Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Journeys Employees Quit – Important Lessons

Posted on by

Journeys ApparelThere’s an instructive news story making the rounds about some employees for an apparel and footwear store named Journeys. They quit in the middle of the day leaving an expressive note on the storefront.

This story screams to both my high-brow Libertarian ideology and to my deeply guttural personal life. This story is about the human experience, about capitalism, about self-loathing, and about self-respect. It’s got it all and I aim to tell you why.

First the facts. Three employees at a Journeys store left in the middle of the day without notice. The store manager, co-manager, and one worker simply closed the front door, pinned a note to it, and left.

We don’t know if the injustices that caused the employees to take such drastic action were real or imagined. We can hear stories from all sides and still not know for certain. The fact is, it’s unimportant to my discussion.

I once worked in an environment where the boss was intentionally unfair. Cruel for the joy of cruelty. I arrived early in the morning and was looking at the clock hoping for the end of the day within an hour. I lay awake at night my mind and stomach churning. I hated it. For nearly nine months I lived it. But, that’s not important either.

When we allow ourselves to be treated that way we undermine our own lives, we undermine the business for which we work, and we undermine the entire capitalistic system.

We excuse ourselves because we “need” the job. We don’t. You don’t; as much as you think you do, you don’t. I know it seems like you need that job but every day you spend there is a day of you life lost. A day you’re not out there finding work with people you respect, who respect you, who respect their business. It’s one more day that you turn into a bitter, self-loathing person who sneaks out when no one is looking hoping to hurt other people. The kind of person who pins nasty notes on walls because you’re too cowardly to stand face-to-face with those who hurt you.

The first time someone treats you like that stop right there and tell them you will not take it. There’s no need to yell, to scream, to whine about the unfairness of life. Explain, calmly and rationally, that you don’t like being treated that way and that you won’t accept being treated that way. If they fire you, you’re better off.

Here’s an excerpt from my book, The Sword of Water.

****************

Jon nodded his head and smiled narrowly at the girl, “Exactly. I say that there is much to fear. Sorus suggests we must use caution because of those dangers. He is not far wrong, but we must never succumb to fear. Fear is the tool of evil. Fear is the tool of the despot. The first time you hid from your siblings you did so because of fear. Did that help you?”

“No,” said Silenia, blinking back tears as the memories flooded into her mind with such vividness that she suddenly felt back in that place, hiding, always hiding. “Eventually I had to come out and they used the flat of the knife on me,” she sniffled.

“Yet was it ever easier to hide the next time and the time after, wasn’t it?”

Silenia nodded her head, pursed her lips together, and stifled another sob, “It got easier each time.”

****************

Not only does an employee who refuses to stand up to a bully hurt themselves but they hurt every employee who follows them, they hurt the business, and they hurt capitalism. If everyone refused to work for nasty people but instead flocked to jobs where good people treated employees with respect and with fairness; the whole system works.

Don’t get me wrong, fairness doesn’t mean you get paid for lazing around. Fairness means you work hard, next to other people working hard, and you make good money doing it. That’s American! Or it used to be. If the job needs you to work an extra three hours that night, you work it but the boss gives you the morning off. If the boss can’t give you the morning off then you get a bonus. That’s what I mean by fair. That’s what works, for business, for people, for our country.

Leaving in the middle of the day when there’s work to be done isn’t fair, it’s not right, and it’s a sign of having no self-respect. I can’t excuse it. I won’t. The boss treating an employee like garbage because they can get away with it? That’s just as cowardly, just as sick, just as filled with self-loathing.

This story? It’s a lesson all right, a lesson in everything that’s wrong.

Respect yourself. Respect your co-workers. Respect your employees.

Start right now.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 and worth all 299 pennies!)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Kicked out of Universal Studios for T-Shirt – Rightly so!

Posted on by

Offensive T-shirtThere is another one of those offensive t-shirt stories in the news today and this time I’m with the kickers out and not with the t-shirt wearer. Once we get past the attention grabbing headlines and read the whole story we start to hear both sides of the issue.

What was the offensive slogan? Police: Street Crime Unit

There might be more to this than I’m reading into it and if future revelations prove my original thoughts to be wrong I’ll be happy to rethink my position, as I’ve done before.

Essentially a family was in the Universal Studios theme park in Orlando, Florida and security asked them to leave because of the offending t-shirt. The story goes to great lengths to portray the family as the victims starting with the lead paragraph in which it is declared they were at the park for the sixteenth birthday party of the family daughter.

The family claims they asked to see the policy that referenced the shirt and were refused. They also claim they offered to purchase a different shirt at the nearby clothing store but were not allowed to do so. They were “terrified” at the threat of being arrested by security.

First off, it’s a good policy that Universal has. People who are not official security officers should not be wearing clothes that indicate they are such. In this case the man is not even a police officer; he was supposedly given the shirt by his brother. It’s incredible stupid and potentially dangerous to wear such a shirt at a public event at which you are not a security officer, even if you are a police officer in your day job!

A Universal spokesperson is quoted, near the end of the story, as saying that it is their practice to clearly explain policy decisions with the public. The spokesman welcomed a discussion with the family over events.

In other words, they’ve got multiple witnesses as to what occurred and likely some video footage as well.

In the meantime the family is squawking to every news outlet they can find. The park was kind enough to refund them the money they spent to see a show which they were prevented from attending.

If you haven’t guessed, I’m on the side of Universal in this one. Mistakes can happen but reasonable people generally find reasonable solutions. It almost always takes at least one belligerent party to cause events to spiral out of control. If I had my guess I’m pretty sure I know who was reasonable and who was not in this situation.

I think a casual look at my blog posts will show that I’m not always on the side of security officers and government agencies. There are situations where police officers act like bullies, where security far overstep their bounds (one of my friends was just involved in such an incident). However, when in doubt I generally side with security officials. In this case I’m not even in doubt. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think so.

Good on you, Universal. Maybe I’ll take my next vacation at your park, I like the way you do business.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 and worth all 299 pennies!)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Air Conditioning and the Common Cold

Posted on by

Common ColdI normally talk about Objectivism, Libertarianism, atheism, and topics of that nature but a recent battle with the common cold brings me to a more mundane subject. What effect does being in an air-conditioned environment have upon a cold?

When I get a cold it runs an extremely predictable pattern. I get a sore throat which lasts for about four or five days, then I suffer from nasty congestion for a day where it seems my head will explode, and finally I start sneezing, coughing, expectorating, and blowing my nose for a couple of more days until finally the cold ends about a week or so after it started.

I’m sure all my loyal readers were happy to read these thrilling details!

The reason I bring all this up is what happens at the very end of my sickness. Generally speaking I like to keep the windows at my house open until the temperature gets above 90 or below 50. I’m strange that way. I like the fresh air and frankly, I don’t like paying insane heating and cooling bills.

When the last part of my cold arrives I find that I’m generally much better when I’m in a fresh air environment. For instance, as I type this post I’m breathing freely and haven’t sneezed or coughed in a while. I still feel a little tingle in the nasal region and I know I’m still sick, it’s just the symptoms are mild.

Last night when I went to my mother’s air-conditioned house for dinner I was the same way until I had been there for about two hours. At that point I started to sneeze and needed to blow my nose frequently. The same thing happened at work this morning. I was fine until I had been at work for a couple of hours, in the air conditioning, and then I sneezed and coughed more and blew my nose more. It grew worse as the day went along.

I’m wondering if anyone else has this experience or if I’m just strange. Well, I’m strange, I think that much can be admitted safely.

Perhaps I’m just imagining my symptoms are worse?  I don’t know. Sometimes the person experiencing a thing is the least well suited to understanding it objectively. When you are sick do you feel worse in an air-conditioned environment?

Anyone?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 and worth all 299 pennies!)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Papis – Skeen NASCAR Ruckus – Is Equal really Equal?

Posted on by

Max PapisThere’s an interesting story in the sports world this morning involving NASCAR truck racing and two drives, Max Papis and Mike Skeen. There was some hard racing in which the two collided but it’s the events after the race that are garnering all the attention.

A woman associated with Skeen verbally accosted Papis and eventually gave him a hard slap on the jaw. Prior to that a crew member who works for Skeen attempted to assault Papis while he was still in his truck. This followed verbal exchanges between Papis and Skeen which included Skeen driving his truck into Papis’s truck.

There is some background here in that Papis is a veteran driver and Skeen is a less well-known and that, according to the comments I read from what appear to be knowledgeable fans, the accident was primarily the fault of Skeen. These factors don’t really effect what I’m going to talk about but I think they are worth noting.

The reason this story is making news is because of the woman hits man angle; but what I want to discuss is more about the double-standard that sometimes exist between men and women.

It is clear that if Papis had struck the woman there would be tremendous outrage. There is some talk about charging the woman with assault and Papis claims his jaw was dislocated but he doesn’t seem to be in a mood to press charges. He simply walked away, a rather bemused expression on his face. If instead, he had hit her back, he would likely be attacked by fans and the media despite the fact that he was hit first.

This is the double-standard. A woman can slap a man and it’s not considered a big deal but the reverse is a major transgression.

A real man does not hit a woman. That’s a man-law that everyone I grew up with understood and in the rough and tumble world of NASCAR I’d imagine the drivers were raised the same way.

Does equal rights mean equal rights? That’s the question. If a woman wants to be treated as an equal should she be treated as an equal in all things or are women being hypocrites?

I’m all for equal rights. I think everyone should have a fair opportunity in life but that doesn’t, in my opinion, mean that men and women are equal in all things. It means that they should have equal opportunities. Men are bigger and stronger than women on average. Now, there are plenty of women in the world who could beat my 5′ 7.5″ 160 lb frame to a pulp but that’s not my point.

Women get pregnant. Men can be kicked below the belt. Men and women are different from each other physically. Men, as the bigger and stronger of the two sexes, have certain codes of behavior. One of those is that you don’t hit a woman. There are exceptions of course but I’m talking in more general terms.

I’m not excusing the woman in this case. She was completely and totally out of line but not so much as if it had been a man hitting a woman in similar circumstances. Does this make me a chauvinist? Misogynistic?

One of the problems that women face when they declare their desire for equal rights is being treated equally, like a man. I think there’s a middle ground, that women can still be treated as the fair sex, as delicate flowers, with respect; but given equal access to jobs, equal pay.

I have to say, when women act like this, they break down the social contract that men like Papis were taught. Don’t hit a woman. Ever.

It’s a difficult thing when equal isn’t really equal. I don’t think I’ve come up with any great epiphany today. My advice would be to treat women with respect but play hardball with them as well. In the boardroom men and women are equal. When it comes to fisticuffs, not so much.

I think Papis did the right thing and the woman should not be allowed in the pit area anymore but that’s the end of it.

Should the woman be charged with assault? Should Papis have hit her back? Did he show proper restraint? What do you think?

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

Natural Gas Production vs Reserves

Posted on by

Energy IndependenceThe United States is undergoing what some call a second energy boom although this time it is natural gas rather than oil. The process of Hydraulic Fracturing allows for the extraction of huge amounts of natural gas which can be used for energy. This boom is creating jobs and some controversy over the damage the process may do to the environment.

My topic of discussion today is not the potential danger or safety of the processes used to extract natural gas but the idea that the United States would be wise not to rely on this apparent boom as a means to end their energy dependence on foreign nations.

The United States currently is second in the world in production of natural gas pulling up 651 million cubic meters per year. This vast production has given many people the illusion that the United States has a limitless supply of natural gas with which to feed our massive energy demands. This is sadly, false. The United States is also the number one importer of natural gas in the world and the worse news is the names of the countries that have the most proven reserves of the gas circa 2008.

Here’s the list by rank: Iran, Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and then the United States. Do the names on that list look familiar?

Russia, like the United States, is searching for and exploiting their reserves which amount to five times those of the United States but Iran has barely touched theirs. Venezuela has almost as much proven reserves as the United States but, being oil rich, has largely not exploited these reserves.

Here’s the problem from my perspective. If we rely on this resource we will end up dependent on countries like Russia and Iran to provide for our energy needs. This is not a good plan for the security of our country. Energy independence is a vital step in assuring our safety and indeed the security of the world. One of the reasons for the terrorism we see from the Middle East is our meddling in their affairs to obtain oil and the fact that money flows to these countries in exchange for said oil.

We should exploit our natural gas reserves. I’m for using our own resources. This gas is extremely useful in lessening our dependence on foreign nations for our energy demands in the short-term but the distribution of the resource indicates this will not last long.

The long-term answer to our energy needs lies in renewable resources and/or nuclear power. The feed-in tariff system used by Germany to encourage the use of these renewable resources seems extremely viable and is working well. One has to be careful because the same sort of system in Spain has caused problems; largely because the Spanish government reduced the cost of producing the energy too much and didn’t gradually lower the tariff as did Germany.

The world is slowly moving towards an energy grid wherein power is both cheap and readily available. If the United States refuses to move in the same direction we will fall behind in many ways. A nation that has huge reserves of power sells it to other countries accumulating massive amounts of money. This money can be used to influence the rest of the world. Cheap power means cheap production, cheap transportation, and inexpensive goods. The country with these things gains a tremendous advantage over other nations.

If we count on local coal, oil, and natural gas to meet our energy demands while other nations continue to build their potentially limitless renewable and nuclear options we will steadily lose our influence in the world. And again, don’t get me wrong; we should continue to explore for and use coal, oil, and natural gas. The days of cheap and abundant energy are not yet here. But they are coming and it would be wise to be ready for that time.

It doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. It’s not “drill-baby-drill” at the expense of solar credits. It’s not an unsustainable renewable system with a moratorium on fossil-based energy. We are a great nation. We can and should do both.

A nation that has limitless energy has political power, military power, scientific power, influence. I’d like that nation to be the United States. Wouldn’t you?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water (At $2.99 can you afford not to buy it?)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Science is a Force of Good – Even when you Disagree

Posted on by

Science HateThere’s a new science story making the rounds about life originating on Mars and coming to Earth. What I want talk about today is not this theory but the general attitude of Americans towards scientific endeavor.

The article spawned a number of comments I’ve found typical whenever there is a science story in the news. I’ll post a few here. I would say they are pretty standard.

Comment01

Comment02 Comment03 Comment04 Comment05 Comment06 Comment07 Comment08 Comment09 Comment10

There is a lot of science hate out there and I think there is a reason for it. Today I will talk about why that is and how I think it can be, rather easily, solved.

Since the beginning of what was called global warming and is now called climate change I’ve seen what appears to be a radical alteration in American’s attitude towards science. It is not only climate change but science and scientists in general. This negative attitude towards science is, in my opinion, a tremendous danger to our nation.

The U.S. preeminence in scientific endeavors was probably always overstated but did reach its peak during World War II when many of the greatest minds of Europe and Asia fled to the U.S. They came here to avoid totalitarian regimes who squashed scientific conclusions with which the state did not agree. A notable lesson there.

My Republican friends will think I’m picking on them with this post and they will be right. I’m largely not talking to Democrats and I’m largely not talking to medium to low IQ readers. I’m talking to highly intelligent Republicans. There are many of them and I’m friends with quite a few.

Being against climate change is something the Republican party has invested in. It’s great to be against something but they have promulgated the idea that scientists are largely on the take for government grants and change results to meet expected ideology. Republicans largely insist that scientists are just “guess makers” who don’t know anything at all. When a scientific theory is proven wrong Republicans attack science, in general, as always being wrong.

Republicans promote what was never a generally accepted theory as being stated as absolute fact. I cannot tell you how often in the comments sections I read, “All the scientists told us there would be an ice age”, “The scientists said there could never be life at hydro-thermal vents in the ocean.” A few scientists said these things and upon peer-reviewed evidence based investigation most scientists determined these predictions inaccurate. And yet in many people’s minds those ideas were promulgated by the majority of scientists. They use it to justify not believing anything a scientist says unless it meets their ideological standards.

This attitude against science is gaining momentum and largely because Republicans leaders and pundits perceive that it will help their party in future elections.

My friends, my intelligent Republican friends, I want you to imagine something. Imagine the rest of the world has cheap, renewable, abundant energy and the United States is still burning oil and coal and spending our wealth procuring these things. Imagine if because of stem-cell research the rest of the world produces healthy, long-living people and the United States does not. Imagine if the rest of the world starts to pull down meteors with vast amounts of rare and valuable elements and the United States is left out.

I’m not speaking of those three scientific endeavors specifically, I’m speaking about scientific advancement as a whole and using them as examples.

It’s great to look for evidence that climate change is not caused by human action. It’s great to try to find medical breakthroughs without using stem cells. It’s reasonable to argue that money should be spent in places beside NASA. But, if the facts indicate otherwise, it’s not acceptable to denigrate science because it doesn’t meet with your ideology. To do so is to, and I can’t make this any clearer, hasten the destruction of this great nation.

I don’t ask you to imagine this next thing. I simply ask you to look around. Who has faster internet connections than Americans? Who has more fuel-efficient cars? Faster trains? Better cameras? Cheaper and higher capacity USB drives? Who derives more energy from solar power, wind power? Nations without our natural resources, without our population to draw upon for scientists. Who has the Large Hadron Collider and who has an unfinished pile of junk?

How can we change this trend? It’s so easy, so simple. Follow the facts. If science comes up with an answer you don’t like, smile, shake your head, and say, “I was wrong.”

This is in your hands my intelligent Republican friends. You can sway the opinion of those around you. Other people look up to you, they respect you and your opinion.

Imagine a United States where science is reviled and scientists persecuted. Imagine our position in the world.

Do you want to live there?

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

Mind Meld Science – Or Should I say Bad Science

Posted on by

Bad ScienceAnyone who follows my blog with any regularity knows to what nerd depths I can plumb. I saw a headline about one human sending an electrical brain signal to another. I figured it was probably misleading. Once I finished reading the story, particularly the last few paragraphs, my fears were confirmed.

The story is that a researcher sent an electrical signal from their thoughts to a device that captured the signal, broadcast it a distances over a network to a colleague wearing another device, and caused the arm of the second person to move.

The headline reads: U.S. scientist operates colleague’s brain from across campus

Wow, a person might say. Amazing! Imagine if people can control each other with the merest thought. Conspiracy theorist to the front of the line!

It’s not amazing. It’s mundane. Scientists have long known that electrical signals from the brain cause muscles to move. They’ve studied such signals at great length and by mimicking them have performed a number of experiments even being able to understand rudimentary thoughts based on brain activity.

Once the story gets past its sensational headline the article fairly quickly starts to reveal why this is not a big deal. It states that much work has been done to help paralyzed patients move their own limbs using similar methods. Animal thoughts have been transmitted to other animals who mimicked behavior. Human thoughts have been used to send electrical signal to artificial limbs and make them move as desired.

What we have here is simply the appropriate electrical current being applied to force a movement. It’s not a breakthrough, it’s not very impressive. However, there is something much worse about this particular case. Because it’s not a breakthrough, because no one independently verified the experiment; the designers didn’t try to publish the results in a scientific journal. They didn’t subject themselves peer review. They went straight to video on the university website.

Why? I’ll let the researchers tell you in their own words: “time was of the essence.”

This is the kind of thing that gives science a bad name. The top researchers in the field were “uneasy” with the announcement. Uneasy? How about pissed off?

That’s not how science must work. Unfortunately splashy releases of unconfirmed science gets noticed by the public and quickly promulgates through the media to a wider audience. This is the strategy of the talking heads on the news/opinion shows and of politicians.

This is dangerous and I spoke about why in my post about how lies in the research of stem cells are still causing damage years after they were told.

Many might remember a South Korean scientist who went through much more elaborate deception to get publicity about human cloning.

Real scientists, the people who performed this experiment are actually scientists, must restrain themselves from such skulduggery. The integrity of science is daily questioned by those wishing to discredit it. Let’s not give the naysayers ammunition. When we as a people don’t believe in science anymore, this nation of ours is in serious jeopardy.

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

Billions Spent on Paperless Vet Software – No Results

Posted on by

Software DevelopmentThere was an interesting story this morning in the news about how several software development projects for the government burned through billions of dollars and produced no results.

Basically the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs wanted to create a single system to keep track of their healthcare records. The reason for the need to make this sort of unified system is that currently dozens of pieces of software don’t communicate with one another and this leads to long delays for veterans seeking medical care. When you need medical care a long delay is not merely a nuisance, it can be a life-threatening issue.

I work for a company that does software development and I wanted to talk to a few of our developers before I wrote this blog. I thought that it couldn’t be that hard to create a database driven tool. Certainly, I imagined, scanning in all the old paper records would be quite time-consuming and cost much in the way of salary for the people doing it, but the software itself couldn’t be that complex.

I was sort of right. The complexity of such software is immense because they are trying to replace dozens of different systems, all with their own record retention quirks. Transferring the existing records requires tremendous attention to detail. In addition the ability of the systems to sort through perhaps hundreds of billions of records is apparently no easy trick for any software. We work with one client who has an enormous amount of data and their aging database system can take five minutes to retrieve a piece of information. If you take five minutes of computer time and then imagine every single vet making a claim at that moment; it’s easy to see how it would quickly cause a system to collapse.

That being said, the developers I spoke with said the problem was most likely the government took the bid from the wrong company. That a software developer used to working with massive amounts of data probably made a realistic bid on how long it was going to take and how much money would be needed. They were likely underbid by a company that did not understand the complexity of what was involved, and offered a low bid.

I don’t know for a fact that this is what happened but it certainly seems likely as the software was eventually completely scrapped.

Money was spent and nothing was gained. Now they will either have to rebid the entire project or simply give up because there isn’t money in the budget to complete the task. This means that veterans waiting for adjudication on their claims will continue to wait, the wait will get progressively get longer, and the chance for errors progressively higher.

I’ve written before about how the low-bid system is extremely detrimental to honest companies who simply try to provide a good product at a fair price. I’ve mentioned before that bribery in the bidding process is rampant both from government workers and the contractors hoping to get the bid.

A company makes an artificially low bid, collects billions and provides nothing, declares bankruptcy, the executives cash their checks and move on, taxpayers foot the bill, while congressmen buy a new house with the kickback money.

The government is so large that billions of dollars are stolen without a second thought. The money is so immense as to make even an honorable person compromise his principles. What would you do for a billion dollars? Be honest.

The simple, easy solution? There isn’t one, despite what most pundits say.

In my newest novel the companions are contemplating an immense task and are advised by General Yumanar; Those who attempt to move a mountain will always fail. Those who start by lifting a single rock eventually succeed.

And thus I write my blog, my novels.

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

An Athlete Accused – Keith Bulluck

Posted on by

Keith BullockThere’s a breaking story in the news today about an athlete accused of robbery. What I want to talk about is not the accusation or the athlete but the assumption of guilt that seems to come along with any accusation.

Apparently Keith Bulluck, a former running back with the Tennessee Titans, was out in the early hours of the morning and got into an altercation with a cab driver.

Cab Driver’s Story

The cab driver claimed Bullock robbed him of $100. He called the police, led them to wear Bullock was still with friends, and identified him as the thief. Bullock was arrested and posted bond.

Bullock’s Story

Bullock claims he paid for a ride but the driver refused to give services and Bullock took the money back.

What I want to discuss is the tone of the comments section. I consider myself a veteran of comment sections and I think I’m pretty good at spotting trolls. These are comments designed to inflame passionate response. There were a number of these that were blatantly racist but they are not my focus today.

There were also a lot of comments by seemingly rational people talking about another broke athlete. Another thug athlete. The word “thug” is essentially code for criminal black person. Those people assumed him guilty and said so in unabashed terms. While there was a racial element to some of those accusations I wouldn’t say they were predominant. The racial comments were largely trolls.

There were an equal number of comments defending Bullock, primarily made by people from Tennessee where he played his pro career and New York; he played college ball at Syracuse. Most of them were very skeptical of the accusations because of Bullock’s history as a stand-up guy.

What I found most interesting was not necessarily that there were those who immediately attacked Bullock and those that defended him, but the clear delineation of the comments. Those who had bad things to say almost universally assumed guilt. Those who had good things to say suggested waiting until the story was more fully revealed. They expressed skepticism and wanted to know more.

That’s what I found interesting. Those calling for immediate justice were largely uninterested in further facts. Those skeptical of the event wanted more information before they were willing to pass judgment.

I find this desire for more information, this unwillingness to make a final statement, a sign of intelligence. That people who are smart tend to wait before coming to a conclusion. That people who are not smart immediately know they are right and say so without hesitation.

My friend Eric, a very intelligent fellow, once described it as a curious mind. This desire for facts, for more information.

My point today is that we often give credence to those who say things with absolute certainty. Those who yell out their opinions both loudly and repeatedly. I would suggest we listen to those who are less certain. Those willing to withhold judgment. Those seeking more facts, those who examine the other side of the story with an open mind. We might find our world becomes a better place.

Oh, by the way, it turns out the cab driver has made such an accusation before. Has been accused of running a little scam where he takes money from prospective fares and refuses to drive them places claiming he never took any money.

I’m willing to wait until the police finish their investigation to make a final judgment. How about you?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99, full eBook provided upon payment)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Foul Language Ejections

Posted on by

Justin UptonThere was an incident in the baseball game between the Atlanta Braves and my beloved St. Louis Cardinals last night that got me thinking. A player for the Braves, Justin Upton, was ejected, supposedly for arguing. Upton says he was merely mad at himself for grounding out and cursed.

This sort of incident happened earlier in the season to Yadier Molina when he was called out on a close play at first base and slammed his helmet into the ground. He was frustrated that he didn’t run harder out of the batter’s box, he is a catcher and nursing sore knees, but the umpire saw it differently and ejected Molina.

When I sat down to write this blog post I was going to call out overly sensitive officials for ejecting players and altering the course of the game unnecessarily. The more I thought about it, the more I thought about the rules I played under as a young boy. I began to realize there is a better solution. Stop throwing your equipment, cursing, and being disrespectful in general.

When I played sports as a kid, if you abused a piece of equipment the coach would put you on the bench. If you said anything argumentative to an official you’d be ejected from the game. Those days are sadly over.

I’m not saying that official don’t make mistakes and I’m certainly on record saying that I think some outright cheat. I’m not saying that those who make mistakes, those who cheat, those who lie, shouldn’t be called out. I’m just saying let’s try to do it with some decency.

I am saying it would be great if players acted like gentlemen and ladies. This screaming and yelling at every perceived slight, this flopping to gain an advantage, this boorish behavior is something that pervades sports, media, comment sections, essentially society itself.

This rudeness is everywhere, not just sports, and certainly characterizes  political debate. Everyone thinks its okay to call someone they don’t like an “idiot!” A “moron!” A “Repukelican!” A “Libtard!” This lack of decency, of simple manners, hurts cooperation, hurts society, hurts our (yes, our) nation.

We have become a rude, nasty lot. We will say horrible things about other people and words hurt. When our actions show a complete disregard for civility, for kindness, for tolerance, then we simply encourage the worst sort of people to take things even further. When the best of us, the role-models, cannot restrain ourselves the worst are emboldened.

Back to the topic at hand, a ballplayer thrown out for cursing at himself. It wouldn’t have happened if all baseball players were ejected at the first curse word, at the first disrespectful action towards an umpire. I’m not just haranguing ball players here. Fire the umpire that shows disrespect to a player.

I don’t think what I’m suggesting will happen because of money. If John McEnroe yells something at an umpire during the finals of Wimbledon and the match is declared over that will cost people a lot of money. If Tiger Woods curses after a bad shot and is escorted from the course that will cost sponsors a lot of money.

That being said, if there are strictly enforced rules, the athletes and  officials will eventually learn to follow them. It might be a little painful at the start but I think we’d all be better off.

And before you like this post and tell me how right I am, examine your own life, your own actions. You’re a role-model for someone out there. Act like it.

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

Tesla Banned – Attack on the Free Market from … Texas

Posted on by

TeslaThe state of Texas has a law that allows only franchised dealers to sell automobiles. The idea is that only an authorized franchise store of Ford, or Chevy, or Toyota is allowed to sell cars.

The Texas Automobile Dealers Association convinced the legislature to ban the sale of Tesla cars because the company sells directly to buyers instead of through a licensed franchise.

I’ll let TADA president Bill Wolters explain why in his own words. If Tesla were allowed to sell cars without a franchise, “… it allows every other manufacturer to come in and do what Tesla is going to — compete with our family owned businesses.”

He goes on to say this would hurt consumers because franchise dealers compete with each other to keep prices down and they serve customers in rural communities.

So, competition is good, just not competition from anyone who isn’t from Texas? Anyone who doesn’t want to pay franchise fees? Someone who simply want to sell their product to people who want to buy their product? How dare they? Do they think they’re capitalists or something?

I’ve got news for consumers. Competition is good for everyone. This law is protectionism at the expense of consumers.

The success of Texas in banning sales of Tesla’s is spreading. Other auto dealers are gearing up the legislatures in their states to do the same thing.

I’m no giant fan of the Tesla. It’s got some issue but if the people in Texas want to buy the thing, the government should not stand in their way. Government has specific and useful functions and one of them is not pandering towards one business over another. If the Tesla is to fail, then let it fail on its own shortcomings.

I write post after post after post about this subject. How business owners bribe legislatures into passing laws to destroy competition.

What really angers me about this particular brand of crony capitalism is the nasty liberal slant. We’re doing it to help the consumers. That’s the song and dance of the liberals. Trust us, if this nasty businessman gets his way you’ll end up being the one hurt. I’m used to such nonsense from liberals but I suppose I should have grown accustomed to hearing it from republicans by now. They don’t believe in free enterprise and capitalism any more than a liberal democrat, if they ever did.

The government has a role in our nation. If the Tesla was poorly designed and exploded on contact, then the government has some duty to protect its citizens. Even then I don’t think they should be able to ban the sale completely. They can offer consumer guidelines and warning. That’s not the case here. The Tesla is apparently a very safe car although perhaps not as safe as their marketing department would like you to believe.

Texas politicians are looking at legislation that would make a narrow exception for the Tesla but the entire law is clearly designed to stifle competition in favor of local dealers.

I’ll leave it to you to figure out why the politicians decided to pass laws favoring locals.

I’ve got nothing against local businesses. It’s great when they succeed but when government gives them an unfair advantage it hurts consumers.

If Tesla sells a lot of cars then it forces those local Texas dealers to compete. Some of them might lose the competition and go out of business. Those that survive will be the  best dealers in the state. That’s the nature of the free market. Companies that provide a good product at a price point people want, survive.

Propping up a business that can’t compete or passing legislation that favors one company over another is Crony Capitalism. It’s rampant. Democrat? Republican? What’s the difference?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a 300+ page eBook)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Murdering the Small Business – American Style

Posted on by

Small Business ShrinkingThere are a lot of statistics about small businesses in the United States and the majority of them are designed to mislead. Small business in America is on the decline and has been for decades. This is because it’s under assault from very large, or Enterprise, businesses and their allies, the politicians of both parties.

One misleading statistic you will see is that small businesses make up 97% of all businesses in the United States. This number relies on what are called Non-Employer businesses. Those companies that generally have one self-employed person and no payroll. They make up about 75% of all businesses but only contribute 3.4% of business receipts and are essentially a non-factor in the health of the economy.

Small business advocates will spew out this 97% and claim it is the backbone of our economy. It is not.

The definition of a small business is somewhat dependent on receipts and type of business but is generally defined as having less than 250 employees. However, the breakdown by the government creates a group of 100-499. I’ll go with two sets of numbers. As of 2008 small businesses that employ less than 100 people account for about 35% of the total workers in the US. If we use the 499 or less standard that number rises to 49.4% of the total employees. Let’s split the difference and call it 42%.

The important difference is receipts and sales, money. As of 2008 out of a total of some six million businesses there were over 3.5 million very small businesses with sales or receipts totaling $670 billion. There were 20,500 enterprise businesses generating $20.3 trillion dollars in sales or receipts out of a total of some $29 trillion.

If we compare those enterprise companies, those with $100 million or more in sales or receipts, to all the rest we find that .34% of the total number of businesses generated 68% of the wealth. The other 99.66% of businesses contributed 32% of the wealth. I repeat, those 20,500 enterprise businesses represent .34% percent of the total number of employer businesses in the United States, some six million businesses in all, and yet accounted for 68% of all sales receipts.

In 1997, as far back as I can find numbers, enterprise businesses accounted for .29% of all businesses and 59% of total receipts. Therefore in that sixteen year period enterprise businesses gained 9% of total U.S. sales and receipts at the expense of small and medium-sized businesses.

That’s enough statistics.

I think we’re all aware that money influences politics, money gets a politician elected, and politicians pass legislation to help those who fund their campaigns.

With that in mind, examine from where the money comes. It’s not small businesses. Therefore the trend makes sense.

The tax code is heavily biased towards large businesses. The business tax rate is 35% but the real tax rate, that which is actually paid, is 11%. When you factor in that many large businesses pay almost no taxes it is clear that small and medium-sized businesses are the ones paying that 35%, and it’s killing them.

For my friends who vote Republican because they are supposedly small business friendly I have but a single question. Why would any enterprise business want to change the current tax system?

For my friends who vote Democrat because they are supposedly worker friendly; when taxes are raised it only hurts the small businesses who want to provide a decent product and employ people at a decent wage. Enterprise businesses are immune because of their political connections in both parties.

The current system is stacked against small businesses. There are arguments that enterprise businesses bring wealth, cheaper products, more employment, and a better standard of living. This is not erroneous in many respects. I’m not against enterprise business. I’m against a playing field that is unfair. I’m against a Congress that passes laws to help one business at the expense of another. This hurts competition and rots capitalism from the inside.

If an enterprise business succeeds without an unfair advantage, more power to them. I love a hard worker with a great idea who gets rich. It helps everyone.

My point here is that both parties are bought and sold by those with money and that’s called a Plutocracy.

If you choose to vote for Republicans or Democrats that’s your business. Just don’t be fooled by their words. Look at the metrics.

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

US Politics – The Appearance of Impropriety

Posted on by

Appearance of ImproprietyThe appearance of impropriety is when something looks wrong even though there is no proof of wrong-doing. A story I read in the back pages made me start to think about this phrase.

You often hear it quoted in its negative, “We must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”

The story I read was about how U.S. lawmakers are once again taking family vacations, er fact-finding missions, all over the world as guests of generous lobbyists. This practice was curtailed in 2006 after the Jack Abramoff scandal. By curtailed I mean lobbyists could only pay for trips that lasted one week instead of two-weeks out of the country and four days instead of one week inside the U.S.

We must remember that politicians are largely funded by special interest groups and the lobbyist they have on staff. Politicians cannot win the primary or general elections without such support. Once in power they continue to take money from wealthy people and groups who have particular political agendas. There are rules about how much and what the money is spent on, but these are easily circumvented by creative lawmakers and lobbyists who want their votes.

Politicians regularly take exotic trips, go to sporting events, funnel money to friends and family members, and use their legislative power to help those who provide this largess.

The same politicians argue that they still vote their conscience, that they don’t let such influence peddling effect their decisions. That these vacations are valuable cultural exchanges. If you believe this, if you spew this nonsense yourself, then I have nothing to say to you. You might as well stop reading now.

We’ve long since passed the point where anyone cared about avoiding the appearance of impropriety. The entire system appears improper. The entire system is improper.

It’s so ingrained, so institutionalized, that there is no possible way for a Democrat or Republican to get elected without being the beneficiary of such gifts. If they refuse they magically lose their funding, the support of their national party, and any chance of being elected. The only candidates to vote for are those already corrupted. Any politician who goes into it with idealistic dreams doesn’t last long. Only jaded, corrupt, bad characters need apply.

When we “toss out” a corporate bought Republican we get a union bought Democrat. No progress there.

Big money wins. Big business, big farms, big unions win. Small business, small farms, small people lose.

There is a solution. Anyone who reads my blog with regularity knows it. Vote Independent. Vote Libertarian.

Even if Independent candidates don’t win elections; enough votes can stem the tide. If Independent candidates get enough votes the Democrats and Republicans will take note. Candidates with integrity, who care about their district, their state, their country will start winning primaries.

Don’t believe me? Keep voting for Democrats or Republicans. See what happens.

The appearance of impropriety? Ha.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 full length eNovel)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Meddling Confirmed – The CIA and Iran

Posted on by
Mossadegh mohammad of Iran

It’s not exactly an earth-shattering admission about Iran, but the CIA finally released documents admitting they’re responsibility in the overthrowing of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953.

You’re probably wondering why that is such a big deal. 1953 was 60 years ago and wouldn’t seem to have much to do with the world today. I think it is a big deal and there is a large segment of people in the United States who want to make a similar mistake today.

It’s the Oil Dummy

In 1953 Iran was, as they are today, oil rich. The oil companies were largely owned by British interests. Mosaddeq was elected democratically but was unhappy with the fact that British oil companies were getting the vast majority of the revenue. The British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (BAIOC) offered Saudi Arabia a 50/50 split of revenue but refused to go even this far with Iran.

The government before Mosaddeq toed the line claiming the Iranians weren’t capable of managing the operation. The prime minister was assassinated and Mosaddeq came to power; appointed by the Shah of Iran to appease the people who saw the oil being pumped out of their ground and all the profits from this operation going to England.

Mosaddeq immediately nationalized the oil industry although promised to pay fair compensation from the revenue generated. Royalist Iranians protested this move as Mosaddeq was largely a populist. There was much internal turmoil. Mosaddeq emerged victorious although the British then waged a war of economic ruin on Iran. President Truman opposed the British “rule or ruin” policies but President Eisenhower thought differently. He worried that Mosaddeq, a fervent anti-socialist, would turn to the Soviet Union for help.

The Coup of Iran

Eisenhower ordered the orchestration of a coup. CIA operatives paid tribesmen to riot, pretended to be communists and socialist and threatened enemies of Mosaddeq in a clever ruse to make them even more angry at the prime minister. Mosaddeq was removed from power and arrested. He died four years later still under house arrest.

The Shah of Iran

The Shah of Iran then came back into power and was eventually overthrown himself in the 1979 popular revolution.

Is it any wonder the people of Iran were so upset with the United States and England? Imagine foreign operatives roaming the streets of St. Louis paying people to have riots.

Long Term Ruin for Short Term Benefit

When we behave in this fashion, we make enemies. When we think we know better how to rule a nation than the people themselves; we go against everything for which our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution stand.

Nations must be free to make their own mistakes. We spend billions of dollars trying to influence nations so we can have military bases, so we can dig up precious resources, so we can put into power those we deem satisfactory. And the world hates us for it.

Iranians hate us for it and their money has spread that hatred everywhere in the world. If only we had looked past the possibility of Iranian oil money, of the Red Scare. If only we had heeded the spirit of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the Founding Fathers. We didn’t and we are paying the price today.

Why is this important now? Egypt.

The people of Egypt overthrew their government and elected a rather nasty lot, the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s their business. The Muslim Brotherhood engaged in some shady practices and the military led a coup against them. In Congress there is a debate about cutting off foreign aid. Using that aid as a bargaining chip to try to further influence the nation and people of Egypt.

We have to stop. Any gain in the short-term is paid for with blood in the long-term.

Freedom is the best form of government in the world. A Representative Republic is as good as it going to get. If we cherish our freedom enough to let other people have theirs, they will eventually come to us. Join us.

The way forward in Egypt is clear to me. The Muslim Brother, as nasty as they might be, were elected fairly. When we support a fairly elected government, particularly when it is opposed to our agenda in the region, we make friends. We turn enemies into allies. We make the world a better place.

Conclusion

We must start believing in freedom again. Nowadays we believe in safety. Keep me safe even if it means taking away my freedom and particularly if it means taking away the freedom of other people.

Freedom is free, it’s just not safe. Let’s be brave again.

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