Independence Day – July 4th = Synonyms?

Posted on June 21, 2012 by Tom Liberman

I pissed off a co-worker again. Not surprised, are you? I did hold back from making the full argument which would have really escalated the situation. It’s happened over a subject I’m a little passionate about and that is calling Independence Day the 4th of July. They are not synonyms! The 4th of July is a day of the year, like April 12th. Independence Day is a day that celebrates our independence from Britain.

I’ll recap the debate.

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

Co-worker: July 4th is coming up.

Me: Independence Day, you mean.

Co-worker: Same thing.

Me: No, actually not. Most countries have their own Independence Day and it is on different days of the year. The 4th of July is just a date.

Co-worker: What do they call the 4th of July in England?

Me: I’m not sure.

Co-worker: Ha, see, I told you so.

Me: I’m not sure you told me that. I suppose they call July 4th the 4th of July in England. But that’s not the question. What do they call Independence Day in France?

Co-worker: I don’t know.

Me: Bastille Day, it falls on July 14.

Co-worker: So, what do they call Independence Day in England.

Me: I’m not sure but not the 4th of July.

Co-worker: Ha, see, I’m right then.

Me: *Stunned silence*

Co-worker: Why are you being such a dick today, get out of here.

Me: *Leaves*

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

So, what just happened there? My co-worker completely lost track of his argument and eventually took my original position and claimed it was his own. It’s a common tactic I see although I don’t really think it’s a tactic. I think it’s muddle-headed thinking combined with the inability to admit an argument is wrong, which is a hallmark of religious, faith-based thinking. Yes, my co-worker is a religious Republican. But, to be fair, I see it in religious Democrats well.

My co-worker, by arguing that everyone calls the date July 4, “the 4th of July”, but people have different names for independence day depending on their country of origin proves that the 4th of July and Independence Day are not synonymous. My original point. Yet, he believed he “won” the argument. I left without pointing this out, which save me from further alienating my co-worker, but rankles me. I don’t mind being wrong. I really don’t. When someone brings forth a fact or a thought I hadn’t considered I’m actually generally pretty happy. It’s like a shiny new toy for me. To think about, to analyze, to ponder. I like that.

The underlying issue is the inability to admit being wrong. I think it is general human nature to not want to admit to a mistake but I find that faith-based thinking leads to extreme levels of delusion when it comes to this principle. A faith-based thinker must somehow rationalize their argument as correct even when it is demonstrated as false.

The three ways I see this happening are 1) as above. The person changes his position to the correct one but claims that is what they said all along. 2) The person refuses to speak about it anymore generally at the same time calling the person or people on the other side idiots, or 3) The person sticks to their original, wrong arguments, but every more loudly and insultingly.

What it all means is that it’s difficult to have a productive discussion with faith-based thinkers. They will not, cannot, accept being wrong about anything. Even one mistake might mean that their entire philosophical world could come tumbling down. interestingly this thinking rarely intrudes onto their business decisions but is paramount in political and philosophical questions.

What I want to say to faith-based thinkers, and rational thinkers who lock onto their positions is this. Relax, it’s ok to be wrong. Listen to the other point of view. Debate with logical arguments. The end result is worth it, even if it turns out you were wrong to begin with.

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

Roger Clemens – Steroids or Lies which is worse?

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Tom Liberman

I’m happy to say that I’d all but forgotten the government’s misguided attempt to prosecute Roger Clemens for lying to Congress in their investigation of performance enhancing drugs. But, the news of his acquittal brought it back in full force and I thought I’d use my considerable blogging power to shed some light on the subject.

Basically, there are very few admirable people in this entire mess. The fact that athletes used and continue to use performance enhancing drugs, illegal or not, is not arguable. It is currently taking place and was in the past as well.

Let’s trace the roots of this disaster and look at it from a Libertarian, critical thinking point of view.

As always, Wikipedia has an excellent article that traces performance enhancing drugs in sports. There is evidence of “doping” in antiquity using plant extracts and laudanum or opium were used in walking races, popular in England around the early 1800s. Bicycle racing has long been immersed in drugs. There is no question that performance enhancement drugs have been around for a long time.

The National Football League was dependent on anabolic steroids in the 1970’s and the Pittsburgh Steeler championship teams of that era are often referenced as the first truly organized steroid abusers.

I don’t want to get into a big debate who was using and who wasn’t because it’s my absolute belief that the vast majority of athletes used, and continue to use, performance enhancing drugs. The detection methods are far behind the masking techniques.

What I do want to talk about is both the government’s involvement in prosecuting athletes and the lies athletes tell. Not many winners in this conversation I’m afraid to say.

I have no idea why Congress is asking questions of athletes about their use of performance enhancing drugs. Well, that’s not true. I do know why. They are looking for publicity. Look at me! I took on those evil cheaters! Look, at me! Vote for me! I made football clean! Nonsense of course. The government and the legal system in general shouldn’t be involved in these prosecutions. The professional sports leagues can monitor themselves. If people don’t want to watch or pay for the games because of such performance enhancement then the league must address it. If the people keep paying then so be it. I sort of like what weight lifting has done with an Open Division where doping is accepted and a Free Division where athletes are tested.

Now, how about Roger Clemens, Floyd Landis, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and the countless horde of others dragged before Congress. Most of them choose to lie. Nice. Their parents taught them well. Great example for their children. I hope you’re proud Roger, Lance, Barry, Sammy, and rest. Of course one other choice is to not lie but not tell the truth, I have some respect for Mark McGuire.

Finally, you can decide that coming clean is the most honorable strategy. Well done Marion Jones! Of them all, I respect you. Of course, they threw her jail. Great message. When they lie – prosecute, which is all but impossible, and fail. If they tell the truth, jail! Marion Jones tells the truth and her awards are taken from her. She goes to prison. The rest of them shine their trophies, smile and lie, tell their loyal fans lies, lie to their children. It makes me sick. Not that Marion Jones is squeaky clean in all of this. But compared to Clemons, Bonds, Sosa, Armstrong and the rest I save my respect for her.

And Congress, you’re no better than the Clemens and the rest. Hang your head in shame. Go home and don’t come out again. Blah. What a disaster.

Let’s all just be adults and face reality. Clemens cheated. Armstrong cheated. McGuire cheated. They all cheated. But, if they all were cheating wasn’t the playing field level? Wasn’t Clemens a great pitcher? Bonds a great hitter? Armstrong a great bicyclist? Of course they were. They did something everyone else was doing. Their bodies may well suffer long-term consequences but they chose their fate. Can’t we all just be honest about this? Forget about putting people in jail or keeping them out of the Hall of Fame. They were all doing it!

Grow up! Fans, grow up. You’re favorite player likely cheated.

Grow up! Players, grow up. Admit what happened and move on with your life in a way you can look your children in the eye.

Grow up! Congress. Stop trying to win elections and start trying to fix this country!

I’m done now.

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

Subjective v. Objective

Posted on June 19, 2012 by Tom Liberman

There is an endless and possibly age-old debate about the concepts of Objectivity versus Subjectivity and while I’ve had that conversation many times over the years I haven’t discussed it in my blog until … today! So, strap on the critical thinking hats and get ready for a rumble because this one brings out the raw emotions.

The reason this topic comes to mind today is a conversation I had a work this morning. We have a new fish tank and it is absurdly loud. The sound the tank makes spurred the debate. It sounds like a bathtub being filled with water but a co-worker said it sounded to her like the ocean. The ensuing debate became heated. That sort of things happens to me a lot, which, if you read this blog regularly, you won’t find surprising.

At question here is if my co-worker actually thinks it sounds like an ocean is she correct? That is the heart of subjectivity versus objectivity.

A subjectivist argues that reality is perception. If she thinks it sounds like the ocean then it does, in fact, sound like the ocean. An objectivist argues that we need to listen to the sound of the ocean and see if the sound waves create a similar pattern. The answer, from my perspective, is clearly they do not. It sounds nothing like the ocean and the fact that my co-worker thinks it does doesn’t change that objective fact.

“It’s my opinion,” is the argument often used by subjectivists. What the subjectivist fails to take into account is that no one is saying they aren’t entitled to their opinion, just that their opinion is, objectively, wrong.

Now, the debate usually continues with arguments similar to this

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

The objectivist says, “So, f you think this chair looks like a DVD does that mean the chair looks like a DVD?”

The subjectivist replies, “To me, yes!”

The objectivist says, “That’s nonsense. Please come back when you decided to debate like an adult.”

The subjectivist says, “I am arguing like an adult. If I think the chair looks like a DVD then that’s what I think. You can’t say I’m wrong.”

The objectivist says, “I can say you’re wrong. It looks nothing like a chair. If I think it’s ok to kill you, (at this point the objectivist is getting a little heated) then is it ok to kill you?”

The subjectivist replies, “It’s ok for you, but I don’t think it’s ok, so it’s not ok for me.”

The objectivist replies, “It’s both ok and not ok at the same time!? What – what – what?”

The subjectivist nods his head sagely and says, “Yes, it’s both.”

The objectivist leaves the room before his head explodes and the subjectivist looks baffled. Argument over.

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

That’s the way it usually goes and everyone ends up angry.

You may have guessed that I’m a die-hard objectivist but I do think there is some wiggle room. There are certain levels of subjectivity when it comes to liking things, say food or movies. Some people hate fish. Many people hate Vanilla Sky. But, I do think even with food and movies we can objectively define some level of good. Chef’s learn what ingredients people like and these combined properly are good even if some people don’t like the particular flavors. Likewise, there is good writing, good cinematography, good acting and these things combined make good movies even if particular people don’t like the movie.

I think it’s largely dangerous to slip into subjectivity. There is truth, there is good, there is right. Likewise there are lies, bad, and wrong. When we try to suggest that truth is subjective we risk losing perspective on what will make us better people, what will make society better.

It’s important to be as objective as possible when it comes to our lives. The decision we make are important for ourselves and for others. We must objectively analyze and make the best possible decisions at all times. That being said, there is a certain level of subjectivity in our lives and we can’t end up in paralysis by analysis. Then nothing is accomplished.

Wrapping up, I think it’s ok to suggest that a particular sound reminds us of something even if it reminds other people of different things. That being said if we truly analyze the sound and determine the sound waves are dissimilar from what one person claims then we must come to a conclusion of objective truth. In this case, while entitled to her opinion, my co-worker was objectively wrong. I was objectively right.

Isn’t that what matters! 🙂

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

Casualties of the War on Drugs

Posted on June 11, 2012 by Tom Liberman

Yet again I read an article spelling out the complete and utter failure of the war on drugs. Sigh.

First off I’m going to start using a new phrase. “The War on Drugs” simply doesn’t compute in any reasonable way. “The Drug Cartel”. Because that’s all it is. It’s an alliance between the United States, drug manufacturing, and drug dealers legal and illegal.

Now, let’s trace the roots of this Drug Cartel. The term “War on Drugs” was coined by President Nixon in 1971 and its goal was to reduce the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs. I’ll spend one sentence on its failure. Has the production, distribution, and consumption been reduced? Done. Ok, a link with detailed explanations. Global Commission on Drug Policy. Read that and then follow the links to the various papers.

Ok, back to Nixon. While he may have coined the phrase “War on Drugs” the misguided policies in the United States date back to 1914 and the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.

Another quick detour. Did you know that in the 1890’s before all this madness began that Sears & Roebuck offered a syringe and cocaine priced at $1.50 in their catalog?

The early attacks on drug distribution were the same ones we see today. That drugs fuel violence and crime. Good news then. The Drug Cartel is succeeding in ways that Sears & Roebuck could never have dreamed possible. Unless, of course, the idea was to reduce the violence and crime associated with drug use. Then, well, fail.

The next anti-drug (pro-crime) policy was Prohibition enacted in 1920. Again, easy to see the results.

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics, precursor to the Drug Enforcement Administration was created in 1930. Guess who expanded it greatly by establishing the DEA? President Nixon in 1973.

Next came the ridiculous Marijuana Transfer Tax Act in 1937. This act placed a tax on cannabis and was eventually replaced in 1969 with something far worse, The Controlled Substances Act.

But, let’s get back to the DEA. In 2010 there operating budget was over one billion dollars. A healthy sum. Guess what percentage of that was dedicated to reducing demands for drugs as opposed to prosecuting and catching offenders? .28%. So, 99.72% of the budget of the DEA was used to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States through interdiction in foreign countries and here. The numbers in 2005 suggest that the DEA seized about 2 billion worth of drugs and drug related assets of which about half a billion was actual drugs. The total amount of drugs sold in the US that year is estimated at 64 billion. Let’s do the math … .78% of all drugs were prevented. Really? .78%? In what world is that worthwhile?

Meanwhile there are any number of accusations that the United States works with drug providing nations to bring the material to the country. I’m willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt that they are simply doing this in order to catch drug dealers. But, they aren’t stopping the flow by any appreciable amount and they are actually contributing to it! This is insane.

Meanwhile the number of American citizens incarcerated has increased hugely since the Drug Cartel began. It was less than .2% of the population at the onset of the Drug Cartel and is now over .8%.

I’m now tired of finding reasons why the Drug Cartel is madness. I’m not out of reasons, I could go on .. and on … and on, but I’m just tired and discouraged.

It’s up to you, people of the United States. Write your Congressmen, ask them politely (don’t yell and scream like a five-year old who didn’t get his cookies) in Town Hall meetings. We must stop this insanity. Legalize drugs. Disband the DEA.

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

The Great Soda Wars

Posted on June 6, 2012 by Tom Liberman

My post the other day about the dangers of idealism leads me to today’s topic, The Great Soda Wars.

There is a proposal in New York by the mayor, a former Republican now Independent, to curb the size of soda containers. The idea being to limit the large, single serving, soda containers which are now up to 64 oz. The medical dangers of being overweight are well established and soda seems to be one of the prime movers of that phenomenon. The article goes on to list other dangers of drinking too much of the sugary beverage.

The government does have a duty to protect its citizens and dangers come in many forms. However; I’m not sure that drinking myself to death classifies. There is an interesting correlation with Prohibition in which alcohol was banned because of its deleterious effects. This didn’t work out so well. However, in this case they are not banning soda but simply limiting a serving size. One argument against this is the Slippery Slope idea wherein if we allow one supposedly “good” law to pass it will lead to more drastic and “bad” laws. I’m not a big fan of the slippery slope argument, let us judge each piece of legislation on its own merits.

Let’s take a critical look at the legislation. The problem it hopes to solve is the imbibing of huge amounts of soda. The solution proposed is to limit the container size available. This would prevent someone from making a single purchase of a large soda but there doesn’t seem to be much to prevent them from going back for a second soda or even bringing their own, larger, container, purchasing two or three, and then filling said cup. Thirdly it artificial removes a purchase option for consumers and a sale item for retailers. One that the consumer wants and the retailer makes a profit from selling.

Again, the only real benefit I see is that some people might stick with the smaller single serving when they might have otherwise been tempted by pricing schemes to purchase the larger container. I just don’t see this as a big enough bonus to enact such legislation. I’m not totally opposed to government intervention to increase the health and safety of Americans but if there is going to be such legislation the benefits must be overwhelming and the danger clear.

On the whole I think the only real solution is to educate people as best as possible to the dangers of too much sugar or too much alcohol or too much heroine. Next, teach people how to think critically and make good decisions. Hooray, problem solved!

Ok, not really. We can’t force people to behave in a non-destructive manner and maybe we should give up trying. Instead give them information and the ability to think clearly.

This whole debate does make me think about Jamie Oliver and his quest to bring good food to schools. I think I’ll soon post about how a capitalistic strategy trumps legislative attempts. See you then!

Thanks to the guys at the lunch table for helping me think this post through!

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

Idealism and its Dangers

Posted on June 4, 2012 by Tom Liberman

I found myself reading political stories this weekend as President Obama and Mr. Romney begin their campaign in earnest. It’s going to be an ugly few months, particularly for those of us with a Libertarian point of view and our candidate, Mr. Johnson of New Mexico all but shut out of consideration.

One of things I find most disturbing about politics in the United States these days is the over reliance on idealism and the relegation of pragmatism and practicality. Both main camps, and I include even Mr. Johnson although to a lesser degree, rely almost completely on rhetoric, dire predictions, outright threats, and simple-minded idealism.

There are numerous examples of this idealism over pragmatism in our campaigns these days but today I’m going to take on one that is near to the hearts of my Libertarian friends and often seems to ally them with Republican candidates. The idea of personal responsibility or moral responsibility.

The topic in question is eating habits. Whenever I see an article about how Americans are becoming increasingly unhealthy the primary response of Libertarians and Republicans is that people need to take personal responsibility and stop eating. Democrats on the other hand offer legislation to prevent businesses from selling a product that is clearly desired. It’s an interesting case of idealism against practicality.

From an idealistic point of view I couldn’t agree more with my Libertarian and Republican friend in that we are ultimately in charge of our own bodies and that eating ourselves to death is our choice. From the pragmatic point of view I’ve come to the realization that this philosophy is not going to work until we teach Objectivism and Critical Thinking skills to all children and, importantly, this is not on the horizon anytime soon. Furthermore, the increasing unhealthiness of America has a direct and negative effect on me. I pay higher health insurance rates, I have to deal with huge people taking up all the seats, I have to do the work of people medically unable because I’m physically, relatively, fit. I’m not a professional athlete but I go to the gym, try to eat healthy, and am genetically predisposed towards a smaller body type.

So, does that leave me in the camp of Democrats who want to legislate healthiness? In a word, no. First off it doesn’t work and secondly it interferes with my freedom to purchase what I want when I want.

Now comes the problem. What is to be done to solve the general unhealthiness of Americans? Idealism doesn’t work. Legislation doesn’t work. My long-term goal of educating young people about how to think critically is great but no immediate solution and one that I suspect will never be implemented.

So I come to the conclusion of minimalist government intrusion. I see no reason to allow food manufacturers to be deceitful in their practices. I’ve talked about this before but there is nothing wrong with labeling a product to list its contents and the means by which it got to your table. If people want to eat products that result from humane treatment of animals then let that market flourish. Over-regulation kills this idea of course in that anything labeled “Organic” is hardly that thanks to lobbying efforts to change the definition of things.

It’s a difficult tight-rope between over-regulation and no regulation. Information is the key. Make accurate information available to the consumers and then let them drive the capitalistic forces. I’m convinced that people want to be healthy and if given legitimate choices, clearly labeled, they will purchase more expensive products that are healthy, energy-conserving, or otherwise “good”. There will always be a market but convoluted over-regulation muddies the definition of everything while no regulation leads to outright fraud.

Try to get out of the idealistic mode of thinking whether or not you are a Democrat or a Republican. Instead try to come up with practical solution to real problems. Then maybe we can change the world.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian twist
Just Released: The Hammer of Fire

Video and the Police Officer

Posted on June 1, 2012 by Tom Liberman

There was an interesting article in the news the other day about police arresting people recording video of the officers in their regular duties. It seems to be making a big splash and the alarmist headline naturally drives people to the story.

While reading the comments on the article it struck me that, as usual, most of the commenters failed to read the article completely if at all. It’s one of those stories that is going to provoke a strong reaction from both sides of the political spectrum and likely eventually distill down to a game of name-calling with both sides blaming the other.

I find two things interesting about the article and the reaction to it.

Firstly, anyone who cared to read the item all the way through had to note that police officers and politicians were aware of the issue and passing laws and training officers in the appropriate way to handle the situation. This is a good thing! With new recording technology ubiquitously available not only in person but remotely there are clearly going to be more people recording public activity. So, as the police become accustomed to this it will expose officers who flaunt the law which in turn emboldens all the great officers out there who are already doing a fantastic job without prompting. I talked about the how letting people get away with bad deeds hurts everyone in this post. The idea is that good people are discouraged when bad people are allowed to go about their business.

The second thing that struck me was that people in total agreement about how police should behave towards law-abiding citizens recording their activity were in complete and total disagreement about the cause of the problem. The two camps, not surprisingly, were political opposites, Republicans and Democrats. I don’t have to tell you who each blamed for the problem. What distressed me is that both sides were in such lock-step agreement about the problem yet made no effort to join forces and find a solution.

I think that is endemic of the political situation in the U.S. I’m of the opinion that people really aren’t that far apart ideologically and that if they would focus on solving problems rather than blaming each other amazing things could happen. I suppose I’m a dreamer but I’ll continue to dream … and blog.

Who’s with me?

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

News Stories, Comments, Trolls, and More

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Tom Liberman

I’ve noticed an interesting trend in my news reading habits. I generally try not to click on and read stories that are of a more puerile interest and stick with science, sports, substantive politics, and the like. The reason I do this is because clicking on a link drives that story’s popularity. The more clicks, the more interest and the news organization moves the story up the list. It’s largely a myth that the news outlets force-feed us stories we don’t care about. They are driven by advertising dollars and more clicks equals more money.

But, that’s not the real reason I’m blogging today. I’ve noticed that the comments section of stories have become of great interest to me for a couple of reasons. One reason is that they are amusing. Another is that it sort of gives me a feeling for how people interpret the story which is a mini-version of polling. I must also admit that I get a perverse joy out of reading particularly stupid comments but, that being said, I do also enjoy thoughtful responses.

There are several interesting dynamics at work in the comments section. One is the phenomenon of trolling. Simply put this is someone going to a particular story or shared discussion region and posting the most inflammatory comment possible. The idea is to provoke an emotional reaction. This in turn spawns a long series of attacks and counter-attacks which amuse the original troll (and me, sometimes).

Another dynamic is the person who genuinely cares about the topic in question and wants to post their own views either in support or against the original article or topic. This is a potentially powerful way of communicating with like-minded people and even convincing open-minded individuals of the validity or invalidity of a point.

Then there are the true-believers. Those who absolutely have faith in a particular point of view and want to post about how stupid the article is or the idiocy of anyone who believes differently.

What I find most fascinating, although not surprising, is that the middle group who want to have an earnest, thought-provoking discussion, are squeezed out. There are a number of efforts to counter this trend including forcing non-anonymous posting as we see in the St. Louis Today website. This does seem to cut down on the more egregious trolls but doesn’t seem to have diminished milder trolling or the true-believers who are happy to expound on how anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot even if their real name is attached to the attack.

I’m not really sure I have a conclusion to this blog. It’s just a fact. It’s sad. I wish people would not denigrate one another with baseless and mean-spirited attacks but I don’t see an immediate solution.

I suppose it comes down to what it always does; teach children how to think critically. Teach them how to make an argument and avoid fallacies. Teach them civil discourse.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

The Hammer of Fire – Cover Process

Posted on May 27, 2012 by Tom Liberman

Here is the final cover for my new Sword and Sorcery novel, The Hammer of Fire!

My mother finished with the copy-edits yesterday and I’ll be over there tomorrow for Memorial Day. I’ll pick up the changes and finish the book probably by Tuesday and post the novels to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Smashwords that day. It usually takes about 48 hours for the books to start appearing on site so I anticipate a release date of Thursday, May 31. I’ll make an announcement then.

In the meantime, here is the finished cover along with the drafts from Raro. It’s fascinating to watch a concept turn into a cover. Raro is an amazing artist!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

The Hammer of Fire – Cover Process

Posted on May 27, 2012 by Tom Liberman

Here is the final cover for my new Sword and Sorcery novel, The Hammer of Fire!

In the meantime, here is the finished cover along with the drafts from Raro. It’s fascinating to watch a concept turn into a cover. Raro is an amazing artist!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

SpaceX and Private Industry

Posted on May 26, 2012 by Tom Liberman

It was a pretty exciting day yesterday for me and those who follow space exploration closely with the docking of SpaceX’s Dragon craft with the International Space Station (ISS). While perusing the comments below the article I found a great deal of misinformation being bandied about which is something I’ve noted for a while when it comes to President Obama’s plans for low earth exploration.

What I find fascinating about the criticism is that it seems to come largely from those who claim to espouse Libertarian ideals. Obama’s plan, basically, is to rely on private industry (with generous funding from NASA) to provide vehicles to get men and supplies into low earth orbit where the ISS resides. When he announced this budget for 2010 many Republicans immediately denounced it despite the fact that it was one of the president’s few forays into supporting Libertarian ideals. I see these same arguments today now that the plan is successfully coming to fruition.

This sort of behavior angers me. This is the downfall of a nation. When a man who we largely disagree with espouses a plan that is perfectly in line with our ideals we should pat him on the back, support him, tell him congratulations, and then, when the plan works get him to implement more of the same. Instead we see attack after attack aimed not at making the country better but at getting elected.

Getting elected is not more important than doing what is right for the country. I’ll repeat that phrase because it seems as if the voters largely don’t understand it. Doing what is in the best interest of the country is more important than getting elected. When the voters don’t understand this the officials they elect will clearly not either. That’s the point. The politicians aren’t the problem in this country. It’s the voters.

Now, don’t think I’m merely chastising Republicans. Democrats were all aboard Obama’s plan that if presented by President Bush they would have likely denounced. I see not even the faintest glimmer of cooperation towards a better country on capital hill and that reflects our voting habits.

I remember as a young idealistic liberal being very impressed with Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” program as compared to the get tough prison policy promoted elsewhere. Even then, in my youthful folly, I was able to acknowledge a good idea from someone who I largely disagreed with on most matters. We see how the War on Drugs has worked out. Go Nancy!

So, my plea to you, the voters, is to forget your party. Register Independent, vote Independent.

Go SpaceX and all the other companies propelling us forward into Space and go NASA!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Anti-Hate Hate Critical Thinking Fail

Posted on May 23, 2012 by Tom Liberman

It’s time for another installment of my Critical Thinking Fail series!

This article came across my screen today and I immediately realized it had to come into my blog.

Basically the idea is that a group dedicated to opposing fascist and neo-nazis decided it would be a good idea to attack a group they suspected of fitting into those categories. They arrived at a nice family restaurant in the town of Tinley Park, Il and immediately attacked. Police were called. The restaurant suffered severe damage. Arrests were made. Victims were taken to the hospital.

I’m of the opinion that hating hate-groups isn’t the worst thing in the world to hate but it sort of, by definition, makes you a hate group. I’ve always thought the best strategy was to ignore the lunatic fringe because they thrive on publicity. That’s probably a topic for another day. Tell me what you think in the poll below.

[polldaddy poll=6255585]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

The Hammer of Fire – Available Now!

Posted on May 23, 2012 by Tom Liberman

I’m happy to announce the release of my Sword and Sorcery novel, The Hammer of Fire.

Cover art by Raro.

Summary

Half-breed dwarf Dol Delius and his friends Milli and Brogus steal the great Hammer of Fire from its sacred resting spot in the halls of the hidden Dwarf citadel of Craggen Steep and head south to find adventure, riches, and fame.

Along the way they travel to Das’von where they hope to meet Corancil, the young conqueror, and join forces for a journey south to the volcanic regions. Once in the southlands they come across the fierce Black Rider who leads the Black Horsemen of The Sands and run afoul his plans to stop Corancil’s armies.

In hot pursuit of the trio are representatives of both the Blackiron and Firefist clans who want to bring the hammer back to Craggen Steep and kill the misfits who stole it. Turmoil bubbles in Craggen Steep from various factions hoping to end the ironfisted rule of the dominant clans and bringing back the hammer seems the only way to prevent revolution in the city.

It all comes to a climax deep on the southern continent where fiery volcanoes are the backdrop for the battle between Dol, the forces of Craggen Steep, and an ancient Fire Elemental from the dawn of time.

The Hammer of Fire is the third sword and sorcery novel in the Tales of Corland Saga.

Purchase Information

Amazon – Barnes and Noble – Smashwords: $2.99

Previous Novels

The Staff of Naught at Amazon – Barnes and Noble – Smashwords: $2.99

The Staff of Sakatha at Amazon – Barnes and Noble – Smashwords: $2.99

Thank you for purchasing and reading! I hope everyone enjoys the books.

Coming Next

The Sword of Water. Jon Gray returns in this epic tale of an ancient sword used to destroy the power of the Elementals. Jon searches for the relic to add to his father’s collection while young prince Jerichi of Cawl comes along to help. Opposed to them is the ancient and beautiful daughter of Gazadum, Eleniak the Golden Flame and her partner Arioch, Prince of Hell.

Website Pages

See more about each of the novels, read sample chapters, and watch videos about the characters and philosophies behind each book.

The Hammer of Fire – The Staff of Naught – The Staff of Sakatha – The Sword of Water

Thematic Elements in the Hammer of Fire

Posted on May 20, 2012 by Tom Liberman

My third book, the Hammer of Fire, will be released within the next two weeks and I go into details about the thematic elements of the book in this YouTube video.

The three main elements are Isolationism, Meritocracy, and the Corrupting Influence of Power. Please take a look at the video and keep an eye on my page to see when the novel is released. It will be priced, as always, at $2.99 for the Kindle, Nook, or any digital device.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

The Hammer of Fire Cover – Step 4

Posted on May 20, 2012 by Tom Liberman

This is the second to last step in the cover of my new novel, The Hammer of Fire.

The cover is by Raro who also did the cover for my second book, The Staff of Sakatha.

My stalwart editor and proof-reader, mom, is 75% done with her work and I’m about half way through translating her changes to the final product. I’m still on schedule for a release late this month but it might slip a week into next month depending on if mom has time to proof.

Tom LibermanSword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

The Art of a Molotov Cocktail

Posted on May 19, 2012 by Tom Liberman

There is a big news story hitting today about three anarchists and their alleged plans to attack President’s Obama’s office among other targets. It’s way to early to draw any conclusion but I find myself quickly on the skeptical side of this one. I hope that I’m wrong and that the timely police action saved lives.

The thing about the case that struck me from the very first news stories was the mention of Molotov Cocktail making machinery. Machinery? Really? Don’t you just sort of need a jug of alcohol, some rags, and a lighter?

The criminals also reportedly had a device that could fire mortars, swords, “ninja-like” throwing stars, and trench knives (called brass-knuckle knives in the articles). Assuming the device that could fire mortars was a spud gun the other weapons are actually fairly reminiscent of what my fellow Dungeon and Dragon/Renaissance Fair going friends have laying about their homes.

I’m certainly not saying the alleged criminals are innocent but I’ll continue to follow the case with interest to see what further evidence arises. Others who were not eventually charged were held for 18 hours and some apparently not allowed to use restrooms and verbally abused by the police officers. Now, it is legal to hold someone for various amounts of time, depending on the state, without charge. A lot of this falls under the U.S Constitution Habeas Corpus in Article 1, Section 9 which was not enacted for states until Reconstruction after the Civil War.

However, I do have a problem with people not being allowed to go to the bathroom and police officers being disrespectful to those detained who are not otherwise abusing the officers in question. Again, we don’t know what those others were saying to the officers so it’s impossible to come to any conclusions at this stage of events.

In any case, it is very early in the proceedings but the case caught my eye for a number of reasons. Let me know what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Same-sex Marriage

Posted on May 16, 2012 by Tom Liberman

I’ve been leading up to this with my History of Marriage and Keep Government out of Marriage columns and now I’m finally going to take the plunge and weigh in on the highly charged issue of same-sex marriage. Anyone who regularly reads my blog knows my Libertarian tendencies and it will come as no surprise that I don’t think the government; federal, state or local, should have more than a minimal opinion on marriage one way or the other.

Still, government cannot allow anyone to marry because there are legal situations that must be addressed. Certainly everyone acknowledges that children must be protected from ill-intentioned adults. Thus we don’t want twelve-year olds being duped into a disadvantageous marriage. There are mentally ill people who can likewise be fooled for a variety of reasons and I do see a need to protect such groups.

The main arguments against same-sex marriage seem to fall into three categories; Slippery slope, marriage as an institution, and religion. I’ll examine each one.

I’ve never been a big fan of slippery slope arguments. The idea is that to allow same-sex marriage is to open the gates to marriage of brothers to sisters and people to animals. I just don’t see it. Firstly, animals have protection in place already that supposedly prevents their abuse although much goes on anyway. As to incest I’m not really sure I care if first cousins get married and it’s certainly legal in a number of states already. These sorts of laws vary from state to state in any case but I don’t see it changing much if same-sex marriages are allowed.

The institution of marriage is the main argument you hear against same-sex marriage and I sort of see a point here. Marriage is ingrained into society and largely a convention for procreation. People get married to have children. With fewer people having children and marriage rates in general decline I’m just not convinced that allowing same-sex couples to marry is going to hurt an already fading institution. But, if this is the main issue for people it seems relatively simple to allow some sort of civil contract that conveys the legal benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. I completely understand that a spouse has rights to make decisions for a medically impaired partner and why same-sex couples would want similar rights. There are a number of issues of this nature that should be addressed. I would have no problem with granting some sort of civil contract that gave the benefits of marriage in this regard but was called something else.

Finally, there are religious arguments and I think these are the most reasonable. I’m sure that surprises people as I’m an Atheist. However, the Constitution of the United States guarantees religious freedom. Marriage has become, like it or not, a religious institution. While Polygyny remains quite common around the world there is little historical evidence for religiously sanctioned same-sex marriage anywhere. I’m not convinced that the federal government is correct to force a particular state to allow same-sex marriage or that even state government should dictate to each county. We have laws that prevent the purchase of alcohol in counties and I don’t really see why a particular county or state shouldn’t ban same-sex marriage because it is against the will of the majority. No state is required to recognize a marriage created in another state although largely they do. The Constitution is silent on the subject of marriage of any kind and should, as far as I’m concerned, remain so.

My conclusion is that if a state or county wants to ban same-sex marriage then it’s within their domain just as it is within their domain to refrain from placing such a ban. If polling is to be trusted this entire issue will fade away into nothingness within one generation as the vast majority of young people seem to not much care if same-sex marriage is legal.

Certainly we already see some states banning and others allowing and this is a good thing. This is one of the founding principles of the United States. Where the Constitution is silent the power belongs to the State and to the People.

Tell me what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Marriage and Government

Posted on May 15, 2012 by Tom Liberman

As a moderate Libertarian I find the government’s role in marriage to be a big problem. It is social engineering of the most egregious kind. Sadly, the social engineering is largely promoted by Republicans who claim they hate this sort of thing. Marriage is supposedly “good” for society and thus the government feels the need to pass laws that promote it. With these laws in place it becomes financially, socially, and legally worthwhile to be married rather than to be single.

These legalities are one of the main reasons homosexuals desire the status of marriage in the first place. If the government got out of the marriage business things would improve on a number of fronts. First I’d like to list the ways that people are encouraged to get married rather than stay single.

What are the benefits of being married? Plenty. This article goes into many of them but I’ll try to summarize.

Military spouses get employment benefits, per diem moving expenses, immigration benefits, and property tax relief.

All spouses get increased government benefits from a variety of sources including Medicaid and tax relief from a variety of items including income tax. Spouses get bankruptcy filing benefits, rights to a deceased spouse’s social security, a $100,000 one time payment for spouse killed in line of duty.

Spouses gain rights over children that non-spouses do not have, they get access to hospitals for visiting rights and important medical decisions, alimony, domestic violence intervention, wrongful death claims, adoption benefits, funeral and bereavement leave. I could go on and on here but I think I’ve made my point. The government and the law make it highly beneficial to be married rather than to just shack up.

Another problem is that a marriage isn’t considered legal unless proper protocols are established and certain groups of people are prevented from marrying. I’m not just talking about homosexuals here. Relatives face severe restrictions. Just as an example it is a criminal offense for first cousins to marry in Texas while it is perfectly legal right next door in New Mexico. In England you can’t marry your mother-in-law until your spouse is dead. And of course there are restrictions on the age of an individual who can marry.

I think it would be best if most or all of these laws benefiting a spouse were repealed and if marriage could simply return to a contract between individuals, as it was for most of history, without needing government or clergy approval. Once the majority of benefits for getting married are repealed I think we would see an increase in marriage of people who were more certain of the institution and a decrease in divorce, domestic abuse, and other issues. With such tangible benefits to getting married there is a huge impetus to get married even if the parties are uncertain if this is the best course of action.

Once the government gets out of promoting marriage then it seems to me that people who otherwise would get married when they are unready for such a committment would not get married. Of course, the argument goes that people who don’t marry but live together in essentially a married state without the license are more likely to split. There has always been strong social stigma against a divorced woman dating to ancient times as I discussed yesterday but the emancipation of women through birth control, education, and equal opportunity has really changed the dynamic. I don’t want my discussion to go too far astray here so I’ll come to a quick conclusion.

If government stops trying to promote marriage and if we can grant the same legal benefits to people who engage in some sort of simple marriage contract then I think the institution of marriage will flourish rather than head down its current path where approximately 40% to 60% of new marriages end in divorce. I’m not saying marriage rates will go up, they were around 80% of the population in the 1960’s compared to 45% now but I am suggesting that if we stop trying to socially engineer marriage that the only people who will get married are those who really want it. That has to be good for children, families, spouses, and basically, everyone.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

The History of Marriage

Posted on May 14, 2012 by Tom Liberman

Marriage is in the news a bit lately and I’m going to end my blog vacation with a few posts that I hope will clear up the debate for those of you willing to look at it from a critical perspective. I’m going to start with the origins, history, and general purpose of marriage.

A good start is this article on Wikipedia but I’ll try to summarize.

Marriage has been around for as long as recorded history and certainly seems to date from a time before that. The largest single factor in the concept seems to be that single, sexually active women wreak havoc on society. Sorry ladies. Of course, it’s not really the single, sexually active women wreaking all that havoc; it’s the testosterone fueled monkey-men going bat poop crazy for all those single, sexually active women that causes the trouble. The competition this engenders often turns violent, thus marriage.

There are three main types of marriage throughout history; a single man and a single woman called monogamy, a single man and multiple women called Polygyny, and a single woman and multiple men called Polyandry.

Ancient Israel was a Polygynous society and there are a number of rules set forth in something called the Covenant Code as to how a man is supposed to treat his multiple wives particularly in regard to not mistreating older wives when newer, presumably younger, wives are added. Adultery by a wife, as in most ancient cultures, was a capital punishment.

In Greece and Rome marriage was more of a mutual agreement between two parties rather than a religious or civic ceremony. It wasn’t until around the 300 CE that the Christian clergy took a stronger interest in the concept as an event before god rather than a simple mutual agreement. The state remained uninvolved until around 1545 with the church recording marriages for those who desired records and the state being completely removed from the issue. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1563 that a marriage was not considered legal unless a priest had presided at the event.

In much of Asia and the Middle East marriage was largely an arranged event with Polygyny remaining the most common form until around the 20th century. In many countries it is still perfectly legal to have more than a single wife and the Mormon religion practiced polygyny, which they called Celestial Marriage, from 1830 until 1890. The banning came after a long battle with the U.S. Government which tried to eradicate the practice. When Utah next applied for statehood, in 1896, it was granted.

Biblically marriage is referenced in the Old Testament with Polygyny being the most common form mentioned. Jesus mentions marriage explicitly on several occasions referencing a man and a woman along with monogamy.

In the New Testament there are some restrictions against Polygyny in that particular people; Bishops, Deacons, and Elders must have only one wife. Other people are not instructed as to how many wives they may have and monogamy is never explicitly mentioned.

Biblically marriage seems to be promoted as a way to avoid the sin of sexual congress in an unmarried state. If you can’t maintain celibacy then marriage is required seems to be the message most often mentioned.

Anyway, that’s a quick history of marriage. Tomorrow I’m going to look at marriage from a Libertarian point of view and what I think would be an ideal arrangement.

Tell me what you think.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Hammer of Fire Cover – Step 3

Posted on May 4, 2012 by Tom Liberman

Here are the first three pieces of art on the way to the finished cover for my new novel, The Hammer of Fire.

Artwork by Raro.

I’ll be posting some videos on YouTube soon about the thematic elements of the new book and the important characters. Go here to see videos of my previous books.

Release date later this month!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist