Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Cyborg Olympian

Posted on by

Oscar PistoriousThe 2012 London Olympics are fast approaching and there is a fascinating situation unfolding. A South African by the name of Oscar Pistorious is being allowed to compete in the sprint competitions. Being allowed? Yep, he’s a cyborg! His legs were amputated at a young age and he uses artificial devices called blades in their place.

This is interesting because it won’t be long before athletes such as Pistorious are defeating their human counterparts with regularity. It wasn’t that long ago that a chess computer first beat a master but now they present a huge problem with the potential to cheat in chess competitions. Chess computers are better than human players.

It doesn’t take much extrapolation to realize that engineering technology will soon make legs capable of more efficient movement than human legs, arms stronger than human arms, and hands steadier than human hands. What does this mean for competition? It means that men and women with artificial attachments will defeat those who are completely human. Eventually but not immediately on the horizon are artificial implants wherein someone might have enhanced engineering but pass themselves off as completely “natural”.

Whether to allow such artificially enhanced humans into competitions is but one question we must face. Imagine a world where your child cannot compete for a job without artificial enhancements. Imagine a world where genetic engineering manufactures smarter, faster, better, people. There is an interesting movie called Gattica worth a watch but I’m going to dial this one away from science fiction and into science reality.

Oscar Pistorious. Should he be allowed to compete in the Olympics against people without engineering enhancements? The Olympic committees says yes now, but the problem is only going to become more severe in years to come. I’m going to agree with the Olympic committee which argues that the technology, as it exists today, is no better than human legs and therefore he has no advantage. However, it’s clear to me that this issue will soon be resolved in the other direction and engineering will provide an advantage. At that point I’m not sure what can be done. Amputee athletes will want to compete not just in the Olympics but in leagues for children all the way up to and including professional sports. Is it right to deny them the joy of competition? I don’t think so, but each one of them will replace another competitor, one who is not enhanced. Will we see young athletes opting to amputate their legs for the sheer purpose of getting better ones? It’s not so far-fetched as you might imagine.

I’m afraid I offer little in the way of resolution to this issue. People will always want to better themselves and trying to legislate against human nature is an exercise in futility. Brace yourselves for what is not too far in the future.

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

Why Throwing Tomatoes at Hillary Clinton is Good (not why you think)

Posted on by

TomatoSecretary of State Clinton paid a visit to Egypt the other day and was greeted by protestors some of whom threw tomatoes and shoes at her caravan as she drove past. At issue was the United States supposed support for the Muslim Brotherhood during the recent Egyptian elections.

I’ve noticed that Clinton seems to engender a lot of anger, maybe you’ve noticed the same thing?

The main group protesting Clinton’s visit were minority Egyptians including Christians who make up about 1% of the population. They are justifiably concerned that the Muslim Brotherhood might try to impose religious Sharia Law on them after years of relative secularism under the previous regime.

Hosni Mubarak and his predecessor Anwar Sadat ruled Egypt through the military and brutally suppressing dissidents but largely, after the peace treaty of 1979 ended the Isreal-Egypt war, were allies of the United States and allowed religious freedom although the judicial system includes a number of Sharia elements.

I’m a little divergent from my main topic here but now I’ll get to the point. During previous regimes if a protestor was to throw tomatoes or shoes at one of the dictatorial officials there was every chance they would be arrested, tortured, and even murdered while in prison. That’s what dictators do when they have absolute power.

The fact that dissidents were allowed to protest, not even completely peacefully, without facing arrest and incarceration is a huge step in the right direction. Any freedom loving government not only must tolerate protest and voices against the current regime but they must embrace them! This is the essence of free society and the heart of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The First Amendment, among other things, guarantees that people can speak out against the government without fear of arrest (Freedom of Speech) and can assemble peacefully to protest said government without fear of prosecution (Right to Peaceably Assemble). That we see these principles in Egypt is a great sign although it certainly doesn’t guarantee anything in the future.

A representative republic is a messy form of government where people are allowed, I would say encouraged, to protest peacefully and speak out against the current government without resorting to violence. This ability means that voices of change are not suppressed, that real ideas enter the mix, and that people are not eventually incited to violent rebellion because they are legally prevented from expressing said ideas.

So, I say to the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed Morsy, well done. Good start. Keep it up! The Arab world is watching and you have the opportunity to lead it away from its current horrific violence and terrorist nature. Don’t be afraid of dissent. Embrace it! You can change the Arab world from one of violence and hate to one where people can go about their business, raise a family, hold a job, go to the beach, and otherwise lead their lives without trying to kill one another and their perceived enemies.

I would say to Americans as well, dissent is good. Disagree with President Obama, fine. Disagree with President Bush during a time of war or any other time, tell us about it. Anyone who says, “America, love it or leave it” doesn’t understand America.

I suggest, don’t throw things, don’t shout down opposition, express your grievances like a civilized adult, show respect for elected officials, but never stop disagreeing.

Tell me what you think in the comments!

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

Abused Students Sue School District – Paul Chapel Case

Posted on by

AccusationThere’s a horrendous case making its way through the court system and I suspect you’ll be hearing more about it in the coming months. An elementary school teacher named Paul Chapel was accused of lewd acts against children and suspended. At issue is that Chapel was previously accused of such crimes and that the school district should not have hired him. Two of his former students are suing the School District for not considering his previous record and hiring him in the first place.

That’s where the case takes an interesting turn from a societal aspect. In the original case the jury was unable to reach a verdict and Chapel was released. There is a third case as well where Chapel showed a sexually explicit video and made inappropriate remarks to students. He lost that civil case and paid the plaintiffs.

Now, if a person is accused of crime but not convicted is it fair or even legal to refuse to employ them for another job? That’s the crux of the lawsuit filed by the abused former students. Is Paul Chapel facing his date in court now, yes. Is Paul Chapel very likely a filthy scumbag, yes. If someone has been accused of say, robbing a bank, is it really necessary that a bank employ that person in the future?

There are a number of cases of people being wrongly accused and it ruining their lives. It’s a really difficult situation made even worse in this case because the crime so horribly affects other people. Wikipedia suggests that between 2% and 10% of all sexual abuse accusations are false. This seems to occur largely in custody situations when a parent is convinced abuse occurred and “coaches” the child who originally denied such activity.

Many of you may remember a panic about satanic abuse a few years back. A now discredited psychologist’s report about satanic abuse led to the McMartin case. I won’t go into details but please take a look. I’m just trying to display how someone’s life can be destroyed through false accusations and asking whether the school district would have been unfair to deny Chapel a job when he was not convicted of a crime.

This case puts a terrible burden on employers. If a prospective employee has been accused, but not convicted, of a crime and they hire that person who then commits a similar crime, are they liable? If so, they certainly must not hire the person. But, by not hiring someone who was never convicted of a crime is that person’s livelihood being taken from them unjustly thus presenting more legal avenues?

It’s a really tough one considering the nature of the crime but I have to come to the conclusion the school district is not liable. The civil case in which Chapel was found guilty muddies the water even further. I would say that a district could easily refuse employment because of that situation but perhaps Chapel convincingly apologized, claimed religious salvation, admitted to a terrible mistake and promised never to do anything like it again. I don’t know the details but all that seems plausible.

As a society we must try to remember that false accusations occur and that people so tainted should be treated fairly. If we don’t then we simply encourage false accusations by people with an agenda against the accused. It happens all too often. We see a similar phenomenon in politics where once leveled, charges remain in voters minds regardless of their veracity. That’s fodder for another day.

This is a brutal one and I’d love to hear other people’s opinion. Let me know in the comments.

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

Yoga Teacher Fired – Texting Student

Posted on by

YogaThere is a relatively small situation all over the news lately that I find endlessly interesting and worthy of discussion. A yoga teacher in San Francisco was fired from her position at the Facebook campus two weeks after giving a dirty look to a student who was texting in class. This is interesting to me for several reasons.

I take yoga classes, I’m big technology guy, I’m a teacher, and I’m a heavy user of social media. My good friend’s wife is the Social Media director at Siemans and I’m interested to see what she thinks about this case. I think it brings up several incredibly interesting points.

To start with I noticed the heavy preponderance of comments sided with the yoga teacher in question. They ran the gamut from suggesting lawsuits to vilifying the texter and I’d say it was about 50 – 1 against the firing. I’m going the other way on this one and I’ll tell you why.

As a teacher of adults I fully understand that the paying students are in my class on their time. They could be doing a lot of things but chose to pay money to take instruction from me. I think this is a fundamentally different situation from a primary school teacher whose students are children. Generally when a phone rings during class, my reaction is to tell the student that it’s not a problem. If they have to take care of business step outside and I’ll catch them up on the material when they return.

When I see students texting or checking their email during class I simply ignore it. These are adults with real jobs and in modern society jobs are not 9 – 5 anymore. It’s likely that my students are going to get important emails, texts, and phone calls during my class. These important work related items must be dealt with and are, in the big scheme of things, far more important than my class.

What’s not at issue here is that it was a ringing phone. Ringing phones can be a distraction at any sort of public gathering because they intrude on the other people. In this case the yoga student was answering a text. In yoga class a ringing phone is an issue because it takes focus away from the pose at hand. A text, on the other hand, is a quiet activity that is largely not distracting. I would equate it to a student who during a strenuous pose decides to move to a rest position. It’s not what everyone else in class is doing but it’s not disruptive in any way.

I also have an issue with the teacher giving the student a disapproving look. Again, we are adults here. I think the best way to handle a disruptive situation, which I don’t think this rose to a level of being, is to tell the student you understand work is important and to please take care of it outside.

In this particular instance it was to a group of Facebook employees! To be surprised and annoyed that they might be texting during class seems not particularly thoughtful to me.

Of course, it’s possible that the yoga teacher in question was not a good teacher for other reasons but that’s not really the question in this case. Maybe she was a great teacher. I just don’t think publicly chastising an adult student in a class is generally a good plan. There are certainly times when disruptive behavior must be dealt with but I’m of the opinion that this case did not come anywhere near that line.

Should she have been fired? Not if this was a one time incident, in my opinion. I think a quick session in which it was explained to the instructor that her Facebook students get important texts and will be dealing with them is part of the class. Communication!

What do you think? Was the yoga teacher perfectly reasonable? Was she unreasonable? Tell me in the comments!

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

Afghanistan Adultery Murder – The Bible

Posted on by

stoningA lot of people are up in arms about the execution of a woman in Afghanistan. As is my want I’m not going to go after an easy target. The people who would do this are vile. We all agree. Let’s take a look at the mentality that justifies such acts.

Old Testament

Leviticus 20:10 – If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Deut. 22:23 – If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her.

Deut. 22:24 – Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

The Reported Words of Jesus

Matthew 5:28 – But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 5:32 – But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Quran

Sura 24 (An-Nur), ayat 2 – The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

Interestingly I had been badly misled about adultery cases. To be convicted of adultery the accused woman must be testified against by four witnesses who saw the act in question. I had alway heard that the woman had to produce four witnesses to prove she was raped but it is, in fact, the other way around. If four witnesses don’t confirm the original accusation the accusers is to be whipped.

Sura 24 (An-Nur), ayat 4-5 – And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses, flog them, (giving) eighty stripes, and do not admit any evidence from them ever; and these it is that are the transgressors.Except those who repent after this and act aright, for surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The religious case against adultery is clear. It is evil and wrong and punishable by stoning in Jewish/Christian faith and whipping or stoning in Islamic faith. And, according to Jesus, if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery in your heart. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

Of course, this is madness. Few, if any, Christians agree with the punishment although almost all agree that it is a crime; despite often being flagrant violators of it.

The biggest issues comes with literalism as contrasted with Biblical Criticism. Basically you either believe the bible or quran is the absolutely literal truth or believe it is in need of interpretation according to the times.

Literalism is most closely associated with Evangelical Christians in the United States and proponents of Sharia law amongst Muslims.

If the words of the holy book are literal truths and adultery, even looking lustfully at a woman, is a capital offense there seems to be only one solution. Kill all men, except the gay ones, oh wait, gotta kill them too!

This is one reason I’m proud to stand in front of any group and proclaim that my faith is in the Constitution of the United States. That the holy books were written by people. That I am an Atheist. There is no god and certainly the exact words of the supposed god and saviors are unmitigated insanity. There are others who think differently. Some of those others kill women for the crime of adultery.

Where to you stand? Let me know in the comments.

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

Science is good and so is the Higgs Boson

Posted on by

Higgs BosonThere was some fairly momentous news in the scientific community last week in regards to a sub-atomic particle called the Higgs Boson. It won’t be too difficult for you to find out more about this particle on your own but the purpose of my blog today is to speak to the topic of scientific endeavor and why it is such a good thing.

Lately when I read an article about scientific topics the comments tend to be filled with Luddite remarks about the practical worthlessness of research, generally from Republican based sources, or about how we could better spend the money helping people, generally from Democrat based sources. Not that the criticism is consistently from one side or the other. I just think that these sorts of advancements are crucially more important to society and my life than just about anything else. Yet, it seems, the majority of people in the United States are against funding research of this nature for one reason or another.

First off I will quickly mention something called Particle Accelerators. Not what they do but what damage a failure to appreciate this sort of research did to the United States. Many of the most amazing discoveries, scientific advancements, and great minds of the world are gathering at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. It was built for 7.5 billion Euros (about 5 billion dollars depending on currency exchange rates). Sadly, a much larger collider, the Superconducting Super Collider which was scheduled to be built in the United States was cancelled in 1993. It was estimated it would cost $4.4 billion originally but costs spiraled to $12 billion by the time of cancellation.

Now, spiraling costs and mismanagement are terrible things and good project management is necessary. Congress, with a Democratic majority in both houses and against President Clinton’s advice, cancelled the program in a cost cutting move. For those interested Republicans were solidly for cancelling (about 70%) while democrats were moderately for keeping funding (53%) All the work currently being done in Europe, collecting the great scientific minds of our generation, is being done in Switzerland. Good for the Swiss, not good for the United States.

In our current financial mess other scientific programs, technological advancements, and varied other projects will be lost. The cost of all these losses is incalculable.

But, back to my topic, why is science so good?

Computer science was the main stimulus behind the huge economic boom of the 1980’s. What a few people accomplished brought comfort, profit, jobs, ideas, health, and other things to more people than can be imagined. Abundant, sustainable energy technology will drive huge profits and change the world but a lot of the research is happening outside the US. Not that I’m all gloom and doom. Key players continue to drive the US forward in this field and others. All is certainly not lost.

What disturbs me is the seeming increase in the view that scientific research is a waste of money and time. Just take a second to look around you at what science has provided. The fibers in your clothes, electronics, electricity, computers, your mattress, your vehicle, your eyesight, your health, there really isn’t a moment of your day when science hasn’t brought you comfort and ease. In a representative republic if the people think science is a waste of time so will government officials. And we are headed in that direction.

Sure, some projects don’t work out. And managers need to watch costs to keep things in line. But when we devalue science in the United States we hurt only ourselves.

If you wonder why such a momentous scientific event like the confirmation of the Higgs Boson happened in Switzerland then remember the Superconducting Super Collider. I can’t tell you exactly why confirming the Higgs Boson is so good for you but I know this, it is.

Science = good.

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

Baseball All-Star Game Selection Flap

Posted on by

LaRussa BakerThe feud between Dusty Baker and whatever team he manages and Tony LaRussa and the St. Louis Cardinals reached new levels of animosity when Baker accused LaRussa of leaving several Cincinnati Reds players off the All-Star team because of previous incidents having nothing to do with baseball.

I’ve got a take on it I haven’t heard yet from the various factions but first lets cover the dispute.

The two managers have a long-standing feud from their many year association with one another. There was an ugly brawl between the two teams in which one of the principles involved kicked backup catcher Jason LaRue in the head and ended his career and also spiked ace starter Chris Carpenter in the back leaving long scratch marks.

Baker and Johnny Cueto blame the brawl for LaRussa leaving both Cueto and second baseman Brandon Phillips off the team. The brawl was precipitated by Phillips calling the Cardinals players “little bitches” and saying that he hated them. The next time the two teams met Phillips tapped catcher Yadier Molina’s shin guard with his bat in a friendly greeting. Molina took exception and the brawl began.

LaRussa argues that Phillips and Cueto were in the mix but both were left off for reason unrelated to the brawl. Cueto was scheduled to pitch the Sunday before the All-Star game and thus unlikely to be able to pitch more than an inning in the actual game. Phillips has good numbers but was not voted in as the top second baseman and the presence of another second baseman based on fan votes precluded a third second baseman being on the roster.

Baker, Cueto, Joey Votto and other Red’s players, Phillips has remained silent on the subject, believe the players should be chosen simply based on their play on the field.

Here’s my opinion.

The manager should pick players he thinks are best for the team and no one else has any say. Anyone who claims they have more say than the manager is dead wrong. If LaRussa hates Cueto for ending the career of his backup catcher then he should leave him off the roster. It’s LaRussa’s decision. He’s the manager. LaRussa doesn’t need to claim that Cueto was pitching on Sunday. He could just say, “Cueto’s a punk. I hate him. I don’t want him on my team. Screw him,” and I would say fine. Just as if Dusty Baker and the Reds win the World Series this year then next year Baker could choose to leave off any Cardinal he wanted. He’s the manager!

LaRussa could say to Phillips, “Who’s the little bitch now,” and I wouldn’t care. Baker could say, “Molina is a punk and I’ll never select him to my team.” It’s the managers decision.

In all fairness I’m from St. Louis and Cueto’s kicking of Carpenter and LaRue bothers me to this day. He’s a nasty piece of work but a good pitcher. Still, if this went the other way I’d be consistent. It’s the manager’s decision. Final. Done.

What do you think?

[polldaddy poll=6366903]

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

Wrong Vote in Fracking Legislation

Posted on by

Voting ButtonsThere was an interesting incident in North Carolina when a legislator accidentally pushed the wrong voting button and overturned a veto by the governor. Unlike the article comments I don’t intend to debate the technology dubbed fracking. I want to talk about why the vote was ruled unchangeable.

In North Carolina it is permissible to change a vote after the final tally but not when said vote is the deciding one. At first I thought how stupid is that? You can change a vote except when it is most important? Then, being the good Randian critical thinker that I am, I sat down and tried to figure out why there would be such a rule.

It only took me a few seconds to understand the concept. Let’s say there is some legislation that is basically good but negatively impacts a particular representative’s district. Then that representative can vote against it so as to tell their constituents as a campaigning point. But, if that vote decides the issue they might think twice and change their vote so as to pass legislation with which they agree.

I pressed the wrong button might really mean, oh, didn’t realize my vote was going to be the decider, better change it. Once one vote swings the outcome then all of a sudden other legislators might say, oops, I voted wrong also and push it back the other way. A never-ending mess is created.

So, in this case, I think the North Carolina legislator has to stick to its rules.

I will note that the politician in question owned up to the mistake and understands the rules. She asked to change it, was denied, and is now moving on. Good for her. There will be more votes, lesson learned.

It’s sometimes amazing how a little bit of critical thinking can completely change one’s original reaction to an event. My current view is exactly the opposite of what I thought at first.

Don’t lock into a position! Think it through critically. You might be surprised what you end up deciding.

[polldaddy poll=6365319]

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

Brilliant Man – Miserable Manager

Posted on by

ManagementI just read a fascinating article about how the supervisory general on the Missile Defense Agency was a poor manager. I don’t want to spend time talking about this particular case, the missile defense system, military leaders, or the military as a whole. I want to discuss what makes a good manager and why.

This is an incredibly important topic because it is through leadership or management that a group of people comes together and completes a project. Good leadership can change the world whereas poor management can squander potential genius.

The concepts of management are not firmly set and there are different ideas about the appropriate way to lead a team but there are some general ideas that seem to be tested and true. I’d recommend a thorough perusal of the Wiki Article on the topic but I’ll try to tie it together quickly here.

In history a management style that saw much popularity was proposed by Niccolò Machiavelli who wrote the The Prince. He recommends fear as a way to maintain control. I think this view is essentially wrong but the popularity of it remains today. One of the main reasons I think it is wrong is that in a free society people are not enslaved to their jobs. When trying to motivate slaves, serfs, or a people otherwise under complete domination; fear is incredibly important in maintaining control. But, for most of the western world, this system is not applicable.

A more modern, and better, look at the idea of management comes from Adam Smith and his book The Wealth of Nations. Here the idea is proper use of resources, using best processes, quality control, and things of this nature.

In the 21st Century the concept has changed even more in that even at the lowest level of employment people have the ability to communicate their ideas effectively. We have instant communication from blogs, tweets, instant messages, email, phone communication, etc. Modern businesses are taking advantage of these tools to listen to their employees from the bottom up. This empowers the employee in meaningful ways and changes the dynamics of the management situation irreversibly.

This topic is insanely complex but I want to stress some ideas that I think can help with management situations like those mentioned in the article. The general in question clearly subscribed to the Machiavellian philosophy. Bring out the best in your team by berating them. Tear them down and build them back up. It’s a philosophy that is not without merit but I think in modern society it’s bad idea. People are too empowered now.

I’m not saying that the boss should be everyone’s friend, or shouldn’t berate someone for poor effort, but I am saying that it’s a bad managerial philosophy.

I’ve had long discussions with my friends in management, Bob and Jeff primarily but others as well, and the idea of a manager is relatively simple. A manager needs to find a way to put each member of his or her team in the best position to succeed. It’s not easy. There are strongly motivated, highly talented people, and those with less motivation and talent. The manager needs to identify each team member and find a way to maximize their effort. Some employees respond well to negative feedback while others only respond to encouragement.

The topic is way too complex to get into real details but I’d like to lay out what I think makes a good manager.

  • A good manager understands the motivations and skills of each team member.
  • A good manager includes everyone on the team and encourages an open atmosphere where all feel able to contribute. This open atmosphere of equal contribution is at odds with the Machiavellian style.
  • A good manager knows the limits of each team member and tempers expectations accordingly.
  • A good manager understands the goal of the project.
  • A good manager sets forth processes from the beginning although is willing to alter them in accordance with actual results.
  • A good manager listens to all ideas but isn’t afraid to make a decision even if someone loses out.
  • A good manager must reward good work and not reward bad. When the bad workers gets the same reward as good workers moral drops. I’m not a huge fan of “punishing” bad work. If you have to fire someone, then fire them.

That’s a simple list I suppose but I think good management is absolutely essential from the simplest to the most complex projects. I have had some great managers over the years and did my best work in environments they created.

In the article they list a lot of quotes from disgruntled people who worked under the general in question but one really stood out for me.

“Not the command climate I would have set”

What I love about this comment is that it clearly comes from an employee who understands loyalty. They express dissatisfaction without personal insults. The person who said this understands management and leadership. I hope whoever it was finds themselves in a command position soon.

Do you have any great boss stories? I’d like to focus on good bosses rather than bad ones. Tell your story in the comments below.

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

P.S. To my United States audience, Happy Independence Day! Barbecue anyone?

Movie Monday – The Right Stuff

Posted on by

The Right StuffI’m keeping the momentum going on my Movie Monday series with a look at one of my all-time favorites, The Right Stuff. The movie is based on a book by Tom Wolfe that is historical fictional written about the Project Mercury Space Program of the 1960’s. Interestingly Wolfe has said the didn’t particularly like the film but I suspect that happens in the transition between novel and screenplay fairly frequently. They are different mediums and changes must inevitably occurs.

Let’s get back to why the movie is so darn good, at least from my perspective. One of the major themes of the movie is the fight between practicality and blind courage. The astronauts and test pilots are portrayed as both brave and moderately reckless whereas the engineers and politicians are more calculating and careful. Generally courage is portrayed in a more flattering light but the line about what makes the planes fly being “funding” rings true. I think both are necessary components to greatness.

The other beautifully portrayed theme is between the Mercury astronauts and Chuck Yeager who was not chosen for the program because of his lack of a college education. Yeager and the test pilots laugh at the foolish astronauts who have no control but are simply along for the ride but in the end the courage of both groups is aptly displayed.

The flying scenes, particularly Yeager in his attempt at breaking the altitude record, are spectacular and the moment when he goes for the height record and sees the upper atmosphere and stars is truly wonderful. Left out of Mercury … so close and yet so far.

For me the greatness of the movie is the competition between the astronauts as they fight to be the first American in space  (lest we never forget, Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space) and that between Yeager and Scott Crossfield as they fight their own battles.

These proud men compete with one another with all their skills and because of this emerge winners one and all. That is a life lesson that we seem to have forgotten here in a United States where winning is the only thing.

I would urge everyone to compete with sportsmanship as hard as they can and find victory in the effort regardless of the final outcome. Somehow winning has become more important than playing fairly. It is ok to cheat as long as you aren’t caught. It’s ok to foul someone going in for the winning points. I think the world would be better if placed our emphasis on the competition, not the victory. On our behavior, not the outcome.

I pride myself on pragmatism and I can see how people would call me a dreamer but there is evidence of sportsmanship all the time. We see it when a softball team carries an injured rival around the bases, when a basketball player intentionally misses free throws, in rowing where competitors rescue other races. We all applaud it when we see it but somehow we choose to win rather than play with style.

Anyway, that’s what I took from The Right Stuff. Do you agree?

Let me know in the comments.

Just to get a plug for my upcoming novel the idea of sportsmanship is going to be one of the main themes of my fourth book, the Sword of Water. In the book it’s not a matter of losing a game but your life in a world where thugs who understand, but do not believe in, honor can manipulate those who do to the detriment of their country and to the world.

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

My I Hate Facebook – Facebook Post

Posted on by

FacebookA good friend of mine, and by that I mean a person I know and with whom I play Dungeons and Dragons on occasion recently told the world that he was kind of over the Facebook thing … with a Facebook post!

Is it possible for me to let that one go by without comment?

Even better, my friend’s wife, who is probably the most prolific poster of all my Facebook friends said she agreed, right before making eighth straight posts! Admittedly it was for something called Bubble Safari but still ….

Now, I don’t want to suggest that my friend and his wife aren’t actually tired of Facebook I’m just going to suggest that by posting on Facebook that you’re tired of Facebook is proving that Facebook is a great way to communicate with people you don’t see every day in your normal life. I’m not ashamed to say I like Facebook. I’m not even going to poke fun at my friends who play games and have a thousand friends. That’s cool. I love games. It’s great to meet people who have similar interests that you would otherwise never know. I don’t play games, I’m only friends with people I know in real life and people who have purchased my books and told me they liked them. Hopefully that group will grow as word of the awesome Hammer of Fire spreads.

I primarily use Facebook to keep up with friends who I don’t see regularly and to promote my blog and my fantasy novels. That’s cool also. It’s a volunteer service. People are on it who want to be on it and people who aren’t, are not. It’s become very popular to bash Facebook while using Facebook. I had to talk my niece of the ledge when the new Timeline came out. The ridiculous thing is that she didn’t even understand that it only effected her profile page which barely anyone looks at anyway.

When was the last time any of my Facebook friends looked at my profile page? Anyone? When was the last time anyone looked at anyone’s profile page? We all look at our walls and click the posts and pictures that our friends post there. But, complaining about the service we voluntarily use has become widespread.

So, I have this advice for my friend. If you’re tired of Facebook, stop using it. Don’t tell all your Facebook friends by posting on Facebook.

However, I say, please, Brad, keep using Facebook. I enjoy the pictures of California you post. I enjoy seeing how Nick is doing and how your job is going. I can’t say I’m a big fan of Alex’s Bubble Safari but I slid her into my acquaintances group and told it not to post on my wall anymore.

Facebook is what you make it, like life. Funny that.

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

Critical Thinking Fail – Hot Fry Attack

Posted on by

friesI read all sorts of stories these days that I would have skipped in the past as I look for fodder for my blog. I came across this one today and it makes me sad.

It’s hard for me to list all the critical thinking failures that go into this single story. I’ll recap and let you decide what was the biggest critical thinking failure of the bunch. It’s not an easy decision.

A husband along with his wife and step-daughter were in the car after visiting McDonald’s. The husband and wife were fighting and the daughter tried to intervene. The husband then threw his french fries and hit the daughter in the face and chest. The husband later left the home of the couple and the wife then reported the crime. The police arrested the husband and now plan to charge him with felony assault. In Massachusetts felony assault carries a maximum penalty of five years although if the victim was a minor, as in this case, it can be more.

Let’s recap all the failures in thinking.

  1. Having a screaming fight in front of your child and in the car
  2. Getting between two idiots fighting each other
  3. Throwing something potentially dangerous at a child (depending on how hot I can actually see fries as a dangerous weapon although I’m a bit suspect in this case)
  4. Calling the police and pressing charges for throwing fries at someone
  5. Actually bring felony assault charges, costing taxpayers serious money, and dragging this out for years

I’m willing to the give the little girl a pass on #2 as she doesn’t have a lot of experience in life but hopefully it’s a lesson well learned. Stay away from screaming idiots, they’ll turn on you in an instant. They’re idiots.

I’m also willing to give a partial pass to the District Attorney and Police because if the woman was insistent on pressing charges there might have been pressure from above. Still, this isn’t my vote, it’s yours.

So, my loyal friends. What was the biggest Critical Thinking Fail is this lovely story?

Tom Liberman

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

Great Movie Monday – Rollerball

Posted on by

RollerballI’m sometimes accused of being a bit of a downer and I can see how my relentless Libertarian, Randian opinion along with all my philosophical rhetoric might become a bit tiresome. I thought I’d break things up with Movie Mondays for a few weeks at least and list some of all-time favorite movies.

Of course, I can’t be completely frivolous and I’ll talk about why the movies I enjoy often have a Libertarian spirit. We’ll start with my absolutely favorite movie of all time and one that is right up the Randian alley of objectivism.

Rollerball (the 1975 version). I prefer to pretend the remake never happened. There was a remake? Really? Never knew that. Was it any good?

Rollerball tells the story of Jonathon E, played by James Caan. It is a dystopian future in which corporate entities have taken over the world and brought peace, health, and comfort to the masses at the expense of freedom. One thing about the movie I find interesting is while it promotes the ideas of Objectivism and Ayn Rand it is a world that is exactly the opposite of what she feared in 1950’s communist leery America. She feared communism not corporate corruption although she certainly recognized that thugs could take leadership roles in place of true people of achievement.

In any case, the point of the game of Rollerball is to show the futility of individual action. This is demonstrated by the sheer difficulty and violence of the game in which one man cannot excel long without being incapacitated by opponents. Jonathon E is the exception to this rule as he has become the one true superstar as he leads the Houston (Energy) team to victory. It is decided that Jonathon must be stopped and the movie is about the corporations trying to make that happen in various ways.

It is a raw film. In one scene a woman is sent to Jonathon as a lover but she is truly a spy and agent of the corporations. Before he leaves for the Tokyo game where the rules have been changed to promote more violence and hopefully the death of Jonathon this woman tells Jonathon that she is “supposed” to go with him. He throws her down and slashes her upper cheek with the spike on his Rollerball glove. This sort of violence against a woman is both shocking and telling about Jonathon. He is a man who will take enemies on without subtlety. Then, fearing that his private helicopter is sabotaged he flies with the team to Tokyo.

Eventually the corporations try to bribe Jonathon with his ex-wife and she pleads with him not to play in the final game because the rule changes have ensured that everyone will be maimed (no time limit to the game). She argues for the corporations with this line:

“But comfort is freedom. It always has been. The whole history of civilization is a struggle against poverty and need.”

Jonathon replies:

“No! No… that’s not it. That’s never been it! Them privileges just buy us off.”

Clearly a marker of the world we live in today.

Jonathon understands that individual achievement is what drives a society forward. One man or one woman with drive, spirit, and ideas. Sure, they form alliances and teams but it is the power of the individual that makes it all possible. Jonathon realizes that and so he goes on.

In the end Jonathon emerges triumphant by doing the one thing that can win the game. I’ll leave it to you to see the movie.

Tell me your favorite movie, and why, in the comments!

Tom Liberman

Egyptian Elections

Posted on by

Egyptian ElectionThere are some interesting happenings in Egypt with the latest elections and I think it’s critically important to the United States and the world how we interpret and react to events.

I’ll take a quick look historical events so as to provide perspective but it would be a good idea to look at a few wiki articles including Arab Spring, the Shah of Iran, and Muslim Brotherhood.

The incredibly important dividing line is the emergence of Arab nations seeking freedom. Some people think that nations such as Egypt are turning the corner from oppressive, authoritarian rule towards representative republics. Others think they are simply swapping totalitarian regimes for theocracy of an even more oppressive nature and ones more likely to act with terror tactics towards the western world.

I think it’s a vitally important issue because the last time something like this happened the results were catastrophic for the Arab world and unpleasant for the western, democratic world. The last opportunity of this nature came during the Iranian Revolution of 1979. In that uprising students ousted the Shah of Iran and established a theocratic government in its place. They took U.S. citizens at the embassy hostage and an antagonistic relationship between Iran and the United States continues to this day. Much of the ill-will that Arabs feel towards the western world stems from this relationship although unquestionably the Israel-Palestine situation is a major factor as well.

Since then hundreds of thousands of Arabs have died in terrible violence, oppressive regimes have become worse, children have grown up in an environment where terrorizing your foe was the objective, and Americans and westerners have learned to view Muslims as terrorists and with good reason.

This is not a winning environment for anyone.

I think that refusing to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood’s election leads us down the same path we’ve already traveled. I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood holds dangerous religious tenants and that theocracy are a very bad form of government. That being said if we had supported Mubarak until the end, if we refuse to deal with Egypt, if we continue to fight then the situation can only escalate into worse violence. More people will die. Americans will be killed by terrorists, Arabs will be killed by Arabs and Westerners. Children in Arab countries will grow up dreaming not of owning a house but of strapping bombs to themselves so they can kill other people they don’t even know.

We must embrace any popular revolution that overthrows a dictator even if the ensuing government isn’t to our liking. Could it possibly have turned out worse if after the Iranian Revolution President Carter had said, “Well done. You were right. We should never have supported a brutal dictator because he was secular and allowed us access to his oil. We’re sorry. Welcome to the world of nations. We hope you choose freedom, religious freedom, representative government, but it’s your choice. If you need any help just let us know. We’re here.”

I don’t like the Muslim Brotherhood. I’m Jewish by heritage if Atheist by religion. I don’t like Sharia law. I think one of the absolutely most vital things for the world to realize its potential is for women to enjoy all the freedom that men do. I don’t like a lot about the Muslim Brotherhood but I do like that they stood up and threw out a totalitarian regime. Fewer regimes such is this are a good thing.

Let’s not make the same mistake again. Let’s at least make a different one and maybe it will turn out to be not a mistake at all. At least I hope so, for all our sakes.

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

Independence Day – July 4th = Synonyms?

Posted on by

Indpendence DayI 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 by

Sports DopingI’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 by

Subjectivity versus ObjectivityThere 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

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

dvdChair

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 by

War on DrugsYet 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 by

Big SodaMy 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 by

Idealism versus PracticalityI 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