to delve into is what sort of society we are creating when we fire people like Shea.

Shea is a product of the modern world. She is not afraid. She posted a few things that people might find offensive and got fired because of it. She didn’t do anything accidentally or without understanding the consequences of her actions. She knew what could happen, what would likely happen, and did it anyway.

If that station doesn’t want me, she seems to say, then I don’t want them.

How can I put this delicately in a way that won’t offend … Hell ya!

Dissent is not a good thing, it’s a great thing. Welcoming opinions that are not your own makes you strong, not weak. Being brave enough to state your mind when you know others won’t like it is an admirable quality. We need brave people standing next to us everywhere, at work, in the line-of-fire, and everywhere in-between.

I’m tired of newscasters getting their talking points from the administrators and having to hear the exact same words on every broadcast.

Somebody hire Shea! FOX, NBC, CNN, ABC, grab this girl and grab her quick. She’s going places. She won’t do what you tell her to do and this country is starving for people like that. Libertarians like me are dying of thirst when we watch the talking heads repeat the mantra doled out by their masters.

Give us water! Give us Shea and people like her.

If you don’t, if you fire everyone strong enough to state an opinion different from the company line, then this nation is doomed. Those who lap up the drivel, who ask you to lie to them and whimper in ecstasy when you do it, they won’t make this country strong again. Right now people like that are winning. This country wasn’t built by yes-men but it sure can be destroyed by them.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 and no sensibilities are spared)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Lies in the Search for Stem Cells

Posted on by

Stem CellsBy now most people have heard of stem cells. These are cells with tremendous medical potential but also ethical concerns. There was a recent case in which it appears fraudulent claims were made because of these ethical concerns. Lies told in an effort to sway popular opinion.

If you’ve followed this debate then you’ve probably heard the fraudulent claims touted as amazing advances. This is an extremely dangerous event, dangerous to scientific progress, dangerous to public understanding of science, and dangerous on a personal level because of its potential to change the course of research and cures.

First a quick understanding of stem cells. I’m going to explain them at an extremely basic level; for a greater and deeper understanding I would highly recommend the Wiki article.

Every part of the human body is made up of cells. Your heart, lungs, liver, and other body parts are made up of cells which divide again and again to eventually perform a particular function.

Stem cells come in two flavors; embryonic and adult.

Embryonic cells can turn into any other type of cell and regenerate themselves. This has obvious medical potential. The ethical problem is that harvesting these sorts of cells means destroying (killing) embryos. These embryos are generally created during in vitro fertilization designed to eventually implant in a woman wishing a child. The process generates excess embryos which are either destroyed or used for scientific purposes to harvest stem cells.

I do not exaggerate when I say that embryonic stem cells have the potential to make people immortal. They can potentially regenerate any and all of your aging organs and body parts. One injection of stem cells into your heart and it is young and strong again. We’re certainly not at this point yet but astounding progress is being made.

On the other hand adult stem cells are useful in medicine but apparently did not offer the same potential. That is until November of 2011 when at a scientific gathering sponsored by the Vatican, a fellow by the name of Mariusz Z. Ratajczak announced he had found something called VSELS; cells which essentially acted like embryonic stem cells but were found in adults!

That’s a huge win. All the legitimate ethical concerns don’t matter anymore because these cells are harvested from the person seeking medical care. No embryos are destroyed.

This very much excited those who oppose embryonic stem cell research and much money, church money, was poured into a company called Neostem which was to repeat the findings of Dr. Ratajczak and further develop it. The church sponsored a number of efforts to promote the idea of these VSELS both from a scientific perspective and a publicity platform. That’s probably where you’ve heard of these adult stem cells that have the power of embryonic stem cells.

Here’s the reality. They’ve done four independent studies now and not only cannot find evidence of the regenerative power of VSELS but they cannot find the cells themselves. Their very existence was a lie, or if you’re in a charitable mood which I am not, wishful thinking.

This lie meant that money was spent by research agencies trying to duplicate the results of Dr. Ratajczak instead of finding ways to use stem cells to cure horrible diseases. Time was wasted, lives were lost.

Essentially, in order to save the lives of embryos, people lied. They lied and promulgated supposed scientific evidence to rational people who then passed those lies along to others. This creates an illusion of reality where it does not exist. When public perception trumps reality there is real danger.

When the goal is to sway opinions rather than present evidence we venture into the realm of propaganda. If we tell a lie often enough, loudly enough, and with enough conviction people believe it. People take actions based upon it. In the end the lie is revealed and people are hurt, badly hurt.

Just ask Aaron Rodgers.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eBook)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Prayer in School – a New Twist

Posted on by

Prayer on School StepsThere’s an interesting situation happening in Concord, New Hampshire wherein a woman has been going to the steps of her local high school and praying, quoting the bible, and expressing her religious views out loud every morning as the students enter the school.

Two of her children attend the school and she was prompted to begin the vigil in February when there was a report that some cartridges were found in a school bathroom.

For the sake of clarity a cartridge is made up of a projectile (bullet), the case, the propellant, the rim, and the primer. People often say bullet when they mean cartridge.

There were complaints from students almost immediately and a local atheist group filed a request seeking to see if the woman was granted permission to do what she was doing. The school eventually asked her to stop speaking but continued to allow her to stand on the stairs. With the coming school year they’ve decided to ask her not to return and she has said she will not, although will continue to pray from across the street or at home.

It’s a reasonable resolution as far as I’m concerned but I’m a little interested in what my readers think. When I answered the poll at the site it indicated 68% thought she should be allowed to continue essentially proselytizing on the school steps. A quick perusal of the comments indicated perhaps the opposite, most people thought she should not be allowed to continue. The religious community in Concord is apparently split as well.

From my perspective her behavior is extremely rude and quite possibly a sign of mental illness. People who insist on shouting out their beliefs in a public setting should just shut up and are not infrequently insane. I don’t like blaring musicians after a Cardinals game where I’m forced to walk past them. I don’t like fanatics at the park yelling whatever they want when I’m trying to enjoy a lunch. I don’t like activists chanting on the sidewalk as I drive to work.

The question here isn’t rudeness or sanity though, it is legality. Should anyone, of any religion, or an atheist for that matter, be allowed onto school property to verbally or even non-verbally express their opinions to what is essentially a captive audience? What about a private school? What about your place of business? What about a restaurant?

The First Amendment guarantees us that the government shall not establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Is the woman freely practicing her religion? Does the fact that it is being done on school grounds, which money from our taxes purchased, mean that it is government sponsored? People have the guaranteed right to religious freedom in this country and this means I shouldn’t be forced to listen to your religion when I’m essentially trapped in a public place. At your home, at my home, quietly over dinner at a restaurant, even in a classroom where open debate is allowed and all sides are given equal time, your right to speak outweighs my right to not have to listen. I can largely leave those situations as I desire.

Noise interrupts my privacy and my constitutional rights. When one person is shouting or even talking loudly in a public place it intrudes on a lot of people. The argument that I don’t have to listen is false. If I want to attend that school, I’ve got to walk past  her or go out of my way to another door. She invades my rights, she invades everyone’s rights who has to walk past and I think that outweighs her own rights no matter if a school, sidewalk, restaurant, or any similar public place.

I think it’s an interesting question because both sides have guaranteed rights in this case. It’s a matter of deciding whose take precedent. I think mine do, but that’s probably not a surprise to anyone who reads my blog regularly.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt