Author Archives: Tom Liberman

None of the Above – Nevada

Posted on by

None Of The AboveAn interesting case was just decided in Nevada about having “None of the Above” on the ballot. The basic premise is that in 1976 the people of the great state of Nevada decided that they would add “None of the Above” to the choices in addition to each candidate for every elected office. A fine idea if you ask me.

From a philosophical point of view the case seems relatively simple. The vote of “None of the Above” is a shout against the candidates put forward. From a legal point of view I must admit that I see merit to the judge’s ruling. If, by some chance, “None of the Above” wins the election, the law in Nevada voids it and the candidate with the next highest total wins. The judge suggested that in those circumstances if the election itself was voided and the position filled by appointment or new election then “None of the Above” would be constitutional.

It’s probably too late for this election but I hope the men and women of Nevada go ahead and change the “None of the Above” choice in the way suggested by the judge.

The reality of what I want to discuss is why “None of the Above” is an important decision opposed to not voting at all. The reality of not voting is currently an issue but simply hands the election to the minority who do vote. We see that today. When anyone wins a “mandate” from the people the reality is they had a relatively small percentage of the total possible votes while gaining a majority of those votes cast. Not voting is a bad choice. Voting for “None of the Above” meets with my approval.

My own voting habit is to cast my ballot for any independent candidate that happens to be on the ballot and write myself in when there is no such candidate. This is because I’m of the opinion that our two-party system is essentially a one party system and that party is moneyed interests. I detail this idea in posts here and here. The basic idea is that the only way we can expect politicians to pass legislation we desire is if they feel that is the only way they are going to get elected. As long as we elect only Democrats and only Republicans they will continue to bow to those who provide the campaign money.

“None of the Above” is a vote in that direction. If enough people start to vote for Independent candidates or “None of the Above” then change will eventually follow. If you like the direction this country is headed then please feel free to vote for you Democratic or Republican candidate, it makes only a slight difference. You are fooling yourself if you believe that if the other party wins the country is doomed. That’s the logic the two-party system advocates want to foist off on you. It keeps them in power together and eliminates any real chance of change.

One final note, the case in Nevada against “None of the Above” was financed and brought forward by the Republican party. Their thinking is that independent minded voters like myself are more inclined to vote for Republican candidates than Democratic ones. I can only speak for myself but … fat chance. Republicans are so far away from Libertarian ideals they are, in many ways, for bigger, and more intrusive government than Democrats.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Women at Augusta National

Posted on by

AugustaNationalToday I’m returning to my true love, the sporting world. I love sports. My mom is a St. Louis Cardinal fanatic and has season tickets. I’m a huge St. Louis Rams fan (yes, I know they suck, no need to comment on it, repeatedly) and have season tickets. I love the St. Louis Blues! My buddy Jeff has season tickets to Mizzou and I’m loving the idea of traveling to some beautiful stadiums in the SEC over the next few years. But, today’s topic is golf, specifically Augusta National Golf Club’s decision to allow women into their ranks.

Judging by talk radio and conversations with friends at work this is apparently a controversial issue. I really don’t understand why it’s such a big deal one way or the other. People seem to be up in arms that Augusta was pressured into allowing women or that Augusta National was so backwards as to not allow women for all those years. I just don’t see it as a big deal either way.

Augusta National is a private club and they can allow whoever they want to be a member. Women are citizens of the country with full constitutional rights and it is well within their power to ask to be members of the club. Organizations that want to protest or pull their money from Augusta National are fully within their rights to do so. We have a long history in this country of boycotts and protests which are largely protected by the Constitution. I absolutely support Augusta National’s right to not admit anyone they don’t want to admit. I likewise support any organization’s right to boycott or protest this policy.

For many years August National did not allow women and for many years people protested. For whatever reason Augusta National decided to invite a couple of women into their ranks. Good for them. Not that many years ago a similar controversy rose over the admission of minorities. Augusta National eventually invited a minority member. Tiger Woods understandably didn’t like their previous policy and it would have been well within his rights to refuse to play at the club because of those policies. Likewise, the club might well have said, fine, don’t play.

This is in many ways exactly what the United States is all about as a country. We have personal freedoms and this is a good thing. I find it mildly upsetting that both sides are so up in arms that it’s become a controversy but, by my own argument, that’s ok also!

As a fairly good writer once wrote, Much Ado about Nothing.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Representative Todd Akin – Legitimate Rape

Posted on by

It’s all over the news so I probably don’t have to fill you in on the details but a candidate for U.S. Senate from my great state of Missouri made some controversial comments. I’m not going to spend time analyzing the statement itself but I do want to address the follow-up remarks. I want to examine the difference between misspeaking, forgetting a fact, lying, breaking a promise, misunderstanding, and saying what you meant to say. I think it’s a hugely important distinction that speaks directly to the character of the person making the explanation.

First the story. Representative Akin said that doctors have told him that women who are raped rarely become pregnant because their bodies naturally have “ways” of preventing the pregnancy. It’s all on video so you can judge yourself.

Now, the possibilities are that he misspoke, that he forgot some facts, that he lied, that he failed to keep a promise, that he misunderstood something said by someone else, or that he actually meant exactly what he said. Representative Akin now claims that he misspoke.

Misspeaking

When someone says something incorrectly, uses improper grammar, inserts the wrong word where they meant another, switches word order, these are examples of misspeaking. Some examples:

  1. President Obama visited 57 states when he meant 57 states and territories. He clearly does not think we have 57 states. He misspoke.
  2. President George W. Bush said “I’ve been in the Bible every day since I’ve been the president.” He meant that he read the Bible everyday. He misspoke.

Forget Facts or Lie

It’s easy to forget that something happened and when presented with such evidence suddenly remember. It can be difficult to differentiate between someone who claims to have forgotten and someone who lied. Some examples:

  1. Congressman Paul Ryan repeatedly said he never asked for stimulus money up until the day he was presented with letters he wrote asking for stimulus money. He is either a liar or legitimately forget he (or an assistant) wrote said letters.
  2. President Reagan could not recall authorizing Oliver North to trade shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to Iran in order to obtain money to fund the Contra revolution in Nicaragua.

Misunderstood

It’s possible for someone to tell you something but you either heard incorrectly or misunderstood the point they were trying to make. An example:

  1. I wrote earlier how many people think a woman raped in Islamic culture must provide four witnesses to the event but actually reading the wording of the Quran shows that the accusers must provide the four witnesses or he is deemed to have lied. I think most people just misread this passage.

Failed Promise

A failed promise is when you promise to do something, give it a realistic try, but fail.

  1. President Obama promised to close the Guantanamo prison and failed. It can be argued that he didn’t try hard enough but he certainly tried.
  2. An athlete who promises a sick child a particular sporting feat but is unable to accomplish the deed.

Spoke Truthfully

This is when a person says exactly what they meant to say.

It is particularly pertinent in this case because Congressman Akin did not misspeak. It is possible he lied or misunderstood when he claimed doctors told him that women have ways of terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape but his basic premise is exactly as he expressed it. He believes that women should not have abortions even if raped. He believes, wrongly, that women generally spontaneously miscarry from pregnancy caused by rape.

This is my problem. He now claims he misspoke. He didn’t. He said exactly what he meant to say. He was clear. However much I disagree with him, I would have actually respected it if he came out and affirmed his original position. He might have said I was misinformed about the spontaneous miscarriage but that doesn’t change my position. But, the one thing he didn’t do was misspeak. So, when he claims he misspoke he moves directly into the realm of lying.

Here is my advice. When you say something that is unpopular, that is wrong, that is a lie, admit it. Oops, I misunderstood some facts and reported them incorrectly. I meant to say this. I forgot about that incident. In my enthusiasm to get elected I said something that was false and I knew it even as I was saying it. I’m sorry.

For you Representative Akin, as a proud resident of the great state of Missouri, I say this: No vote for you.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Post Office Financial Woes

Posted on by

US Postal ServiceIt’s a little after the meaningless default but I wanted to talk today about the financial situation the U.S. Post Office finds itself in and, more importantly, the political dividing line that it has created.

Basically, the Post Office owes the Federal Government $5.5 billion and they are unable to pay it. What’s important to understand is that this is not money they owe to their employees for work, or money they owe contractors for building, repairing, and working on existing post offices. This is money they owe the federal government. That in itself should cause you to raise a few questions.

Why does the Post Office owe the federal government anything?

First lets examine what they do. They employ half a million people (including many veterans), deliver over 600 million pieces of mail to over 140 million places. They operate 31,000 post offices and over 218,000 vehicles. Suffice it to say that it’s a big operation. These operations are funded by stamps. People pay to have packages and letters delivered. The Post Office is not funded by the Federal Government or taxes collected by that entity.

Now, why does the Post Office owe the Federal Government? We have to put on our time travel hats back to the mid 1980’s in order to fully understand this situation. After the Carter presidency the United States was in a recession and the Reagan administration’s solution to this was stimulus. We spent money and this in turn raised our national debt from $800 billion to $2.4 trillion in eight years. This dramatic increase caused a great deal of concern, well-deserved I might add. In order to mask this precipitous increase the Federal Government instructed the Post Office to start to pre-pay their pension rather than deducting salary from worker’s checks.

As the debt rose the amount of pre-pay increased until it reached $115 million a week. This represents a 75 year in-advance pension payment. 75 years. That’s not a typo. The post office fully funds retirement for employees who won’t be born for 3 years, that is, if they work until they’re 72. All this to mask the true debt.

The pension payment was based on the growing employment of the Post Office and the growing U.S. population which seemed to go hand in hand. But then something important happened. Email.

The ever-increasing prevalence of email and instant messaging has reduced the Post Office’s workload, and revenue, by about 30%. They responded by eliminating many jobs and increasing productivity. Now, we have a collision here. The Post Office pays pension on an estimate of an ever-growing workforce while shrinking their actual workforce. So, as of now the Post Office has overpaid their ridiculous 75 year pension payments by $75 billion. So, not only is their pension payment insane to begin with but they’ve overpaid that madness by $75 billion and now they are going to default on a $5.5 billion payment to the entity that owes them at least $75 billion. How does that make any sense?

Meanwhile the leaders of the Post Office have repeatedly asked Congress for permission to close post offices and reduce delivery days only to be denied. They are denied for three reasons all of which should anger every small government, libertarian out there. The Post Offices are generally named after Congress members. The Post Offices serve as a place to reward loyalists with a job of Postmaster. And most insidiously, if the Post Office is forced to borrow money from the Treasury rather than work on a break even basis the banking industry makes huge amounts of money on interest on those loans. Yep. Greed, paying off those who finance the campaigns, corruption, graft, massive egos, you name it and it’s part of the problem.

Now, despite the loss in first class mail revenue the post office has offset this loss with increases in package delivery for small businesses engendered by internet shopping.

If the Post Office was allowed to close offices, reduce delivery days, had not been robbed of $100s of billions, and had not been forced to take out loans and pay them back with interest they would be more than solvent. They would likely be profitable. Even if they were not they would have a nest-egg to pay off their debt as they restructured.

My big question is why has the fiscal woes of the Post Office split the electorate with Democrats largely on the side of the Post Office and Republicans against it? It doesn’t make sense to me. The Post Office is not an example of big, wasteful government. It was explicitly authorized by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution of the United States. If it had just been allowed to do its job without Big Government interference it would be delivering mail to your house and making a profit all the time, or at least breaking even.

To me the demise of the Post Office should be a rallying cry to all Americans. It was interference from the federal level that ruined it, a Republican talking point, and it was a shining example of government working well to the benefit of all citizens, a Democratic talking point.

Now, it lies in ruins because of greed.

Don’t write your Congress person. Don’t protest at the mall. Don’t spout off to all your friends. Vote for someone who offers realistic solutions to the issue. That’s how we change things.

Tom Liberman

How to Succeed

Posted on by

St. Louis RamsToday I drift into the world of sports and the St. Louis Rams football team. It’s been a tough slog for the Rams since they won the Super Bowl and spent time as an elite team in the NFL in the first part of the 21st Century. We’ve gone through three coaches and many, many losses since then. The Rams play their first preseason game later today and their new head coach, Jeff Fisher had a quote in the morning paper that really resonated with me.

What you want to do through the preseason is not give up a lot of points, keep the penalties down, … protect the football, block and tackle and execute, and let the score take care of itself.

Now, a good quote does not a season make, but I’ve been hearing from everyone how confident and composed is Fisher and that snippet really seems to confirm everything I’ve heard. That quote is one to follow if you want to succeed in life. The basic idea is that if you do all the small things correctly you will reach your goal.

One of the things that’s important to do in life is set goals for yourself. That is a good thing. But the thing you can’t do is set goals for yourself without looking at all the steps necessary to complete the goal. The space program is an excellent example of this sort of thing. A manned trip to Mars is something that has long been on the minds of men with Wernher von Braun proposing such a trip in the 1950s.

In January of 2004 President George W. Bush proposed the Vision for Space Exploration which focused largely on a manned mission to Mars. Great, it is good to set goals, now, what are the concrete steps needed to make this happen? The Bush administration didn’t lay it out, they didn’t fund it, they didn’t even have real technology, and most importantly they didn’t understand the fundamental little things that needed to be done to achieve success. Much of the program failed at the cost of a lot of tax payer dollars. This is not the strategy to take to achieve success. Fisher’s strategy is far stronger.

State high lofted goals, Fisher has stated more than once the goal of his season is to win the championship. All coaches say that. He drafted and signed players towards that end. Again, every coach in the league does that. But, that one quote, that I’m not worried about the score or even winning the game, I just want the players to play properly is very encouraging. We need to have that attitude about life, about everything we do. It’s good to have goals but understand the steps necessary to achieve those goals. In this case; tackle, avoid penalties, avoid turnovers, and make blocks.

Apply that thinking to your own life and I think you’ll be pleased with the results.

Go Rams!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Olympic Spirit 21st Century Style – Crass, Win at all Costs, Hypocritical

Posted on by
Olympic spirit

Ahh, the Olympics, a time to rejoice in the joy of competition, the thrill of victory, the spirit of sportsmanship, or not. Is anyone else completely turned-off by the nature of the modern Olympic spirit? I think I first noted it in 1980 and 1984 when cold war enemies traded boycotts, but it was probably coming before that.

To start my little journey I’m going to don my time-travel hat and head back-back-back in time. Where did I leave that thing? Closet? Nope. Counter? Nope. There it is, how on earth did it get in the freezer? Anyway, pop it on the old noggin, brrr, spin three times, special effects and KAPOW!

Ancient Times

The ancient Olympics were held in Olympia, Greece from about 760 BCE to 394 CE when it was suppressed as a way to promote Christianity. The reason it was suppressed is that the ancient games were largely a religious festival as well as a sporting event. The religion being to honor the pagan god Zeus. The ancient Greeks stopped their wars and even death penalty sentences during the truce imposed during the games.

Modern Olympic Spirit

Moving on to more modern times a fellow named Pierre de Coubertin, building on a foundation laid by others, reconstituted the games. He saw them as a beacon of amateur sport as opposed to professional athletics. He also saw them as a way to spread cultural ideas and tolerance among nations as athletes competed with one another. In fairness, he wasn’t all that enlightened as he excluded women from the games. His vision for the Olympics are summed up in this statement:

The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

Sound familiar? No, not a surprise. It is not familiar because it has no place in high-level professional sport. In amateur sport, yes, but when money is involved, winning is everything.

The original modern Olympics in Athens had forty-three events. Now there are 400 money-making opportunities, er … events. (total includes the Winter Olympics).

The new Creed

In the modern Olympics we pressure athletes to leave because they once dated racists but allow terrorist states to participate. One or the other please. In the modern Olympics professional, not amateur, athletes are the rule. Bribery to get the Olympics and Bribery win a match? We’ve got that. Cheating, rampant (the excuse that everyone else is doing it being completely legitimate). A trail of broken child athletes in the wake of commercialism and dollar hunting, plenty of that. Terrorists? Yep, them too. Brazen political exploitation, sign me up.

The Olympic Creed: The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

Ha.

I don’t like the Olympic Spirit Anymore

Where did it all go wrong? Berlin 1936, Munich 1972, Moscow 1980, Los Angeles 1984, frankly, I don’t even know where to start and where to stop.

I can say this, I don’t much enjoy it anymore, be it NBA players or girls dancing with balls. I suppose I’m alone or at least in the minority judging by television ratings. Oh well, it’s not the first time I’ve been on the outside not wanting to look in.

Tom Liberman

Space Exploration Man versus Robots

Posted on by

Space ExplorationOne of the major debates about space exploration is the idea of putting people in space versus the idea of focusing on robotic exploration. It’s an argument that brings out a lot of nerd rage and I aim to take it head-on today. I’m bracing for some backlash!

I’ll tell you my position up front and avoid any suspense. I’m not a proponent of manned exploration. I think money is better spent on robotic exploration.

Now let’s take a critical look at both types of exploration and their advantages and disadvantages. Oh, and for the politically correct crowd, when I reference manned versus unmanned I’m talking about people, men and women.

Manned Exploration

The biggest advantage of sending people into space involves their ability to react to an unknown situation in a way that a computer cannot, at least cannot yet. The argument runs that if something were to go wrong that people would be able to fix it on-the-fly as it were. My rational against this idea is that at the speed events are happening humans largely cannot react fast enough, the space shuttle disasters being examples of this. The counter-argument is Apollo 13 where men were able to find a solution to a problem and fix it. My argument against that would be that there never would have been a problem if men weren’t aboard Apollo 13 in the first place. The systems involved to transport people are more complex than those used to transport machines. Oxygen catches on fire. Robots don’t need oxygen.

The second big reason you hear to promote manned missions is that if we as a race are to eventually colonize the moon and Mars we must learn how to live in a deep-space environment. This is a reasonable argument but I think there is plenty of time to test those complications out after we send in the robots to explore and prepare the way for manned missions.

Unmanned Exploration

The advantages here are many. The cost of sending robots into space is far less than sending people. The complexity of sending robots is far less than for sending people. One of the major obstacles for sending people into space is that they must have food and water. The biggest job the shuttles to the Space Station have is sending up food and taking back waste. Believe it or not, human waste is a major problem in space.

Another huge advantage of sending robots is their durability. Rovers on the moon and Mars can operate for years in the open. While it is true men would be able to drive the rover far more quickly from place to place, they are heavily restricted by radiation concerns. Shielding is a major issue for a journey to Mars or an extended stay on the moon. Men must stay in shelters a great deal of the time and prolonged exposure to radiation is a major problem for which there are not really good solutions as of yet.

To my mind the entire International Space Station idea has been a terrible waste of time and resources for the United States and the world. It is locked in low earth orbit. The total cost of the ISS is calculated at $150 billion dollars which includes shuttle flights and components provided by other nations. For that $150 billion we’ve gotten exactly what? We’ve learned about how deep space affects the human body, something we don’t need to know if we only send robotic missions. I’m not sure what else we’ve learned? It’s a long article with many links and I’m sure a proponents of Manned Missions can fill me in!

Meanwhile our robotic exploration continues to provide actionable information about planetary bodies, meteors, the sun, and other useful things that will help us eventually exploit the solar system.

I’m not completely opposed to manned exploration, I just think our resources return much more value when spent on robotic exploration. Curiosity cost about $2.5 billion although operational costs will continue (at a far cheaper rate than the ISS) to rise. Opportunity continues to provide useful information eight years after it landed and the twin rovers (Spirit conked out) total cost to date is about $1 billion.

The manned moon missions, while certainly romantic, brought us back a bunch of rocks of little value. If we put people on Mars or establish a station on the moon what is our goal? Just to do it? That’s noble but I’m all about practical when it comes to spending my tax dollars. I’m a huge proponent of space exploration and I’d keep my support if manned missions to Mars continue apace, I’d just rather see all that money spent on robotic exploration. Robotic science is in its infancy and the ability of these tools to explore space, deep-sea, underground environments far exceeds those of men.

Don’t hesitate to tell me I’m an idiot in the comments!

Tom Liberman

Sikh Temple Murderer – Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong Again – Moron

Posted on by

TurbanAnyone who attacks unarmed civilians to make a political point is a disgusting piece of garbage but Wade Michael Page leaps to the bottom of the class of morons.

Let me count the ways this moron is a moron.

In his act of bravery to save the United States from those of a different color than him, Page murdered a bunch of unarmed citizens and shot the heroic police officer who came to help them. Shooting innocent people doesn’t make you friends, it doesn’t inspire other people, it shames them.

Sikhs!? Really? Sikhs? The Sikhs whose last name is Singh which means “the lion”. They live up to that. The main tenant of the Sikh religion is protecting the religious and political rights of all people and preventing discrimination.

The fighting lions who make up 1.87% of the Indian population and 15% of its army and 20% of its officers?

The Sikhs who thrive in every society they live in? Who make up prominent intellectuals and whose hard-work has led them to tremendous success in every culture? Who helped build the Atomic bomb that ended World War II?

Sikhs like Gobind Singh who fought with the British in World War II?

Sikhs like Uday Singh Taunque who died for you, Wade Michael Page?

Sikhs like Ajaypal Singh Banga who runs MasterCard?

You, butt-wipe Wade Michael Page, and anyone like you is a moron. An idiot. If you want to help the United States of America, shoot yourself in the head.

I have a bulletin for everyone out there. In America we want people who work hard and succeed! Come on over! It is Sikh men and women and those like them that make America great. Mind you, this is coming from an Atheist.

Men and women who work hard and achieve success? Yeah, that’s who we need to kill to make the United States great again. You murderous, vile, moron!!

I’m a little pissed about this one. You may have guessed.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Life on Mars – Curiosity and Religious Spirituality

Posted on by

Curiosity RoverFor my fellow science and space geeks; on the evening of August 5/6 a special event occurs as NASA’s newest rover, Curiosity, attempts to land safely on Mars. It is an extremely heavy rover and the landing is going to be complex. Watch this video and you will be spellbound!

What I want to talk about today is not the astonishing engineering involved nor the budgetary crisis that is affecting NASA at the moment. Both fodder for future blogs but the topic for today is the spiritual effect of finding microbial life on Mars.

There is a lot of speculation in the atheist community, the scientific community, and the religious community on the spiritual impact of such a discovery. In particular this affects biblical literalists. This becomes an issue when dealing with the story of creation. Essentially, there is no mention of god creating life anywhere except on Earth.

Man is given dominion over earth and all its beasts but nothing is mentioned of dominion over Mars and its animals.

I don’t really see this as an issue for those of a faith-based thinking mentality. It will come as no surprise to me that they simply reinterpret the bible to accommodate for new scientific discoveries. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.

That is one of the beauties of Faith Based Thinking, its incredible flexibility. It really doesn’t matter what anyone says, what the facts are, it is completely up to the believer to determine what they want to believe. It stands in stark contrast to Critical Thinking.

One good example of this, at least as far as the topic at-hand is concerned, is the planet Mars itself. It is nearby to earth (relatively speaking) and has been the subject of speculation since ancient times. Prior to 1965 there was a great deal of thought, both private and scientific, that Mars was home to life. This was based on the changing colors of the surface, the so-called canals, and in no small part to speculative fiction. In 1965 Mariner 4 visited the red planet and dispelled all these illusions. That is science, look at the evidence at hand and make a reasoned hypothesis. When the evidence changes then move on to new theories.

Faith based thinkers threatened Galileo with torture for his support of Copernicanism and the theory of heliocentrism. But, when indisputable facts arose they were able to nimbly change their biblical interpretations. I think we are all generally critical thinkers. When it comes to certain religious ideas people are extremely reluctant and even violently opposed to facts that might oppose those theories.

Therefore, I’m of the opinion that finding life on Mars will not be a threat to those of Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs. I’d like to here from my religious readers, if there are any, about what effect the discovery of life would have on their beliefs. Particularly from Evangelicals or others who support biblical infallibility.

Meanwhile, I won’t be staying up until one in the morning to watch people “watching” the landing. I’ll wait until morning and hope for the best!

What effect do you think finding life on Mars would have on religious beliefs?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Internet Sale Tax – Coming Soon

Posted on by

Internet Sales TaxLegislation is slowly making its way through Washington D.C. that will institute a Sales Tax on internet purchases. Those in favor of this tax, although most refuse to call it a tax instead using the phrase Collection Issue, say it is unfair that internet sales do not have a sales tax whereas brick and mortar stores do have such a tax.

To understand why it is completely fair that Internet Sales don’t have a sales tax while Brick and Mortar do have one we have to understand the purpose of a Sales Tax, or any tax at all.

The rationale for such taxes is that in order to sell something to a consumer, the product and the customer must get to your store by state and federally built roads. They park in your store on free use parking lots generally built and maintained by municipalities. Stores use utilities; gas, electric, water, sewage, whose infrastructure requires government moneys. Internet sales clearly do not require this upkeep although if there is a warehouse where the product is delivered in the state it does require such resources. The roads used to deliver such a package to your door are also under that umbrella of activity.

However, the trucks that deliver goods pay gas taxes for the upkeep of the road. Gasoline taxes are generally justified as a way to pay for road and bridge building and maintenance. That makes perfect sense to me.

The only real justification for this new tax is the warehousing of goods which need employees to unload and load product for the consumer. These employees need water, heat, parking, etc. That is why Amazon is working out its own sales tax scheme with various states because they are building a network of warehouses all over the U.S. to ensure that your product is delivered promptly.

Now, here is my main point. If we become a society that orders our goods online we will significantly lessen the burden on utilities, parking lots, roads, and other government provided services. Brick and mortar stores will disappear and parks will appear. If we stop driving our cars all over to pick up toothpaste then the government spends less money and our taxes should likewise decrease. But, if we tax internet sales, whose price is lower for natural, capitalistic reasons, we are unfairly benefitting brick and mortar stores! Taxes should be lower on internet sales. This will, and is, creating many positive effects on consumption of gasoline, water, electricity etc! Not that the government should decide this one way or the other. If one business practice is cheaper and people like it then it should win out.

I’m not totally opposed to taxation on internet sales whose goods go through a warehouse in that state or municipality. I’m just saying it should be significantly lower for those specific cases and if there is no warehouse, there should be no tax at all. The reason it is lower is that only large trucks have to deliver the goods as compared to many cars coming and going. Warehouses have fewer employees than equally sized brick and mortar store where one warehouse might replace fifty or more traditional business locations.

The benefits of internet sales are many and we shouldn’t be discouraging this with unfair taxes that help brick and mortar stores under the misguided guise of “fairness”.

Tell me what you think in the comments!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Olympic Badminton – Playing to Lose

Posted on by

badmintonThere is a fascinating case unfolding in the Olympic Badminton tournament in London. Because of the seeding situation it became favorable for teams to lose a match thus ensuring a more favorable seed later. The basics are as follows: They have a system wherein the top two teams from a group advance to the quarterfinals, much like the World Cup in soccer (or football for my non-US friends).

Here’s what happened. The tournament favorite was upset and ended up as second seed in the next round. Thus, the team that won a particular match (both had already assured advancement) would have to play that heavily favored team. So, the teams in that match both tried to lose. There was a similar situation in another group and both of those teams likewise tried to lose.

In response the Olympic committee disqualified all four teams. Interesting!

The teams were playing to win by losing, right? By losing the current match they had a better chance to advance in the tournament. The goal is to win the tournament. So, if they actually played to win they were diminishing their chances of overall victory!

It’s easy to sit back and say, gosh, they didn’t give their best effort for those paying spectators and I do see the Olympic Committee’s point on this issue. But, I really do see the player’s point as well. It’s like an NFL football team losing their last, largely meaningless, game of the season to secure a better draft position. It makes sense.

Certainly situations are going to occur when losing is to the benefit of the team playing. How are such things to be handled? I suppose the team trying to lose will just have to pretend harder to try to win although they really are trying to lose. Isn’t that as much of a mockery as simply trying to lose outright? We’re saying, go ahead and try to lose but pretend harder.

It’s a really interesting question. I’m not sure there are any good solutions but perhaps there could be some Losing Benefit rule wherein a team could say, hey listen, it’s to our benefit to lose, so go ahead and count it as a loss but we’ll play our best for the paying customers. If we win, it still counts as a loss. I don’t know. I can see objections to that as well. At least it’s intellectually honest and the crowd gets to see a genuine effort.

Tell me what you think in the comments!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Facebook Girls Face Felony Charges

Posted on by

SlanderThere was an interesting article about how two girls, aged 12 and 13, created a Facebook profile purportedly of another girl and then used it to make posts to humiliate and socially hurt the impersonated girl. The parents of the victim approached the local sheriff who conducted an investigation and learned the identity of the girls who now face felony charges.

It’s an interesting case to me for a number of reasons. I had a conversation with a buddy about a year or so ago about this sort of situation that changed my mind. At first I argued that kids bully one another frequently and as long as it doesn’t get too physically violent it is just part of life. My friend pointed out that such behavior is not well tolerated in the adult world but more importantly that cyber-bullying leaves hard evidence behind.

Typical bully behavior from when I was a child would become a situation of he said/she said with evidence hard to come by. That is no longer the situation, as we see in this case. These young girls impersonated another person, not for financial gain, but to threaten third parties, reportedly from the first person, and otherwise cause social distress.

This is not an isolated incident nor is it a phenomenon restricted to young people. Small towns are undergoing an epidemic of such behavior via a social site called Topix. It is all pretty much like vicious gossip except, and this is important, there is hard evidence left behind. Evidence means legal remedies are more likely. People hurt by gossip, their business ruined, facing social ostracism, might well have legal recourse.

What’s the resolution? You know me by now, I’m not one to stand by and complain about a situation without offering solutions.

If you plan to break laws, be prepared to accept the consequences. If you say something bad about someone that might have real negative consequences to that person then there might be repercussions. Now, as to individual cases, I think they are best settled out of court with apologies, public confessions of wrongdoing, and parental punishment. I would argue that such resolutions are better for both the girls and the victim but I don’t presume to make decisions for those negatively affected. If they want to involve the police and the courts that’s their business.

Kids need to learn lessons and so do adults. If you tell a lie about someone that is potentially libelous or slanderous you might well face your day in court. Keep that in mind.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Jerry Frank Townsend Case – Wrongful Conviction

Posted on by

Jerry TownsendI often hammer home my theme of Randian Objectivism which includes rewarding those who achieve but there is another side to that and one almost as important. Those who do wrong must be punished or at least investigated thoroughly.

A mentally retarded man named Jerry Frank Townsend was wrongfully framed by police for a crime that DNA evidence eventually exonerated him from committing. The real criminal then went on and killed ten more women and children although at least one police detective strongly suspected that person even during the original trial.

Now, I don’t want to get into how awful the situation was for the wrongly imprisoned man, or how unjust were the subsequent rapes and murders. I do want to discuss why the officers involved in the original frame-up were not thoroughly investigated and at least reprimanded.

Prosecutors claim to have looked into the case and determined that perjury cannot be proven and I’ll take them at their word but they apparently never spoke with the detectives who handled the case. Detectives who testified that Townsend led them to the murder scenes and gave them information only the killer could have known, these being clearly false statements. There is a suggestion that the detectives fabricated evidence, coerced witnesses and the defendant (who confessed to the crimes), and even withheld evidence from the defense team.

I don’t know if any of that is true but I do know that the detectives that ran the investigation should be thoroughly investigated and at the very least reprimanded although both are since retired.

What I really want to discuss is why this wasn’t thoroughly investigated and I’d love for some police officers and detectives to chime in. I’m of the opinion that the vast majority of people want to do their job properly. Police officers in particular who I have met (I’ve taught some computer classes to officers) are extremely dedicated and conscientious.  They do their difficult job and take tremendous and well-earned pride in protecting me, my family, and my friends.

Just like I know people who I’ve worked with in the past who were corrupt I’m sure that the great detectives and officers out there are well aware of the corrupt few on the job. The argument goes that we must protect the honor of the institution. That if word of such misdeeds got out that it would tarnish the reputation of the company or industry. We see this logic again and again but it is completely flawed.

If such organizations would immediately ferret out and punish wrong-doing, or if the information comes years later, still go about the business of exposing such corruption to the light of the world then their organization would not suffer, it would blossom!

When we cover-up corruption and misdeeds we simply embolden the worst among us and inhibit the best. There is nothing worse than watching an incompetent co-worker be praised for a job poorly done. It saps our own desire to succeed and destroys the organization from within.

So, as a Randian objectivist, I say to Broward County, turn the full light of investigation on these activities. If nothing comes of it then nothing comes of it. But, by hiding the misdeeds of the few we hurt the honor of the many. We must punish misdeeds and reward heroics. That is the road to success, be it a business, an army, or a police force.

Please, tell me what you think with comments!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Throwing my Vote Away

Posted on by

Throwing Vote AwayI was out and about being social last night which is unusual for me (thanks AU). While out I happened to be speaking with a pair of Republican leaning friends although the conversation would have been virtually the same with friends leaning towards Democratic candidates. I was told, once again, that I’m throwing away my vote when I cast it for Independents like Gary Johnson.

I’m not and I’ll tell you why.

The argument that I’m throwing away my vote goes pretty much like this. You’re (me) voting for someone who has no chance of winning and therefore your vote doesn’t really count.

First: all votes count as one vote regardless of who wins or loses. The winning vote doesn’t count more than the losing vote nor does the vote for a candidate who wins by a huge margin. They all count the same.

Second: I think that when I vote for Independent candidates I’m voting for the person I want to win, not the lesser of two evils.

Third:  If independent candidates start to get enough votes then they will eventually become viable candidates. If I simply vote for the lesser of the evils; evil wins and independents never gain a foothold.

Fourth (and most importantly): If you vote for President Obama or Governor Romney you are voting to destroy the United States of America. Yep. You heard me right. You are voting for a candidate who will tell you what you want to hear and continue to drive this once great country to ruin all the while.

So, don’t tell me I’m throwing my vote away because I choose to vote to return this country to glory while you choose to vote for its destruction.

I think I’ve made my point. Tell me if you agree or think I’m a pompous jerk in the comments!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release:The Hammer of Fire

The Sword of Water

Posted on by

The Sword of WaterI’ve updated the page to my fourth Sword and Sorcery novel, The Sword of Water. I’ve really been thinking about the book more than actually writing at this point and I’ve only got about 10,000 words down at this point. But, things have really come together in my mind enough that I thought I could update the page with information that might be of interest to my fans.

The Sword of Water

The novel marks the return of Jon Gray and Sorus Nightwalk from their adventures in The Staff of Sakatha. About a year has passed and they two are on the trail of yet another relic of the Old Empire. There is a Sample Chapter available but it is from the rough draft so hold the comments on typos, spelling, and grammar errors! 🙂

I hope those few who enjoy my books are happy to see that work progresses on the next installment!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Soda Tax – Good Idea?

Posted on by

Sin TaxAs the Federal government continues with their financial woes and bond rate manipulation costs state and municipality millions if not billions of dollars those entities are coming up with creative ways to tax. One of the most common and popular way to raise revenue is so-called “Sin Taxes“. One new idea coming to a city near you is to tax soda consumption.

I’m going to explore the idea of a Sin Tax and whether it is a reasonable way for municipalities to raise money for their operations. I don’t want to get too deeply into the idea of waste and government overspending but focus more on whether these taxes are useful.

The Wiki article details the proposed benefits of such taxes which include the revenue raised and the societal benefit of increased cost and the accompanying discouragement of sin. In this case the societal good is the weight loss that might be associated with reduced soda consumption and its attendant health benefits.

Sin Taxes have a long history in the United States with tobacco taxes being the most prominently known. For those of you, like me, who love history, you’ll be interested to know that Alexander Hamilton proposed the first tobacco tax back in 1794. The current federal tax is $1.01 per pack while state and even city taxes vary. In Missouri, my home state, the tax is $.17 per pack. It turns out this tax burden is far less than I was led to believe by tobacco companies and smokers in general although that is to be expected. Missouri’s tax is the lowest in the nation.

There is, in fact, a correlation between higher taxes and reduced consumption. So that part of the argument seems to be true. If the price point rises to a certain level then a segment of the population will stop using the product. However, at least one study indicate that smokers and obese people are actually less of a financial burden on the health-care system because they die much earlier than healthy people.

One of the main arguments against Sin Taxes, and proposed nationwide consumption taxation, is that they are regressive in nature. What is meant by this is that two people who smoke a pack a day are taxed equally but one is wealthy and the other poor. Thus the poor person is paying a far higher percentage of their total income. In essence the tax forces poor people to quit or bear a much higher percentage burden. This could be deemed discriminatory.

There is no doubt that companies push such tax hikes onto the consumer but that is really beside the point. Studies indicate that raising taxes on soda will generate revenue for cities and will drive down consumption. Whether that consumption rate decline will result in less obesity and medical expenses is in doubt. It is certainly the right of cities, states, and the federal government to tax.

As a Libertarian I think people should largely be allowed to make their own decisions and government shouldn’t be in the business of discouraging or encouraging personal lifestyle choices. Contrarily I also think that all people and businesses enjoy the benefits of government building and maintaining roads, bridges, sewer systems, schools, and utility infrastructure and should pay for that boon. Back to the other side, I think taxing “sin” sends a bad message. We don’t want you to do something but we’ll happily take your money for doing it.

It’s a tough question. Certainly they have the right to tax soda but is it a reasonable exercise of government power?

I have to come to the conclusion that it’s legal but I don’t like it. I like taxes to be directly related to a function of government. A gas tax should go directly to roads and bridges. A property tax should go to schools. An airline tax should go to airports and their employees. Cigarette and Soda taxes should go towards public health-care costs if they are deemed to be an expense. When all the tax dollars are mixed and mingled strange accounting starts to happen and it becomes a magnet for waste and theft. Just as a quick example; let’s imagine all the money taken for Social Security was put into safe, low-interest bearing accounts and doled out only to those who paid in. It would be fully funded and not only fiscally solvent but be running huge profits by now.

I think that is a better solution than taxing soda but it would require a large effort. An effort that is worthwhile in my opinion. Have taxes support the specific government function to which they are related. If soda costs money in health-care then the tax should be used for that purpose. I’m not convinced reducing soda consumption will reduce obesity and even if it did that such effect would lower health-care costs. Thus, I don’t think a soda tax is reasonable.

What do you think? Tell me in the comments.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Student Sues Over Grade

Posted on by

gradesI spotted an interesting story on Yahoo today and I don’t have all the facts so I don’t want to go overboard with my conclusions, but it did strike a nerve with me. I’m a teacher myself and I was a rather poor student at one time. I’ll review the facts of the case first and then tell you what I think.

This young student was a straight A, honor student who had completed all his work and earned a 106% score in the class. I assume this means he did much extra-credit and honors work. This is apparently not in dispute. He had a prior committment and couldn’t attend a scheduled lab for which he was given an excused absence. The teacher and student couldn’t come together for a make-up of the lab. This missed lab apparently dropped his grade from an A+ to a C+. That seems extreme on its own but I’ll take the story at face value until I learn more.

Efforts appear to have been made through the proper channels, the teacher, the administrators, the principal, but no resolution was found and the case is now in the courts.

This whole thing is a disaster from my perspective. It never should have come to this. I can’t make completely accurate judgments because I haven’t heard the teacher or district’s full account of events but I’m going to speculate a little bit and keep in mind I might have to retract later when the story develops further.

I’ve known students like this and teachers like this.

A student overly obsessed with his grades who thinks one bad score will destroy his future. There is some truth to the idea that an overall GPA is important in getting into college but there are many other factors and top-level schools do interviews where this case could be explained. I’m not sure he was in any real danger of not getting into his top school choices.

A teacher who enjoys making students dance to puppet strings over the threat of bad grades, particularly when they know the student is obsessed. I’ve known more than one teacher who purposely gave unfair grades to students so they would come begging for changes. Sickening but true.

Let’s assume the worst. The teacher is sadistic and the student is obsessed. At what point does the administration have to step in? When does the adult have to admit to being wrong? I think before it gets to court. The administration did change the grade from a C+ to a B in an effort at reconciliation but it didn’t work.

The teacher is clearly now entrenched in her position. The student and his parents won’t quit until they’ve had a favorable outcome so we end up with a giant mess where no-one really wins. The student comes across as obsessed, the teacher as vindictive. A mess.

If the facts are true as presented I think an administrator needed to step in and insist the boy be allowed to make-up his lab and let his grade reflect that event. I’m not saying give in and grant the student an A+ but let him take the lab. How hard is that? All parties honorably let off the hook.

Give the teacher a stern talking to about such things and let her know that she is being watched. Explain to the student that one grade isn’t going to change his life. Try and settle this thing before it spirals out of control. Too late for that now but, if in the future you see such a situation developing try to intervene before both parties become so entrenched in their positions the only resolution becomes the courts. You could save a lot of heartache.

What do you think? Tell me in the comments.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

NCAA – Penn State Sanctions – Justified? Legal?

Posted on by

Penn State Sandusky ScandalI’ve had some time to process the penalties the NCAA meted out to Penn State over the Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno child molestation cover up and I’m going to blog about it now. My question is whether the NCAA has the authority and/or obligation to punish the football program in this instance.

I’m sure most of you don’t need a recap but for the sake of thoroughness I’ll go over the situation quickly. A Penn State football coach, Jerry Sandusky, was convicted of child molestation. A subsequent report indicated that people at the top-level of the football program and university hid evidence of these attacks and allowed Sandusky to continue to be associated with the university and assault other young boys for many years.

In full disclosure I will admit that I have a bias against the NCAA governing body and their rank hypocrisy in rulings against student athletes who generate billions in revenue for the various universities and gain a free college education in return. Said students are allowed no financial remuneration and are often suspended or kicked out of school for taking small gifts or selling their game jerseys. There is an excellent South Park episode about this particular topic worth watching.

Back to the topic at hand, does the NCAA have the right to punish Penn State in this case? A perusal of the NCAA Manual seems to indicate the organization has pretty much the right to do whatever it wants, for whatever reason, to any member school.

I can tell you that likely every university in the country has had a sex scandal covered up by someone. Trust me, the list through the link is nothing. I went to college at the University of Idaho and there was sex between coaches and athletes plenty. There was money changing hands under the table plenty. This wasn’t even a major university. I’m sure a few readers can chime in with comments about their own experience. My point isn’t that such activities are normal and fine, my point is where does the NCAA get the right to choose which acts they will punish and which they will ignore?

From the other perspective, the events at Penn State are particularly vile and the cover-up truly disgusting by any standard. If the NCAA is supposed to govern these organizations then don’t they have not only a right, but an absolute duty, to bring down powerful penalties against the school?

The penalty handed down certainly affect most greatly those completely uninvolved in the incident but can the NCAA simply use that as an excuse to not penalize? For the most part the NCAA finds out about violations after the parties involved have moved on. Do they not have to penalize the organization as a whole in order to try to force others to follow the rules?

It’s a difficult question to answer but I’m not one to shy away.

I think the NCAA is out-of-bounds on this one because the activity in question really had nothing to do with their governing authority. The NCAA is not responsible for a coach who commits vehicular manslaughter, rape, or shop-lifting. Those are illegal act and subject to the laws of the state. The NCAA hands down penalties for recruiting violations which are not illegal, just against the NCAA regulations. This is their venue.

Sandusky is in prison where he belongs. Joe Paterno’s legacy is destroyed, which it should be. The others involved in this horrific incident will soon face their day in court. It’s just not the NCAA’s job to punish this crime. By claiming that they have the right to do so they are taking on far more responsibility than to which they are legally entitled, in my opinion at least. A number of entities punished in this ruling might well have legal recourse against the NCAA and we will see how all that plays out over the coming months and years.

I think the NCAA will rue the day they decided to get involved in this case when more criminal misconduct cases arise and they are forced to make rulings on events to which they should not be involved.

I don’t think my opinion will be too popular and I welcome those who would disagree! Tell me in the comments.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Pay Congress Minimum Wage – Good Idea?

Posted on by

Congress Minimum WageOne of my prolific Facebook posting friends recently posted a photo declaring that US Congress members should be paid at minimum wage. My first thought was it was a rather idealistic but silly idea but then I decided, what the heck, I’ll take a rational, Randian Objectivist look at it.

My first goal was to find the actual savings in real dollars. There isn’t an exact savings because the number of hours in a year fluctuates depending on how many weekend days there are and leap years but the formula looks basically like this:

Current Pay: (530 * 174,000) + (4 * 193,4000) + (1 * 223,000) = $93.2 million.

The breakdown is 432 House Members and 98 Senators at regular pay, Majority and Minority leaders at 193,400 and Speaker of House at 223,000.

Minimum Wage Pay: ($7.25 * 2088 * 535) = $8.0 million.

The Breakdown is all 535 paid for 2088 hours of a work in a fairly average year at the federal minimum wage. States have different minimum but I went with federal.

Savings: 93.2 – 8 = $85.2 million.

As a percentage of the 2011 budget this is (85.2 million / 3.7 trillion) = .0023%

So, the actual savings, negligible, although I’m not one to completely discount $85 million even if it is .0023% of a larger total. It’s still $85 million!

Now, as to the practical aspects of the idea. First the perceived cons:

  1. Only wealthy people could run for Congress as living on that salary would be extremely difficult.
  2. It would open up Congress members to bribery as they needed the money.
  3. It isn’t any real savings to the federal budget.

The perceived benefits:

  1. Saves $85.2 million in real dollars.
  2. Would attract only those who wanted to serve rather than those in it for the money

The cons seem to outweigh the pros at first glance but I’m not so sure. No one can run for Congress without financial backing anymore and the perks of being a Congress member, in the form of benefits given by lobbyist, far outweigh their simple salary remuneration. Congress members are already are bribed by lobbyist in the way of campaign contributions so I don’t think lowering the salary stops who can run or their susceptibility to bribes in any appreciable fashion.

The Supreme Court has ruled that anyone can anonymously give any amount to a campaign. Congress members will, until that decision changes, be completely at the whim of special interests in order to get elected. Once elected they might go against their financial backers but eventually such strong-willed individuals would be weeded out of the electoral process because they would get no financial backing the next election. Only those willing to do the bidding of the highest bidder would get elected.

The illusion of financial independence is simply that, an illusion. Our Congress Members are bought and owned by those who pay the campaign bills.

Having looked at it from this perspective I’d have to say, yeah, pay them minimum wage and save a small fraction of the federal budget but in examining it I realized something very interesting although off-topic.

I have an idea!!

The original the House of Representatives was to have one representative for every 30,000 citizens (Native Americans didn’t count and only 3 out of every 5 slaves counted). This has gone up with the increased population so that now we have one representative for every 700,000 citizens. If we went back to the original proportions we would have a Congress of about 10,000 members (300 million total citizens / 30,000).

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, we do have 10,100 representatives (100 senators added). At minimum wage that is about $153 million in salary or an increase in $60 million from current expenses but …. they work from home! No staff. Each one represents a much smaller district and has less influence, huge decrease in the cost to get elected, and less individual power so that lobbyist must spread their money very differently. It might even be impossible for a lobbyist to bribe enough Congressmen to get legislation passed.

There would have to be some serious reorganization in regards to committees but with the speed of computers I don’t see this as impossible. Voting is easily done with computers. It makes it much harder to play the You Scratch My Back game. It makes representatives much more accountable to their districts.

It does leave the Senate as a beacon for bribery and misconduct but with their six-year election cycle they’ve always been a bit more independent.

I think it might actually work to remove corruption from the cycle and I’m convinced that the reduction in staffing, housing, travel, and the rest would end up saving more than $85 million!

Am I crazy? Could this work? Tell me in the comments.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Senator John McCain – The President He Could Have Been

Posted on by

John McCainThere was a wonderful article about Senator McCain today and I just can’t help a welling up of sadness in my heart. This was the John McCain who could have been President of the United States. A man who has dedicated his life to serving the United States of American. A man of conviction, a man of courage, a man of moral integrity. A man who would make the right decision even if it meant going against his political allies. A man who could have led this country back to the light.

Then, he decided he wanted to get elected and threw it all away. He sold his ethical outlook to collect money. He spat out vile lies and attacks to get votes. He picked a running mate not out of moral conviction but of political expediency.

This man, this senator, this warrior is an absolute bell-weather indicator of what is horribly wrong in the United States of America. He needed the religious vote so he turned against his own standards in an attempt to climb to the presidency. Governor George Bush and his hatchet man Karl Rove taught McCain that he couldn’t run on his moral conviction. They attacked his military record, they called him crazy, they used every dirty trick in the book and they won. McCain learned well that game. Meanwhile the country and the world loses.

Oh, the horror, the horror.

If you love your country, please, please, vote for men and women of conviction even if they tell you things you don’t like. If they go against their party standards and fight for what is right, vote for them! It’s not too late even in this election cycle. Look up Gary Johnson. But, more importantly, look at your district, your state senator, your local mayor, your county dog-catcher. Vote for the candidates that gives you realistic answers. Don’t vote for anyone who tells you that his opponent will destroy the country. Don’t vote for anyone who tells each new audience exactly what they want to hear.

Better yet, run yourself. School board, assembly-person, whatever. But don’t sell your convictions on any issues! Never give in to expediency. State your case, tell it plain, and if the voters want to bring change, you’ll win. If not, it’s hopeless and you sold your convictions for nothing.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire