How do you Solve a Problem like … the NCAA?

Posted on June 12, 2013 by Tom Liberman

The nuns kicked Maria out of the abbey because she wasn’t an asset. What do we do when the bosses are the problem? That’s the NCAA for you.

For those of you not aware of the facts of the matter, the NCAA runs a big business. The business of college sports. Here’s the page for their Enforcement Arm. It’s filled with gems like Commitment to fair play is a bedrock principle of the NCAA, and The enforcement program is dedicated to creating positive student-athlete experiences by preserving the integrity of the enterprise.

This blogger is committed to calling lying sacks of garbage … wait for it … lying sacks of garbage. They are in it for the money. There is lots of money in college sports for everyone except the men and women providing the entertainment that generates all that money. The do get to go to college for free which is not a bad compensation for many of them. A four-year stint at Duke costs about $200,000.

Not bad although the head coach at Duke earns $1.7 million per year. That’s the football coach. The hoops coach, try $4.7 million. The university itself pulled in a cool $67 million in 2008 thanks to its athletic department. Athletic departments pull in huge amounts of money through television rights, game-day tickets, post-season play, jersey sales, and various other arms of fund-raising. NCAA sports is big business and the regulation arm of the NCAA is primarily concerned with keeping that revenue stream healthy, not creating positive student-athlete experiences. By the way, the term student-athlete was created by the NCAA as a legal dodge.

It’s hard to blame them. People willingly offer up their hard-earned money to wear jerseys of their favorite players, see the game, and watch it on the streaming device of their choice. College serves as a free farm system for the NBA, the NFL, NHL, and increasingly MLB. It’s a place for the stars of the game to hone their skills before the payout finally comes in professional sports. You see, the NCAA runs an amateur organization where the players aren’t tainted by being paid, conveniently forgetting that a scholarship is a form of payment. Tuition, room and board, books, no charge, but that’s not payment because we value the purity of the sport, don’t you see the difference?

The NCAA punishes players who sell game-day jerseys worn in the big game. Kids who want a little money because they aren’t allowed to have jobs while on scholarships. Kids who aren’t allowed to talk to lawyers who could actually offer them some pretty sound financial advice, lawyers called agents. Really, they can’t talk to a lawyer to advise them about their future? Can’t talk to a lawyer!? Seriously? Accused criminals are reminded they have that right. College athletes, nope, rules violation. The team gets endorsement dollars for wearing sneakers, by the team I mean the coach and the university, certainly not the players. Video games of NCAA sports, primarily football and basketball, can’t put the player names on the back of the jersey, any guess why? Is it a commitment to fair play?

Meanwhile announcers, cameramen, referees, beer vendors, radio sports broadcasters, construction companies, and countless other thousands earn a living on the backs of these athletes.

Sports is a strange beast. The draft? Yeah, that’s clearly unconstitutional. That’s not the topic today but boy, once I get started with the madness of sports I can’t stop myself. National Letters of intent that legally bind a seventeen year old to one, and only one, university or he has to forfeit a year from his scholarship? It’s all about money. It’s about collusion, the suppression of constitutional rights in the pursuit of money.

I went to the college of my choice. I could have transferred anytime I wanted. I got a job at the company that offered me the best deal. They didn’t draft me and lock me into a preset dollar amount based on the position of the pick.

What do we do? How do we solve this problem? With this much money at stake it’s not an easy solution. I doubt there is a complete solution that is viable for all parties. That being said the travesty of justice that is coaches, athletic directors, university presidents, announcers and all the rest making millions and the athletes getting a scholarship angers my Libertarian principles. Don’t kid yourself, there are thousands of broken kids, used up in college sports, who never make the pros, tens of thousands of them. They got a college education which isn’t bad, but it’s not fair compensation compared to the money they generate for other people. It’s just not.

Tomorrow I’ll offer some ideas on how to right this wrong. It won’t be ground-breaking. They are all ideas that have been vetted many times. See you then.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery novels with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 a bargain for 300+ pages)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Passion and Hard Work

Posted on June 11, 2013 by Tom Liberman

While my legion of loyal followers knows me as a prolific blogger and author of stupendous Sword and Sorcery novels I’m not ashamed to admit that neither one of those endeavors pays the bills. I’d like for my novels to become best-sellers and box-office blockbusters but, as of this moment, what allows me to live comfortably is my job at Acumen Consulting as a Technical Trainer and Website Developer.

One of our former employees likewise has a real passion outside of her daytime job and that is massage therapy. She invited me to come and talk to a group that she and a few of her fellow therapists created called the Bloom Connection. The association is designed to give massage therapists a resource to help grow their business. I was to spend a few minutes talking about Search Engine Optimization which is one of my specialties in the web development industry.

After my presentation the next fellow up was Nick Dunne who works as a the social media director for SCOSAG. They are a non-profit organization that helps children learn about art in the St. Louis area. After we both finished our lecture we answered questions. People wanted to know from Nick how important it was to have a Facebook presence, a Twitter presence, a LinkedIn presence, a Pinterest presence, etc. He suggested that the more things you do the better off you are but all this blogging, website building, and tweeting was intimidating to the group. They just wanted to use their hands (and feet) to make people feel better. That’s when something emerged from the murky recesses of my brain.

I blurted out, If you’re passionate about what you do and work hard, you’re likely to succeed.

If that isn’t the United States of America then I don’t know what is. That’s why people from around the world flock to the United States. They are passionate about something in their lives. They want to work hard. Be they from Mexico or Iraq. Be they Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Christian, Atheists, or anything else.

In other places in this world working hard isn’t nearly as important as is paying off the powers that be. In other places in this world working hard is no substitute for having friends in government. In other places in this world if your skin is the wrong color or you religion is frowned upon you cannot succeed, no matter your passion or your work ethic. In other places in the world your passion will end up sending you to prison or the gallows.

And that’s the message of this blog. Let’s not stifle hard work. Let’s not promote graft and crony capitalism. Let’s not mindlessly support laziness from people of our race, religion, or political affiliation. Let’s purchase products and services from passionate people who care about their community, who care about what they do, who work hard at a job they love. It doesn’t matter if they are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Mexicans, Lebanese, or anything else.

By golly, let’s be more like America and less like those other places.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery novels with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (passionately written at the great price of $2.99)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Traitor or Patriot – a Matter of Conscience

Posted on June 9, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Benedict Arnold There are two stories in the headlines today that bring to mind an incredibly difficult dilemma that men and women of conscience must sometimes face. I will examine this question in great detail in my next novel, The Spear of the Hunt. Where is the line one crosses between being a patriot and being a traitor? At first glance the two seem diametrically opposed to one another but in these stories they are clearly linked.

A fellow named Bradley Manning leaked secret military information to an organization called WikiLeaks and is currently being tried for this transgression. Another man named Edward Snowden recently admitted to releasing secret government information about U.S. intelligence agency techniques used to monitor telephone conversations. He has fled to Hong Kong. Both of these issues are extremely complex and I’m not going to debate the right and wrong of them here today. What I do want to discuss is the decision that both men had to make. A decision that many people have had to make throughout history and, as I mentioned, that the protagonist of my next novel will have to make.

I don’t doubt for a moment that both Manning and Snowden believed they were doing the right thing. I don’t think either man meant to hurt the United States and both likely suffered tremendous mental anxiety before they decided to release their respective pieces of information. There is also no doubt that both men did compromise U.S. interests by revealing these secret. A fellow named Benedict Arnold faced a similar question in his time.

Let’s put ourselves in their situation for a moment. We love our country. We have information that causes us to doubt the path our leaders are taking us on. We make some sort of attempt to rectify the situation through accepted channels but our effort is rebuffed. What should we do? This decision defines us as either a traitor or a patriot. We want to do what’s right, to make our nation stronger. Perhaps we are naive, perhaps we are stupid, but our intentions are good. Do we expose what we consider to be dangerous activity by our government or do we keep the secret? Our parents taught us to do what’s right, not to be a mindless worker drone content to simply follow orders. There are plenty of those out there and that kind of person doesn’t build a nation. Men and women of courage, who stand up for what is right are the kind of people who make a nation strong.

One only has to read the commentary on Manning’s case to see the vitriol his decision has engendered. People want to hang him. People want to pin medals on his chest. I’m certain Snowden will likewise face such scrutiny. Their lives are forever changed because they had the courage to stand up for what they thought was right. Standing up for what is right is not the safe way to journey through life. You can suffer for doing it. It takes courage and leads to change. Whether that change is for the better or not is unclear.

My goal today isn’t to exonerate or eviscerate either Manning or Snowden, but simply to point out that their actions cannot easily be classified as right or wrong. As much as we’d like to sound bite judge I think a more careful examination is in order. History will eventually give them their place in the world.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not proclaiming them heroes. There are plenty of examples of people of courage standing up for what they think is right when it was completely wrong. There are many examples of murderous villains who stood up for their misguided principles. Lynch mobs, Islamic bombers, men who open fire on politicians, they all thought they were doing right, they weren’t.

I’m not sure where Manning and Snowden will eventually find themselves in the public eye. The fine line between Patriot and Traitor is worth examining because it can apply to even our lives. At work, at home, when is it best to stay quiet, when does our conscience insist we speak up?

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (300+ pages of adventure for $2.99)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (General Yumanar must decide between supporting the corrupt politicians or overthrowing them)

The Chicago Cubs vs the Rooftops

Posted on June 8, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Wrigely Rooftop View There’s an interesting situation brewing in Chicago-land between the evil, well, misguided, no, actually, pure evil Chicago Cubs and the owners of rooftop buildings around Wrigley Field. The rooftop buildings offer a view into Wrigley Field and there was a time when friends would gather there to watch the game and have a few beers. Those days are over.

The buildings are now valuable real-estate partially because the owners have built little venues on the roofs and sell game-day tickets to fans. They have comfortable seats, food service, beer service, and other amenities to provide for paying customers. The Cubs worked out a deal with the owners of the rooftops so that the team is paid 17% of the gross revenue taken in by the building owners. The Cubs now think they can generate more revenue by building large billboards in the outfield. These billboards will cut into the value of the buildings across the way because they might block the view from certain venues. The current contract between the Cubs and the building owners runs through 2023.

The Wrigley Rooftop Association is now threatening to sue the Cubs to prevent them from building the signs. The Cubs figure the revenue from the signs will far outweigh that gained from the buildings across the street and plan to go ahead with construction. The war of words is heating up.

When I first read this story I didn’t even think it worth talking about because it seems, at first glance, that the Cubs certainly can make any addition to their stadium they desire. The WRA doesn’t have a say in how the team operates. Then I started to think about the contract which provides the Cubs with 17% of the revenue from buildings, buildings over which they have no say in said operation. I haven’t read the contract so my focus here is going to be more on what both parties expected rather than the legal letter of the law.

Technically the buildings are under no obligation to pay the Cubs anything. There are large office buildings across the street from New Busch Stadium here in St. Louis that offer a view into the ballpark during the games. The Cardinals have asked for no money from the building owners nor have the building owners asked the Cardinals for anything in the way of construction demands.

In this case, the two sides came to a mutually satisfactory agreement. The nature of this agreement seems plain to me. The WRA is paying the Cubs not to build any obstructions to the view garnered from their rooftops. Otherwise what’s the point? The building owners are under no obligation to pay anything to the Cubs and the Cubs are under no obligation about their operations to the WRA. Again, I haven’t read the actual contract but it seems plain this is the reason it exists. If this is the implicit understanding of the agreement, the Cubs should not be allowed to build the signs, contrary to my first thought.

I’m fairly certain that some sort of buy-out can be arranged wherein the Cubs purchase the remaining years on the contract and go ahead with their signage. It’s possible the WRA won’t deal in which case it will end up in court. I suppose it depends on the metrics of the sign revenue, the current revenue from the buildings, and the cost of the buy-out.

Still, I found the story interesting because after examining the situation closely I completely changed my original opinion. I guess that’s my main point here. Always look at a problem fully because you never know what nuances might influence your opinion. Don’t make up your mind before you know the facts, and if the facts don’t support your original supposition, admit your error and move on.

Go Cardinals!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99, c’mon, pony up, it’s good, I promise)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Pay it Forward is Nonsense

Posted on June 7, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Pay it Forward I’ve noticed that the concept Pay if Forward seems to be in the news lately. It’s a concept that goes against everything Randian and she spoke directly to this idea in her novel Atlas Shrugged when John Galt needs a car to ferry Dagny Taggart around Galt’s Gulch. He goes to his friend Midas Mulligan and pays him a dime for the day’s rental.

This scene demonstrates what I consider to be one of the most important concepts of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.

The concept of Pay if Forward is that after you do something nice for a person you don’t expect them to pay you back but to perform a similar act for another person when the opportunity presents itself. I’m certainly not suggesting that we stop doing kind things, I’m just suggesting that there is value to effort and when we reward people for such work we also encourage other people to do the same. When we give the undeserving rewards we encourage people to do nothing.

It’s an odd contradiction and I long struggled to understand that scene in Atlas Shrugged. I enjoy doing nice things for friends, it’s makes me feel good to buy a lunch or give a present to one of my nieces. It’s still not easy to put into words the idea that we should pay for the services we desire because by rewarding the people who provide a good service at a reasonable price I make the world a better place. When I simply give away my skills in the hopes that someone else will do the same I set in motion a chain of events that leads to decay.

It’s a difficult concept because it seems heartless, it’s not. As an example, I think taxes that support a school system are a good thing. I think education has a value to society that is almost impossible to value. I don’t have any children. I strongly appreciate that educating children leads to a better world for me in any number of ways that seem self-evident and therefore I won’t discuss them in-depth now. It’s in society’s interest not to have poor people, it’s in my interest to not have criminals roaming the streets. Paying taxes for schools isn’t to just to benefit children, it’s to make my life better.

One of the things I do supposedly for free is the writing of this blog. I do it to bring my philosophic interpretations of Rand to others, to the masses. This in turn hopefully makes them Randian in their behavior which benefits me.

I sell my books for $2.99. These books are written largely to illustrate my ideas about how we can make this world a Utopia. However, I do not write them solely to make the world a better place. I want your $2.99. I want a lot of people’s $2.99. I want to sell millions of books and make millions of dollars. I want my books to be made into movies and the studios to pay me more millions. I also want you to read about Jon Gray, Silenia, the First Rider, Shinamar the Unbeliever, and General Yumanar, the heroes of my novels who showcase my philosophies.

We cannot make this world a better place by Paying it Forward. This idealism actually leads to our nation and the world becoming a worse place. Let’s examine the ultimate goal of the Pay it Forward philosophy. Imagine a world where everyone helps everyone else without payment. It sounds good but it isn’t. That is a world in which lazy people rule because they don’t have to do anything. They are given everything by others doing good deeds. Of course, eventually this leads to a society where everyone has nothing because no one does anything. Naturally this philosophic endgame is never going to happen because the Pay it Forward concept is, at its heart, bankrupt. It’s going to be impossible to convince people to Pay it Forward to the point where they have nothing left. But, the philosophic goal is to reach that so-called dream world.

We should pay for things so that we encourage people to provide those things we want. We should patronize restaurants that make food we like at what we consider to be a reasonable price. This allows that restaurant to succeed and we get good food. That’s a win.

If we look at poor people in Westernized countries as opposed to third-world countries we see a difference. Poor people in the United States, in Australia, in western Europe, are not nearly as poor as the destitute in India, Pakistan, Africa. Poor is a relative term and countries that live closer to Randian Objectivism, where the best are rewarded for their efforts, are far better off than their counterparts. This is the benefit of a system that doesn’t Pay it Forward. It encourage those who provide service to continue to do so. It rewards success instead of failure. That’s good for everyone, in the long run even the failures.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (yes it’s $2.99, yes it’s awesome)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt(Yes it will be $2.99 and awesome)

A Power Down Power Struggle

Posted on June 4, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Cell Phones Flights Please power down all electronic devices until we reach cruising altitude. Why do we have to do this? Because someone figured that electronic devices might interfere with avionics. Has an electronic device ever interfered with avionics? Not that anyone can prove. Have they done plenty of tests to try and prove that electronic devices interfere with avionics. They sure have and the results are not surprising. No correlation. Do pilots use their tablets in the cockpit? They sure do. Are we losing many hours of productivity (and game playing) because of the ban? That’s an affirmative. Are there anecdotal accounts of a device being correlated to a problem, yes, but they can’t be reproduced in the laboratory.

This is one of those situations where someone got an idea and it spread throughout an industry despite the complete lack of evidence that the idea had merit. Sometimes just because something sounds good doesn’t mean that it is right. I’m not opposed to being a little cautious when it comes to passenger plane service and the original supposition seems to have merit. However, when in study after study they cannot cause an electronic device to interfere with avionics I think the point has been reached where the ban needs to be rescinded.

While I do think that the FAA and the FCC are generally acting in what they think is the interest of safety I also suspect a more sinister motive. They just like telling me what to do. You can bet my Libertarian principles rail against that one. I really don’t mind a little crowd control to keep the unruly in line and I appreciate a traffic officer who keeps the cars moving when the lights are not working. I don’t like a petty dictator who tells me what to do not for the general welfare but because they enjoy the power trip. I think we’ve reached that point.

Originally the ban was all about money. Airlines used to make a lot of money from in-flight calls on their services. Nowadays we can call during flight so that little cash-cow is gone but old habits die hard. Europe is already starting to allow phone operation during takeoff and landing and there have been no incidents.

Basically, there used to be financial incentive to ban cellphones and there remains a bully mentality that forces people to turn them off. It needs to stop. This sort of behavior is a microcosm of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism. I’m not opposed to rules, to civility, but I am opposed to rules solely designed to inconvenience. Rules designed to part me from my money. Rules created by the small-minded so they can feel better about themselves.

I leave you with Mr. Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300 pages of swashbuckling adventure, that’s too good to pass up!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

DNA Collection from those Arrested

Posted on June 2, 2013 by Tom Liberman

There is a very interesting case at the Supreme Court this week and oral arguments took place the other day. At question is whether or not the police can take DNA samples from those they arrest. The Fourth Amendment makes it quite clear that law enforcement officials cannot conduct searches and seizures without reasonable cause. There are exceptions to this right for those who are arrested, fingerprinting being currently accepted as reasonable.

The particulars of this case are that the person arrested was swabbed for DNA and linked to, and eventually convicted in, a rape case from six years earlier. The DNA evidence was used in the conviction.

Those defending the right to swab arrested suspects argue that it helps solve crimes and puts offenders in prison. Justice Scalia points out that if the police went house to house searching everyone and everything that would also solve crimes and get convictions. This sort of unwarranted search is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Alito calls the case one of enormous importance. There are many people currently incarcerated who were swabbed in such a manner.

One argument that I hear frequently in favor of allowing law enforcement officers to use such tools is that only the guilty need be worried by these tactics. That if you are not guilty then why do you care? This argument completely fails to understand the point of the Fourth Amendment. The root of the law seems to be that in the colonies the government had the right to enter your house pretty much at will, largely under the rational of looking for customs violations. Imagine in today’s world if the police, sponsored by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), entered everyone’s home looking for pirated music, movies, and literature, and software. We are protected from such intrusions by the Fourth Amendment and I’m leery of weakening it, as are the justices. But, let’s examine the case in question.

To a large degree the case comes down to how invasive the justices consider a DNA swab. Is it equivalent to a fingerprint or a search of you home? If the former then it is permissible, if the latter, then it is not. Certainly the ease with which the sample is obtained is more akin to a fingerprint as it can be done in seconds. Opponents argue that a DNA sample holds far more information than a fingerprint and thus the two are not similar.

In the case in question the arrested man was being charged with assault and evidence of a much more serious crime was found in their search. If the police arrest me for failing to pay a parking ticket can they then enter my home looking for evidence of any crime and convict me with anything they find? The Fourth Amendment says no. The Fourth Amendment says the police must obtain a warrant from a judge after showing probable cause. In this case the police had no probable cause to suspect the arrested man of the rape six years earlier and thus, goes the argument, the evidence obtained by the DNA swab was illegal.

It is a difficult case and I find myself torn.

A DNA swab is simple, easy, not intrusive, and the man was arrested for a crime to begin with. On the other hand I’m not sure I like the idea of the police arresting me for a crime and being able to take my DNA. The police can arrest and hold you for up to 48 hours, depending on the state, without any justification. Perhaps an officers doesn’t like me, arrests me for some made up reason, swabs me, runs the results through the database, and finds a distant relative of mine committed murder thirty years ago. This is not as unreasonable as people would like to think. The police arrest people all the time who turn out to be not guilty or not even remotely connected to the crime. It is part of their job to investigate all possibilities and arrest is a tool in their arsenal.

In the end I find that I choose to broadly interpret the Fourth Amendment. I think the police can take DNA swabs from suspects but that information cannot be used in unrelated cases. If they want evidence for a different crime they must go through the process of obtaining a warrant. This interpretation would set the rapist free and I can see how people will disagree with me. It’s a tough case and I eagerly await the decision.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+ pages of daring deeds)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Of Rats, Mermaids, and Gods

Posted on May 31, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Delusions A couple of stories in the news about rats and mermaids reminded me of the fact that our world is largely a landscape of self-created illusion. An imaginary realm where reality is a dream and our fantasies reality. Another couple of incidents that happened to me recently furthered my thoughts in this direction. One involved my older step-sister and another some friends of mine.

We live in this amazing world of sensation and our minds are capable of such imagining that it is often difficult to separate those things that we want to be true, that we ideologically believe, from those things that are not actually true at all. One only has to listen to a friend tell the story of an incident that happened to the both of you years before to see this is true. Their version is generally wildly different from yours. Why does this happen? Why do we cling to phantoms when reality stares us in the face?

I’d like to relate my own recent incidents as an example of why we live in this fantasy realm instead of reality. My step-sister is passionate about the topic of Israel and not long after becoming my friend on Facebook I grew tired of her posts on the subjects and removed her from my friends list. Years went by. Recently at my younger half-sister’s wedding I had the chance to speak with my older step-sister (I have five sisters). My older step-sister rather jokingly told me she wouldn’t invite me to any more Tea Party events. At first I had no idea what she was talking about but then it occurred to me the last event she knew before I removed her from my friend’s list was apparently an invitation to a Tea Party rally.

This is instructive. The invitation had nothing to do with why I removed her from my friend’s list but it was, from her perspective, the inciting incident. She sent me the invitation and I promptly removed her from my list. It’s actually quite logical although false. This is something that happens to all of us frequently. Our view of anyone else’s world ends the moment we are no longer communicating with them. We say our goodbyes and they are happy. An hour later we meet again and they are unhappy. What did I do? Are you mad at me? It, of course, has nothing to do with us but involved some other incidents that occurred in the meantime.

Someone gets overly upset at us for some minor transgression. It’s almost certain that they are mad about something else going on in their lives and took it out on us. Yet we feel as if we caused the wrath. That it is our fault somehow. We our the center of our world. Everything that happens, happens to us. This is false of course but we feel it, we think it. When lightning strikes my house it must because of me. I’ve done something, something to anger … who? Who could bring down lightning? Who could cause my hard-drive to crash? God, that’s who. It’s perfectly logical … and false.

The other incident that happened involved, of all things, boy scouts and astronauts! I was enjoying a wonderful meal thanks to my good friend who invited many of us to his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. The son of another friends is a boy scout and we happened to be talking about space. Yet another friend mentioned that all astronauts were boy scouts. My friend’s son, I’m ashamed to say before me, immediately jumped in with the comment, “Except the girls”.

The man who made the original statement quickly said that he meant only the early, lunar astronauts. I smiled and said that another group of astronauts were not boy scouts. Cosmonauts. The man quickly asserted that the Russians actually had a very strong boy scout program. I was somewhat skeptical but he seemed absolutely sure. The mother of my friend then grabbed her cell phone and told me with certainty that Yuri Gagarin was a member of the Russian version of the boy scouts. At this point I capitulated, after all, this was from the internet!

That night I looked it all up. I don’t want to get into details but the Russians outlawed scouting in 1922 and Yuri Gagarin from the ages of thirteen to fifteen was living in a mud hut the Nazi soldiers living in his house let his family build out back, not scouting in the non-existent Russian scout program. Many of the lunar astronauts were boy scouts, but hardly all.

Why did my friends say what they did? This is another major clue as to why we live in this world of delusion. We make a statement that we want to be true, an ideology that fits with our view of the world. Someone postulates reasonable arguments as to the veracity of this world view and we defend our position. If we admit that one thing isn’t correct perhaps our entire view will fall apart. This is extremely common, extremely normal, and I do not hesitate to tell you that I’m guilty of it as well. The more pointed the question the more strident our defense. The war of the talking heads has begun. Rationality has lost.

My goal here isn’t to humiliate my friends. I’ve been guilty of the similar delusions many times. My goal is to urge people to look past their self-centered, ideological view of the world. Look at things with a critical eye and take nothing for absolute truth, whether it be mermaids, rats on Mars, or god.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (300+ pages of swashbuckling fun for $2.99)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Flopping for Fouls

Posted on May 29, 2013 by Tom Liberman

I wrote the other day about a situation in baseball where the players actively deceived the umpire and one of the big questions that is plaguing the NBA playoffs this year is a related issued called flopping. It’s not only basketball that suffers from this “strategy” as soccer players routinely hit the ground as if they’ve been brutalized and even in the tough-guy NFL I frequently see the instigator of a little scuffle suddenly fall down from a light tap in order to get a personal foul penalty called on the other team.

To pretend in this manner is called flopping. Flopping is not good for the sport, the fans, the officials, or the players. It is deceit. It is trying to gain an unfair advantage by lying to the officials. The NBA and EUFA (European soccer’s ruling body) are trying to cut down on this practice by calling penalties on the person faking and also fining said individuals. I think this is the correct policy to pursue.

Flopping, embellishing, working the refs; all these things are cheating. It is certainly an acceptable form of cheating. It is certainly practiced far and wide in virtually every professional sport, but it is cheating, plain and simple and I’m tired of it. I’m tired of it when the player for the team for which I am barracking (that’s the Australian word for rooting and I like it) does it and it infuriates me when an opposing player does it. It’s out of hand and it should stop.

The question becomes how do we get it to stop? One way is the current system wherein officials call a penalty of some sort on the person flopping. Another is for the league to review video after the game and issue fines for flopping. I wouldn’t even mind some shaming by posting mandatory pictures in the locker rooms around the league of the most egregious violation. All these methods are legitimate. I’m on record as being for methods of officiating games that remove the human element and these tools will reduce flopping also. The reality is that flopping would stop almost instantly if the players themselves would stop doing it, if they would stop cheating and try to win through their legitimate talents.

Mike Golic of ESPN radio’s Mike and Mike in the morning often says that he doesn’t blame the players for doing whatever it takes to win. He played the game himself and his opinion has enormous sway. I disagree with him. I think this winning at all costs mentality is damaging to sports and dangerous for our country as a whole. One of the things that made the United States great was the work ethic of its people. Work hard, play hard. Work fair, play fair.

I would ask Golic if he taught his sons and daughters to lie to get a better grade? To lie to beat out an opponent? That’s all flopping is, lying to get a favorable outcome.

Flopping is an embarrassment to the player, to the team, to the league and there was a time in the United States where integrity in defeat was admired more than winning at all costs. If we don’t think that by allowing floppers to influence the outcome of events we aren’t teaching people that they should flop in non-sporting venues then we are fooling ourselves. We are raising generations of floppers. They will flop at school to get a better grade, flop at home to get out of doing the dishes, flop at work to get a co-worker fired. Do we want floppers running this country or do we want the best and brightest? Would you promote a flopper at work over a hard worker? Have you witnessed floppers getting ahead at work? Flopping isn’t just for the NBA, it’s epidemic and it’s hurting our country.

It starts with personal integrity and setting an example. Explain why it’s wrong even if your team gains an advantage. Boo, particularly when it’s a player for your team doing the flopping. Most of all, don’t ever flop yourself! Give it your all and shake the other person’s hand if you are defeated. That’s what being an American is all about, that’s what builds friendship, that’s what builds admiration, that’s what builds a nation.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (300+ pages of flashing blades)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Too Much Help – Helicopter Parenting

Posted on May 26, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Helicopter Parenting There was an interesting article in the news this morning that struck a chord with my Libertarian philosophies. The basic idea is that parents who are overly involved in their children’s lives do them no favors.

The article cites one specific study and indicates that others show the same trend but also admits that when it comes to parenting there are a number of styles that offer success. I don’t have any children myself and I’m probably not the best person in the world to analyze the data but I can, at least, speak from having worked with juniors in several golf programs over the years.

Let’s first talk about the concepts of helicopter parenting. The idea is that for children to succeed in the super-competitive modern world parents need to be involved in every aspect of their lives. This hovering is especially noteworthy around school where every grade is argued for the student, specialized tutoring is offered to help write college entrance essays, and other things of this nature.

The argument against this kind of parenting is that children who are not allowed to fend for themselves become anxiety ridden and unable to cope with the problems that arise in their lives. It’s fairly self-evident to me that if you do not allow a person to solve their own problems they will never learn that skill for themselves. It’s analogous the nanny state that America is becoming and I’ve talked about that in other posts.

One of the things I find discouraging about this country is how many people complain about the government without the realization that they are complaining about themselves. We are the government. We have the government we want. We chose them. I’ve talked about that topic before. My point in mentioning it here is that the nanny state isn’t responsible for helicopter parenting, it is our helicopter parenting that causes us to become a nanny state. Our representatives are us.

One of the ideas that I found most interesting about this sort of behavior was that parents who engage in it are actually less emotionally available to their children. They use modern technology to keep tabs on their children, fight with teachers, and defend their kids as a way to show their love without actually having to spend time loving. It’s like someone who clicks the “Like” button to support a cause. Look at me! I care! I hate cancer! Look at me, look at me. I’m better than you because you don’t hate cancer. I’m the greatest parent ever.

I’m certainly not suggesting that parents shouldn’t be involved in their children’s lives and their education. It just seems to me that a person who grows up not having to solve their own problems is not going to be a successful adult.

I’m reminded of my time at Spring Lake Golf Course in Quincy, IL under the direction of head pro Les Holcombe. We were teaching juniors when one little fellow came over to me and stated that “Jimmy took my club.” I was ready to offer my help when Les jumped in and said, “Then go take it back”. I immediately understood that Les was absolutely correct.

There are certainly circumstances of bullying, poor-teaching, and general life incidents that do require a parents intervention. I’m just suggesting that the first response to a difficulty that arises should not be to solve the problem for the child. A person who grows up solving their own problems is a person who has a better chance to succeed in life. Isn’t that what any parent wants?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (watch Silenia grow from frightened lamb to an empowered young lady)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

The Double Play that Wasn’t

Posted on May 25, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Bad Call We want to get the call right and we want people to play with integrity. We say these things but do we mean them? In a Major League Baseball game between Seattle and Texas on Friday night, getting the call right and sportsmanship became an issue. You can watch the video of the missed call here but I’ll cover the basics.

On a ground ball with a runner on first the lead runner was forced out but on the return throw the pitcher intercepted the ball before it reached the first baseman. The umpire missed this, more on that later, and called the runner out.

Columnist Mark Townsend of Big League Stew calls it the worst call of the season. While I agree that the call was a mistake I actually don’t think it was a bad call from the umpire. On ground balls the umpire is generally listening for the sound of the ball hitting the glove as he watches the feet of both the base runner and the first basemen. It’s completely understandable how the umpire missed the call. If you read further down in the article you’ll find that the Seattle manager actually missed it as well and was arguing that the first basemen left the bag early, not that he didn’t catch the ball at all.

Now a missed call in a baseball game is not really worthy of an entire blog, unless we’re talking about the 1985 World Series and Don Denkinger, and what I want to discuss today is the culpability of the players in this mistake. I can’t stress this enough, we don’t want mistakes. We want the right call every time which results in the proper team winning the game. That is justice.

I’m of the opinion that one important thing happened that should not have occurred. I lay a great deal of the blame on our win-at-all-cost society. We teach these sorts of values rather than sportsmanship. There were two players on the field at the time of the incident who could have easily told the umpire that the first baseman did not catch the ball and that the runner was safe. First baseman Mitch Moreland and pitcher Justin Grimm. They chose not to do so. They chose to walk to the pitcher’s mound concealing the fact that the first baseman did not have the ball.

One can argue that it’s not their fault that the umpire made a mistake and it’s not their responsibility to point it out. I argue differently. The reason I do so is because the direction our society is heading based on the win-first mentality. I’ve got nothing against winning. The goal is to give your best performance every time out. I’m not even going to call Moreland and Grimm cheaters for concealing the reality of the event from the umpire but I don’t like what they did. I don’t think it’s an example they want to set for their children, if they have any.

I’m not even going to pretend this is anything other than an unimportant indicator of the modern world. But it bothers me. Is getting an out more important than integrity? Is winning a game more important? Is winning the championship more important? Is winning the third grade spelling bee more important? What rises to the level where we teach kids that integrity, honesty, and sportsmanship need to be sublimated to winning, to getting money?

If we laugh off dishonesty in a May baseball game what sort of society will we have in twenty years? What sort of society do we have today?

I’m probably over-reacting but it really seemed like if Grimm turned to the umpire, smiled, and showed him the ball we’d all be a little better. Our lives are built, our world is made one decision at a time. I vote for integrity and honesty. That’s the world I want to live in.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+ pages of ripping good fun)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

NFL a non-Profit is that a bad thing?

Posted on May 22, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Corporate tax status is in the news lately with Apple but I just read another interesting story about the NFL. It turns out that way back in 1966 in a deal negotiated by then commissioner Pete Rozelle the NFL and sports leagues in general were declared non-profit organizations. What this means in practice is that the NFL doesn’t pay taxes. This despite the fact that the NFL earned about $10 billion in revenue last year.

If the comments on the story are to be taken as any indicator then most people are fairly upset by this state of affairs. Just as many people are upset with GE for paying no corporate taxes or by Apple avoiding paying taxes by shipping billions overseas to phony companies in Ireland.

The question I want to pursue today is the effect of the fact that the NFL doesn’t have to pay taxes. That NFL employees don’t pay taxes on hotel rooms when they come to visit your city, but I pay huge tax rates on my hotel room, on my rental car, on my airline tickets. Those are the taxes everyone is for, taxes on visitors to the city.

The result of this tax-free status is that the NFL has more money to spend on salaries. They have more money that they didn’t spend on tax lawyers. They have more money to build their league. The result is the NFL pays great salaries (which are taxable) and puts out a product that people apparently want to see. I do, I have season tickets to the Rams and gladly fork over my money every year. The result of the NFL not paying taxes is good for everyone. Now, could the NFL do things differently, do I quibble with the way they’ve run their long-term disability insurance for former players injured while playing the brutal game? Yes. But, would taxes help? To my way of thinking absolutely not.

Are corporate taxes, as they are structured today, totally counterproductive? In my opinion yes. Basically, the way it works today is that any business large enough to help Congress members get elected gets laws passed that make it relatively easy for them avoid taxes while small businesses, who can’t afford to bribe congress members, bear the brunt of the corporate tax burden. Now we begin to understand the root of the problem.

Congress passes laws not to help businesses in general but to help a particular business. Generally the one that pays for their political campaigns. When Congress passes laws that will supposedly ensure the safety of our food in reality they are passing laws making it impossible for a small cattle rancher to slaughter cows because the owner of the feed lots foots the campaign bills. When Congress passes a law to help the technical industry with overseas business they are actually passing a law that allows Apple to store huge sums of money overseas to avoid paying taxes while a company like Acumen Consulting gets stuck with the real tax bill.

These laws, passed by supposedly pro-business Congress members discourage competition and destroy business. These laws help huge companies like Pfizer and make it an unfair playing field for small companies like Jost Chemical Co.

Congress is currently in the business of deciding which company will succeed and which will fail. This is not capitalism. This is Crony Capitalism.

Detractors will argue that a business that gets to keep all its profit will simply pay the upper management even larger sums and there is that possibility. The pay structure of average employee to CEO is way out of whack but I think part of that is the unfair business model that Congress has created. When the model is biased towards large companies, and it is, then smaller, vigorous companies have a far more difficult time supplanting the behemoths. Not to say it can’t happen, it’s just more difficult. If a huge multinational company pays all its top executive outrageous sums but neglects its best workers then they will quickly lose all their talented people to smaller companies that treat their employees better.

The current system allows huge companies to pay little or no taxes while small businesses pay close to the ridiculous 35% rate. That’s one reason big companies aren’t all that eager to encourage the Obama administration to lower the corporate tax rate. Or at least those businesses that benefit from the current system. Walmart, for example, doesn’t have a huge corporate tax law division and largely pays their taxes. They want to lower the rate. GE, they like things just the way they are.

I’ve gone on a little long here but I want to sum up. The corporate tax rate as it stands today helps only the largest businesses that help fund the election cycles. It doesn’t help small businesses. It doesn’t help employees, it doesn’t help anyone. One look at the tax-exempt status of the NFL proves it. Their league is doing great and generating profit for many people; jersey sales, parking lots, hotels, construction companies (Jerry Jones spent $2 billion out of his own pocket to build a stadium), and many others. It’s a model we should at least consider. Don’t tax business profits at all. Tax salaries, capital improvement projects, purchases, whatever. At least give it a try because the current system is broken.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (Jon Gray v. Eleniak the Golden Flame c’mon, that’s awesome stuff)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Bellyaching about Belly Putters

Posted on May 21, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Anchoring Putter I don’t think most of my friends will be much interested in the recent USGA ban on anchored, or belly putters, but I find the topic quite interesting for a number of reasons. First a little explanation for those of you who have no idea what I’m talking about.

Normally when swinging at a golf ball a player puts both hands down the shaft of the club and swings freely around his or her body. By anchoring a putter the golfer holds the end of the club against his or her chest or belly and swings it in pendulum fashion with the other hand. This has the effect of using the body to stabilize the club. Unless you move your torso, at least part of the swing is going to remain steady.

This sort of putting first started to gain fashion about twenty years ago and I know all about. Twenty years ago I worked at a golf course as an assistant pro. I wasn’t a particularly good player but the best part of my game was putting. I fooled around with anchored putters and absolutely loved them. They help ensure the club face is “square” or at a ninety-degree angle to the face of the ball when contact is made.

At this time the USGA allowed the practice and has continued to do so until now. The USGA decides the rule of golf in the United States while the Royal and Ancient Golf Club makes them for the rest of the world. Yes, the R&A, it’s a real thing you non-golfers.

There is tumult in the golf world about the USGA decision that effective Jan 1, 2016 anchoring will become illegal. Some players have been putting this way for many years and now it is suddenly against the rules. A number of professional golfers are angry about it but that pales in comparison to the PGA’s opinion. Why, you might ask? I’ll tell you why.

It’s an interesting situation. In most professional sports the rules making body is one and the same as the professional league. If baseball says corking your bat is illegal then it’s Major League Baseball making the rules for its game. If the National Football League says lowering your head to hit an opponent is illegal then it’s the NFL making the rule for the sport it runs. It’s not the same in golf!

The USGA makes the rules but the PGA (Professional Golfers Association) runs most of the tournaments. PGA players argue that anchoring the putter offers no statistical advantage and they are right … for professional players who practice putting hours upon hours every day. They get the putter face square to the ball virtually every time. When they miss a putt it’s because they misread the green or didn’t swing at the right speed. For your average golfer the anchoring, if done properly, is undoubtedly helpful.

The PGA makes their money from members. By that I mean average golfers. Many average golfers love anchoring. Many average golfers play gambling games with their friends while enjoying a round of golf. Many average golfers are older and the act of bending over a putt is not easy for them. Anchoring is very helpful in this regard when a longer putter is anchored against the chest. Many average golfers are rather upset that their friends are going to call them for a rules violation if they anchor their putter as they’ve been doing for twenty years.

The PGA could easily tell the USGA that they are going to ignore that rule for their members and their tournaments. Is it starting to sound interesting yet?

Now, obviously, the USGA can make whatever rule they want but just as obviously the PGA can choose to ignore it.

What will happen? I don’t know but I aim to keep watching. Of course, I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t give my opinion on the subject.

I support the USGA’s decision as it’s their right to ban anchored putters, or square-grooves, or certain dimple patterns on a golf ball. I think the rules of the USGA should be followed by the PGA and by the players of the game, even at a casual level. However, I think that if a group of players wants to “give” a putt of less than the length of the grip on the putter, that’s fine as long as they all agree. Winter rules, Mulligan, all of these things are against the official rules of golf but if a foursome agrees to them then what’s the problem? I say let anchored putting fall into the same category. If the group says it’s OK, it’s OK.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (follow Jon Gray as he tries to find the legendary sword)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Enough is Enough – Say No to Superbowl LIX

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Superbowl 48 Ok, so it’s a few years from Superbowl LIX but I’m already annoyed. We’re only at Superbowl XLVIII which means we have LIX minus XLVIII divided by L, carry the V and … merciful Flying Spaghetti Monster someone please kill the roman numerals. I mean really, Superbowl XLVIII?! What sort of madness is this? How did the Roman Republic ever last long enough to become the Roman Empire? Roman frigging numerals?!

Thank you, Khwarizmi, for introducing the west to the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. We’re grateful. Really, really grateful.

Why? Because it works. I admit that binary numbers held a certain charm for me as a not so young computer nerd, can you say Superbowl 110000? Of course there is no substitute for hexadecimal – Superbowl 30 it is.

Why not simply Superbowl 48? Good old Khwarizmi would be proud. If we continue down this path of madness we have Superbowl LI and Superbowl LIV on the horizon. Sure, it was cool back in Superbowl XIX and Superbowl XXI. Roman numerals have a certain romance up to a point.

I wore a toga at a few college parties back in the day and I have a fondness of Julius Caesar (yes I practice a day of mourning on March 15 and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that) that some people don’t understand but even I’ve had enough of this number craziness. How can anyone say Superbowl XLVIII with a straight face? It’s only going to get worse. Someone has to take responsibility and step in before it’s too late.

Stand up! Join me! Say no to Superbowl XLVIII. Shirt printers out there, I beg you to try the number 48. It’s a good number. A sound number. It foreshadows the deliciously round 50. It says I’ve been around a while. Maybe I’m not the 139th running of the Kentucky Derby (who doesn’t like to say Ooooooooooorb). Maybe America’s Pastime has had 109 Fall Classics (go Cardinals!). But 48 isn’t anything to smirk at.

I’ll not besmirch anyone who tries forty-eight. It’s a double-factorial of six (whatever that means). It’s a semiperfect number. Did you know that 48 is the smallest number with exactly ten divisors? I didn’t but now I do. 48 is a Stormer number, it’s a Harshad number, and believe it or not, it’s a Narcissistic Number if subtracted instead of added.

So, join me my loyal followers, find your black sharpies! Where you see the offending XLVIII take to the warpath!

For – tee – Ate!!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (300+ pages of ripping good fun)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

The Case for Ken Griffey Jr

Posted on May 18, 2013 by Tom Liberman

A recent spat of stories about the daughter of former major league baseball player Ken Griffey Jr. reminded me of what a player he was. More importantly, what a player he was compared to his peers. Most importantly, what a player he was without using Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs).

In an era when PEDs were becoming prominent Griffey didn’t use them. The reason I come to this conclusion is that as the years went on his performance declined and his injuries increased. That’s the opposite pattern of players who in advancing years see increases in their performance and recover more quickly from injuries. That pattern of improvement in later years is by far, in my opinion, the strongest indicator of PED use.

Griffey was truly great and had he not suffered a series of injuries or had he chosen to take PEDs he would probably be considered one of the best baseball players of all time along with Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. He was much like Mays with power (630 home runs), speed, and defensive greatness (10 gold gloves). In his first eleven seasons he produced 1,752 hits, 398 home runs, 1,152 RBI, and 167 stolen bases.

The important point for me is that Griffey played in an era when PEDs were being used and, I think, he chose not to use them. When Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, great players both, decided to become even greater they needed to use PEDs, Griffey Jr. chose to play without them.

When many of his peers were using steroids and other PEDs he gritted his teeth, went out there, and played with whatever his body had left. I think it’s difficult for everyday fans to understand the pressure a professional athlete faces in regards to performance. Imagine if tens of thousands of people watched you do your job every day. Imagine if younger, healthier workers came to your office every spring with the stated intention of taking your job, your livelihood. For a star, for a superstar, for a player just trying to make the team, the temptation to do anything to win, is strong. Especially if you know your main competitors are doing it.

I’m convinced that Barry Bonds turned to human growth hormone (HGH) only when he saw lesser peers exceeding his achievements. Can you imagine watching someone cheat away and get praised for it? Cheat away and make more money than you? Cheat away and maybe take your job?

Head on over to the Baseball Almanac and take a few turns around the hitting categories. See how Griffey Jr. compares to the all time greats and then start removing the PED abusers from the list.

I was lucky enough to be in the park the day he hit homer 500 on Father’s day with his dad there. Here’s to you Junior! From a National League St. Louis Cardinals fan. Thank you for the great memories.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300 pages of rip-roaring sword and sorcery excitement)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Drunk Driving at .05% Alcohol – a Life Saving Idea?

Posted on May 16, 2013 by Tom Liberman

The National Transportation Safety Board recently recommended that the drunk driving limit be reduced from .08% to .05% in order to save lives. When I first heard about this I scoffed at the idea as a further example of the nanny-state of our country. But, I wanted to be fair so I started to look up some numbers.

The NTSB makes their recommendation largely on the idea that a number of European countries reduced their own legal limit to .05% and saw a reduction in drunk driving fatalities. The board certainly implies, but does not state explicitly, that the reduction in fatalities is related to the new laws. The reality is that in recent years the number of fatal crashes has declined across the board, largely because of huge strides in vehicle safety systems. The total number of accidents, fatal or not, has stayed relatively stable over the years.

Also, the number of fatal car accidents related to alcohol is highly skewed towards very drunk, or hardcore drunk, drivers. Drivers with a blood alcohol content above .15% cause 70% of fatal accidents and the curve follows a predictable path. As blood alcohol rate goes down, increasingly fewer accidents occur.

I think it’s safe to say that such a reduction will result in lives being saved but that reduction will be limited in effect. Drunk driving accidents caused by drivers between .05% and .08% are small in number. There is a reasonable argument that it’s worth it even if one life is saved. The question then becomes what are we giving up if we reduce the limit?

One argument is that we are giving up our freedom. That it is our right to drive in whatever condition we want to drive in. This is patently false. Any activity that is inherently dangerous is subject to reasonable restriction by the government. So, now we must ask our ourselves, is .05% a reasonable restriction?

Depending on the weight of the person; a relatively small amount of alcohol will produce a blood alcohol content between .05% and .08%. For people of smaller stature this can be as little as a single drink. But, should people be driving at all if they are impaired? Even if by only a single drink as it is clear that such impairment does indeed cause accidents and cost lives?

All right, I’ve examined the facts and made points in both directions and now it’s time for me to state my opinion. It seems clear that lowering the legal limit of blood alcohol content necessary to operate a motor vehicle will produce a small decrease in traffic fatalities. It is also clear that as citizens we enjoy certain freedoms and the vast majority of people drink moderately and drive safely. That laws designed to reduce fatalities will inordinately effect such people.

I think every state has a right to make it illegal to drive under whatever level of intoxication they choose. Drinking and driving, even in small amounts, is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. I also think lowering the limit to .05% is largely pointless. I do think that advancements in car safety will largely eliminate the need for this entire argument. Cars will continue to be safer as collision avoidance systems develop.

Frankly, I eagerly await the day when my car drives itself and all I have to do is get in and tell it where to go. Then fatal accidents, drunken or not, will drop to almost nothing and we can eliminate all laws having to do with drunk driving as they become obsolete We can also get the police back to the job of stopping crime and hospitals back to the job of helping the sick instead of spending billions on emergency room care for the uninsured who get in car accidents.

But in the end I must come to a decision. I decide that reducing the rate to .05% is unreasonable. That the safety engendered by such a move does not rise to the level of the loss of freedom that it entails. What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (300 pages of awesome adventure for $2.99)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Wild Horse Roundups a Difficult Problem

Posted on May 14, 2013 by Tom Liberman

The reality of penning associated with wild horse roundups in western states has gotten both a great deal of national news and personal Facebook postings of late. One of my good friends is an animal activist from Colorado and I’ve been reading about this activity, thanks to her links, for several years now. It seems to be finally getting some national attention as I spotted a lengthy story on the subject yesterday.

The reason I want to write about it today has to do with the complexities of the issue and the difficulties of finding solutions to wild horse roundups. Let me first describe the problem. Wild horses are not actually wild horses at all; they are feral horses. That’s not really pertinent to the issue but interesting nonetheless. These animals are the descendants of domesticated horses that escaped captivity long ago. In the western states there is a population estimated at about 82,000. Of these, 32,000 are free in the wild while another 50,000 are held in pens. These 50,000 horses were largely captured in annual roundups. According to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) own statistics about 1% of all horses captured this way end up dying because of injuries sustained in the operation. One percent doesn’t seem like a lot but it’s a significant number. Many other horses are badly hurt in wild horse roundups driving them into barbed wire fences among other things.

After roundup the horses are offered for adoption but the number taken in has been dropping and those in captivity rising. Capture operations and ongoing housing and feeding costs an estimated $78 million dollars a year. The costs are rising as more animals are being held. That’s taxpayer money.

Why are the Wild Horse Roundups Happening?

We’ve got animal cruelty and big expenses. So, why is it happening?

The western lands where the horses roam is also home to sheep and cattle ranches. These animals need the grass to breed and survive. The ranchers who own these animals depend on the land for their livelihoods.

Environmentalists and animal lovers want the animals to roam free. Ranchers want to kill them all. The roundup as it stands is a compromise solution but it’s beginning to fail. So, we need to figure out something else.

The biggest problem is the BLM refuses to sell the horses for slaughter. Animal activists regard such a solution for the horses as anathema. So, to appease the ranchers we keep rounding them up and to appease those who love the horses we don’t kill them.

Wild Horse Roundups Compromise

I know I’m not going to be popular here but the fact is we need a hunting season on horses. Sell permits and let people go out there and shoot them. Horse meat largely isn’t eaten in the United States but it is elsewhere in the world and for good reason. It is lean, low-fat, high-protein meat. Yes, we love horses, yes we find watching them roam the western lands beautiful. Here’s the reality, if we’re willing to compromise we can have it all.

Hunt the horses to keep numbers at a level satisfactory to ranchers and activists. Eat the meat and enjoy it. Allow thousands of the animals to roam the western landscape for the enjoyment of endless generations to come. The horse lives a life free to roam until it is killed. That’s a good life, maybe not as long a life as they would have naturally but better than being in a pen.

The best solutions generally don’t make anyone perfectly happy. That’s often the sign of a good compromise.

As for me, I’m digging my bunker and getting my food and water supply ready for what will surely be an assault by my horse-loving Facebook friend!

Tom Liberman

Cheating or Taking Advantage of the Rules

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Tom Liberman

An interesting case is taking place in England about a poker player who won a significant amount of money from a casino. The casino is refusing to pay because the player supposedly cheated. What I find intriguing about the case is that the so-called cheater, Phil Ivey, is not accused of breaking the rules but of taking advantage of the failure of the casino to note a printing error on its cards.

Basically, Ivey and a companion at the table supposedly noted a mistake on the cards which allowed them to correctly identify which cards were dealt even when face down. The question becomes: Is this sort of behavior is cheating? Is taking advantage of a weakness in the system cheating?

To my way of thinking this is different from cheating in that a cheater doesn’t play by the rules to gain an advantage. In this case the casino dealer had access to all the same information as Ivey. It all becomes rather interesting from a philosophical point of view.

I think we can say without reservation that it’s unethical. If you are playing baseball and note that your opponent’s shoelace has become untied, the sporting behavior is to point out the potential game-changing lace in order to even the playing field. It’s certainly the morally correct behavior but I’m of the opinion that ignoring the shoelace in the hopes your opponent falls down at a crucial time in the game does not rise to the level of cheating. If the casino’s accusations are true, that Ivey noted the printing flaw and played with that advantage to win a large sum of money, his behavior is unquestionably unsporting but, in my opinion, doesn’t rise to the level of cheating.

On the other hand, if he was somehow involved in introducing the printing flaw to the cards, then I think his behavior is not only cheating but criminal. In that case he committed fraud and theft. I don’t think anyone is accusing Ivey of such a thing and I only mention it as a philosophical idea.

The real question I’m pondering is at what point I would engage in unethical behavior myself. I like to think that in a friendly game of cards with friends; if I noticed that the cards were printed badly and I had an advantage, I would immediately alert my friends and we would get a new deck. I know that if a friend of mine noticed such a mistake on the cards and didn’t notify the rest of us and went on to win some money I would be somewhat angry. Not to say they cheated, just that I would consider it poor behavior.

I think it’s become normal behavior in our society to win at all costs. That taking advantage of a situation rather than pointing it out is largely the way we function in the modern world. I don’t think it’s a good thing but I do think it’s accepted. Judging by the comments I read on the Ivey story most people think what he did was perfectly reasonable. I don’t think so. I think it was unethical. I also think the casino owes him that money. He didn’t cheat, he just took advantage.

Would you take advantage of misprinted cards in a game with friends? In a game with tens of thousands of dollars at stake? Does the prize make the behavior acceptable? Interesting questions. What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300 pages of action packed adventure!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

The Price of a College Education

Posted on May 8, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Is College Worth the Money Former Secretary of Education William Bennett is out promoting a new book and in a recent interview talked about how a college education is hurting more people than it is helping. The book itself looks at various colleges around the country and tries to determine if they give value for their investment. I have not read the book but its results are no secret. That only a few colleges and a limited number of degrees are worth the investment of both time and money. Not having read the book I can’t speak to the methodology of making the evaluations but the result certainly seems accurate as to what I see in the world.

Students are coming out of college, even with a degree, unable to gain employment in their field of choice. Over 40% of students simply drop out of college. I’m an excellent example of that group. I didn’t have any idea what I wanted to do with my life and simply milled around for four years before calling it an education. Happily I chose a university, the University of Idaho, that didn’t charge huge fees and I was able to finish without debt. That’s not the case for the majority of students today who are leaving school with large amounts of debt.

In the interview Bennett talks about how he thinks college should be about teaching young adults how to think and that his own degree was in philosophy. I think even the strongest detractor of the current college education system would agree that learning how to think properly is a useful trait. The question becomes; is college a viable place to gain this skill? At this stage, with the price of an education going up and up, I think the answer has to be no. That’s a real shame. I’ll leave it to the book and Bennett to provide the arguments against going to college and I’ll take this opportunity to offer some ways I think we can improve the situation.

One of the most important things we can do is stop insisting that everyone go to college. It’s fine for me to spout off that people don’t need to go to college but what alternatives are there for people without degrees? I blogged just the other day about how people need to be intelligent to hold down a job in modern society. I think education is an increasingly important player in keeping the United States powerful. So, how is this accomplished except through college?

I’m of the opinion that a system of apprenticeship is an excellent tool in this regard. In Germany they have a strong apprentice program. I’ve worked with steel mill employees in Granite City who go to work immediately after high school and eventually rise into high-paying, skilled jobs. The idea is that someone who isn’t really interested in a higher education can immediately go into the workplace and learn a job. Many times the employer will not only pay the apprentice but encourage them to continue their education as well. This is a winning system in that young people are gainfully employed while learning a skill and companies have eager employees, with lower salaries, who move up in the company internally to higher paying jobs.

This system certainly cannot replace a degree in Philosophy or Engineering but it would dramatically cut down on students who didn’t really want to go to college in the first place. Even for degrees like engineering a student might well start out at a low-level job with a technical company and go to school part-time while working with skilled co-workers.

I think this would also have the benefit of alleviating high schools from having to prepare students for college and allow them to return to what many call a classical education. We could dispense with ridiculous testing and standards and get back to teaching kids how to think properly.

This is a hugely important issue in relation to the United States’ place in the world. If we continue to churn out people with a college education who cannot hold down a job, our nation is in peril. More disability, more welfare, less work, less excellence. The rise of a class system of haves and have-nots. This is a recipe for the decline of our nation.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300 pages of neck snapping adventure)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

A Lesson in Sharing – Gym Style

Posted on May 7, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Gym Rules Just the other day I realized that there is an interesting societal dynamic at the gym involving shared property. I’m going to examine that idea and how it applies to the modern world.

The gym is a classic example of a group of strangers sharing property. They share floor space, benches, and equipment. There are certain rules of etiquette at the gym and as long as everyone is playing by these regulations it works quite well. When there are those who do not play by the rules, particularly if they do so knowingly and selfishly, then the entire system is in peril.

Let me begin by explaining how things work at the gym. Generally speaking a person should only use a particular piece of equipment for a short period of time. The length of time depends on the piece of equipment in question and the number of people at the gym. A stationary bike or treadmill might occupy someone for sixty minutes while the bench press machine should only be used for perhaps a minute at a time. Another rule involves blocking off walking lanes or equipment. Certain exercises are done where there is available space on the floor. When partaking in these exercises it’s considered bad form to position yourself in a way that blocks access to such equipment. Another rule involves sitting at equipment when you are not using it. Generally it is polite to get up between what is called “sets” and allow another person to “work in” for one of their own. Wiping your sweat off equipment is considered good form as well.

I don’t want to get too deeply into a discussion of how life at the gym should proceed, but instead I will focus on the quality of the experience when etiquette is followed and when it is not. When I’m working a piece of equipment and step away and another fellow works in, then steps away allowing me to return; there is a sense of community that borders on euphoria. Everyone is playing by the rules and everyone wins. Likewise when someone is talking on the phone while sitting idly on a bench there is a malaise that descends upon the place. Everyone glances at the offender and grimaces. Even if someone eventually steps in and takes the bench the mood is somewhat ruined. There is some satisfaction in seeing a selfish person put in their place but being forced to do it is unpleasant.

Another example might be the highway entrance ramp when a series of drivers manuever their cars in every other vehicle fashion perfectly as opposed to someone rushing ahead to gain an advantage.

Therein lies the problem of course. People maneuvering to gain an advantage don’t play by the rules. They subtly or overtly diminish the experience for everyone else. Is it possible to get everyone to play by the rules or even desirable? Aren’t the rule breakers, the women who are not well-behaved, the ones who drive progress? Is there some middle ground where we follow the rules of polite public behavior and still push the edges of possibility? I’m not sure if there is a definitive answer but I would like to see people follow the simple rules of life.

I think angry and selfish people will always diminish the experience for the rest of us. I also think it’s a shame. It’s not a matter of teaching manners at school. It depends completely upon a person’s upbringing. I also think it’s possible to be aggressive, to try to win, to get ahead, and still be fair and polite. Maybe I’m wrong.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (or: How to overcome your dysfunctional upbringing and become a hero)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Tom Liberman

Tales of Corland

Author Archives: Tom Liberman

How do you Solve a Problem like … the NCAA?

Traitor or Patriot – a Matter of Conscience

The Chicago Cubs vs the Rooftops

Pay it Forward is Nonsense

A Power Down Power Struggle

DNA Collection from those Arrested

Of Rats, Mermaids, and Gods

Flopping for Fouls

Too Much Help – Helicopter Parenting

The Double Play that Wasn’t

NFL a non-Profit is that a bad thing?

Bellyaching about Belly Putters

Enough is Enough – Say No to Superbowl LIX

The Case for Ken Griffey Jr

Drunk Driving at .05% Alcohol – a Life Saving Idea?

Wild Horse Roundups a Difficult Problem

Why are the Wild Horse Roundups Happening?

Wild Horse Roundups Compromise

Cheating or Taking Advantage of the Rules

The Price of a College Education

A Lesson in Sharing – Gym Style