Conservatives Screw Conservatives with CAFO Regulation

Posted on by
CAFO

I’m happy for the chance to use my Libertarian platform to defend rural farmers against conservative lawmakers in regard to CAFO regulations. Too often in the last few years I’ve found my Libertarian ideals deeply at odds with authoritarian so-called conservatives but this case brings us together. At least some of us.

At issue is legislation making it illegal for local counties to regulate CAFOs. The Missouri Supreme Court recently upheld the Missouri legislature’s law to that affect. The people fighting against this are largely rural farmers and landowners who do not want a CAFO on nearby land and wish to enforce sensible regulations on them.

What is a CAFO?

A CAFO is a concentrated animal feeding operation. Fun name. Disgusting result. Basically, industrial farms house tens of thousands of animals, or even a hundred thousand animals, at a single facility. This is done because it can be extremely profitable for the company doing so. This concentration of animals results in an enormous amount of manure. The manure contains nutrient pollution, pathogens, salts, odorous compounds, antibiotics, pesticide, and hormones.

The Danger of a CAFO

The danger in such a large concentration of animals at a single facility is obvious. The waste product as listed above can easily destroy the local ecosystem and the smell can be unbearable for neighbors. The air quality in the region of a CAFO brings health risks to anyone living nearby.

Then, of course, there is the reasonable concern for the welfare of animals. While they are to be slaughtered, the conditions in which they sometimes live their lives can not unfairly be described as vile.

In addition, these facilities largely drive down the price of meat and make it difficult for local farmers to make a living. Naturally, this is also a good thing in that consumers pay less for their dietary needs.

The State’s Role in a CAFO

It is the state’s obligation to pass laws in regards to CAFO safety. Laws in regard to how much waste a facility can dump, how it manages that waste, and how the animals are treated are in place.

Local Rule

In Missouri we have a Right to Farm. That means local counties can pass rules regarding how farming is in done in their region. Small farmers, generally conservative in their political beliefs, do not like having a CAFO in the region. This aligns them with environmentalists and animal rights activists, generally considered liberal groups.

The Missouri legislatures passed a law which makes it illegal for local counties to make any regulation on a CAFO stricter than the state’s own laws.

Naturally, the local farmers weren’t too happy about the state coming in and telling them what they can and cannot do. I agree wholeheartedly. Keep in mind I also agree when it comes to transgender issues or when the school year starts. This is where my Libertarian philosophy doesn’t run into any conflict. I think the local community has every right to pass regulations regarding things not protected in the Constitution of the United States.

If the local community wants to pass rules on a CAFO or a drag-show, it’s absolutely their constitutional right to do so. The state cannot, in my opinion, restrict this right. The Missouri Supreme Court thinks differently. They think the state can make rules for the country or municipality. This implies that state leaders know better than local leaders what the people of the region desire.

Conclusion

If the people of St. Louis City have no desire to outlaw drag shows then the state should have no power to overrule them. Likewise, if a rural community wants to restrict how a CAFO goes about their business, the state should not be able to overrule them.

If you are for one of those things but against the other, then you are neither a conservative or a liberal. I don’t know what you are, but I do know you’re not a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Can Rules Fix the Shift in Baseball

Posted on by
The Shift

Baseball season is upon us and that’s good news for everyone but fans of The Shift. You see, baseball has new rules in place to prevent teams from using The Shift. Ah, the good old tried and true method of fixing of a problem by creating a complicated and almost unenforceable rule. Of course, by tried and true I mean tried and failed.

Will the new rules fix the problem or will they just create a myriad of other problems without really addressing the underlying issue? Is this, in fact, a microcosm of the overly ruled and regulated society in which we find ourselves?

What is the Shift?

In 2003 the Oakland A’s achieved success with an analytic based player analysis system. Since then, most of the other teams in the league followed along. This system heavily values power hitting, that is to say home runs and doubles. This resulted in several changes to the way baseball is generally played.

One change resulting from this is how hitters now swing. In order to get greater power numbers, players began to swing harder. This led to a great deal of what is called pull-hitting. A right-handed batter will almost exclusively hit the ball to the left and vice-versa for a left-handed player.

Teams began to clue in on this and instead of arraying their infielders in a traditional pattern, fairly evenly dispersed over the field, they began to align them heavily toward the expected position of the batted ball.

The Shift Rule

The executives in charge of Major League Baseball view the shift as too effective. The players who swing hard and get doubles and home runs were now grounding out far too often. Well, at least far too often for the league’s preference.

In order to rectify this problem, they created a new rule. Now teams are not allowed to have more than two infielders on either side of second base. The rule is a little more complex than that, but that is the gist of it.

The Response

Naturally, teams try to get around the intent of the rule. They place outfielders close in to the infield. The players crowd near to second base without quite going over the invisible line, adding to the burden of umpires who have plenty to do as it is.

I’m sure other ways to defeat the intent of the rule will be found as the season progresses. I’m sure MLB will institute tweaks to the rule in future season.

Why the Shift Rule is Stupid

The shift rule is dumb. If a team wants to play seven players on the infield near where the batter is likely to hit the ball, good for them. I doubt there are many cricket fans in my audience but those who follow the sport know that’s exactly how it works in that sport. The defensive team can position their players largely where they’re likely to succeed.

If a team thinks their hitters are grounding out too often, there’s a simple solution. Stop trying to hit a home run every time you’re at bat. Draft some players who spray the ball around the field.

The cat and mouse game that is professional sports largely polices itself. When a team has success doing something a particular way, other team follow. Then along comes a new way that defeats the old and round and round we go.

Conclusion

I’m not against rule changes categorically but I don’t think such changes should be based on a heavy-handed attempt to modify the strategy of the game.

Let game strategy police itself. You want to stop the shift, get players who pull the ball to the opposite field.

Tom Liberman

The Ark Episode 2 Review

Posted on by
The Ark

I finally got around to watching the second episode of The Ark and I’m sorry to say many of the problems from the first episode remain.

There was one character I actually liked so at least that’s an improvement. If you want to read my review of the first episode, please do so because I’m not going to repeat my thoughts even though many of the issues are the same.

Bad Science in The Ark

The thing that annoyed me most about this episode revolved around absolutely wretched science. I think when you’re writing a science fiction television series it’s fairly important to have some passing knowledge of what you speak.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not asking for technical scientific explanations about every mechanism of the ship. I don’t need to know how cryogenics works. I’m more than willing to suspend my disbelief when the situation warrants it.

In this case the most egregious science came during the water crisis. More about that later.

Basically, they are running out of water and the hydraulic engineer needs to fix the water reclaimers. Again, I don’t need to know too much about the process of doing so although a little technical discussion rather than just yelling, “fix it”, might be nice.

The engineer decides, without telling any other officer, to take all the coolant system water and reclaim it. The engines then stop working, no duh. Oh no, says the captain, we’ll just stop without those engines working, we’re dead in the water.

First off, engines don’t just stop working. Perhaps an alarm about rising heat and then an automated shutdown or, if not, the engines simply overheating and seizing.

The opening scene of the episode sees an explosion sending a crewmember drifting off into space. A second person launched himself and grabs the drifting person, then both of them change direction, for no apparent reason, and fall back to the surface of the ship. I use the word fall loosely.

The problem here is that in space, once you have momentum, there’s no friction to slow you down. Shutting off the engines is actually a problem but not because the ship stops but because in the fourth year of a five-year journey you’ve turned the ship around and are firing the engines to slow down. Thus, avoiding zooming past your target at an unsustainable speed.

This is not complex science. It’s not difficult to get right. Getting it right fixes these scenes and is done easily. Have the crewman who saves the other simply fire his pack jets a second time. Explain the momentum problem of the ship with a few lines of dialog.

Crisis from Nowhere

Again, crisis just appears. The first crisis is the opening scene during a space walk when debris from the broken part of The Ark threatens the crew examining the damage. Why not have some discussion about doing a space walk first? Let us get to know the crew member who is going to die before you kill him?

The second crisis is the water pipe burst. Again, it’s not hard to set all this up. When they are building the irrigation system maybe spend a few lines explaining why you don’t have shut-off valves on all the pipes. Take a few seconds showing the murderer throwing the weapon into the piping system. This is foreshadowing and lets the audience in on what is about to happen. It builds tension.

I won’t even talk about how the genius farmer boy doesn’t know about a shut-off valve. Well, I guess I just did.

Talking in front of the Crew

The annoyance I felt every time the officers aired all their grievance with one another in front of the entire crew is indescribable. They stand there discussing how to deal with the rioters in front of the tied-up rioters. It’s absurdly stupid.

Stereotypes

The Stereotype problem remains. The psychiatrist girl is painful to watch. Attractive women should mount a boycott.

Infighting

The entire crew is in a dangerous situation but rather than try and help out, they snipe at each other over ridiculous things. I can understand overworked and stressed out crew members snapping but there is no build up, it’s just someone arguing something really stupid for no reason. Then the good crew member manages to convince them to behave a second later. There’s no drama in it, just two people pretending to have a dramatic conversation.

I might add, everyone looks pretty darned refreshed for not having slept or showered in two days. Great hair!

Security

Hooray! Something I liked. The security guy investigating the murder. I actually liked his firm attitude and professionalism. In addition, his sidekick might be that dark-haired, crazy-in-her-eyes type that I find irresistible. Give her some lines.

Conclusion

Please get better, The Ark. Please, I want to like you. I love science fiction shows. The wounds here are all self-inflicted. The concept of the show is intriguing.

Tom Liberman

Perry Mason is an Excellent Show

Posted on by
Perry Mason

I just finished the first season of Perry Mason on HBO and largely loved it. I think it’s pretty easy to get into a rut writing negative reviews. Such articles definitely get more interest than the ones that wax poetic about a show.

Therefore, it is with great joy I write this review about the modern interpretation of the old classic, Perry Mason. The Perry Mason novels and television shows date way back to his debut in the 1933 pulp fiction novel by Erle Stanley Gardner.

After a famous radio series, a successful television series run, and lots of movies we now arrive at an HBO series. Let’s get into it!

What is Perry Mason?

The first season of the show covers a period of time before Perry Mason became a lawyer and his transition into that role. He is a private investigator working for E. B. Jonathon played by John Lithgow with his usual brilliance.

Jonathon takes up the case of a murdered baby and uses Perry Mason, played energetically by Matthew Rhys, as the lead detective to determine what actually happened.

Why is it Good?

Determining why a show is good or bad is generally pretty easy but explaining why it is so can be more challenging. I’ve written before about what makes a show good or bad and Perry Mason hits all the good marks.

The Acting

The acting is generally superb with Lithgow, Chris Chalk as Paul Drake, Shea Wigham as Pete Strickland, and Tatiana Maslany as Sister Alice standing out. Not to say Rhys as Mason, Juliet Rylance as the iconic Della Street, and Andrew Howard as a disturbed and violent police officer are not exceptionally good as well. Everyone from the main players to the bit parts sells their role. I’m not going to mention all the excellent performances but if you look up the cast, you’ll not see a single actor who failed to convince me.

The Writing

The writing is equally good and allows the actors to really set their teeth into all of the roles. The district attorney, the judge, the accused criminal, all fantastic roles and all played superbly. There were a few moments where I thought Perry Mason himself was portrayed as a bit too hot-headed and irrational but I understand that was done to set up the ending when he transforms into the cool-headed and rational Perry Mason we all know from previous media.

The Sets

Incredible. From matchbooks to motor vehicles to radio microphones. I’m astonished at the craftsmanship of the set designers. The attention to detail. The clothes. Everything looks real to me. Maybe someone with a better eye than mine can find a few anachronistic things but I noticed nothing.

The Music

As is always the case, less is more with music. We don’t need the music to tell us a scene is dramatic, sad, happy, or anything else. We should know that from the scene itself. The music is there not to explain but to enhance. If I ever find the music overbearing then I know there’s a problem. Didn’t happen in Perry Mason.

The Love Stories

There are several love stories in Perry Mason but they don’t interfere with the main plot, they enhance it, they are not the focus. Often times the love interest can take over. In this case Perry’s affair with the airfield owner is gritty and real. It gives us insight into Perry himself. The affair of between Emily Dodson and George while integral to the story takes place off screen. Della and her girlfriend are there but not in your face and over-the-top Woke.

The Story

The story unfolds with each episode at a leisurely but satisfying pace. We learn more and more. Each individual episode tells its own story, introduces ideas, characters, themes. There is no rush to tell us things, nor are important facts hidden from us in order to create a twist ending. We learn, with Perry Mason, the horrible truth although in the end he cannot prove it.

The Ending

The ending isn’t completely satisfying. It doesn’t try to wrap up all the loose ends. One feels for poor, abused Sister Alice and for her replacement Emily; but it’s not all joy and happiness. The ending isn’t the end but it’s enough to leave me quite satisfied and yearning for more.

A nod to the first novel at the end was a nice touch.

Conclusion

Good crime drama done right. I eagerly await season 2.

Tom Liberman

Pot Calls Kettle Black the Spy Balloon

Posted on by
Spy Balloon

China is spying on the United States with a Spy Balloon. Stunned. Shocked. Outraged. How could this happen! We must condemn China for this horrible offense against our country. I mean, it is horrible to spy on another country, right?

The United States Congress, in their near infinite wisdom, voted 419 – 0 to condemn China for spying on the United States with a spy balloon. Perhaps many spy balloons. Who can say? Unanimous! That’ll teach those Chinese not to spy on us. We hold the moral high ground here!

Stupidity Reigns

Don’t get me wrong, fill up my comments with outrage. I’ve got no problem trying to counter the Chinese spy balloon. Shoot it down. Track it. Understand how the Chinese are spying on us and prevent it in any way we can. What bothers me is this moronic condemnation from our brilliant leaders.

Everyone reading this is well aware the United States uses many methods to spy on China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and, as Edward Snowden will tell you, illegally on our own citizens and most of our allies as well.

The fact this resolution unanimously passed through the House of Representatives is illustrative of how useless our government is becoming. This is the sort of legislation both parties manage to work on together. Useless legislation.

Condemn Ourselves

When we condemn another nation for spying, we condemn ourselves. Spying happens. Very intelligent people work diligently to keep our country safe from threats around the world. I applaud them. They are doing good work. Other countries have exactly the same dedicated people doing it for them. This is the nature of the world. I realize it, you realize it, anyone with half a brain realizes it. This, of course, leaves out the members of the House of Representatives.

Not one member voted against this ludicrous condemnation. Not a single person had enough guts to stand up and say, this is dumb. This is useless. This is a dog and pony show designed for the sole purpose of giving the voters of this country the illusion we are actually doing something.

The Voters Responsibility

We vote for the people who represent us. If they spend their time passing useless and hypocritical resolutions because they think we will approve, it’s our fault. We voted for them. This vote clearly demonstrates the members of the House of Representative think we’re morons, maybe they’re right.

Conclusion

If I were in charge, I’d make a simple statement. China spies on us. We spy on China. If you don’t realize this simple fact and piss your knickers because a spy balloon flew over the country then you’re not living in reality. By condemning China, we condemn ourselves.

Tom Liberman

A Poor Start for The Ark

Posted on by
The Ark

I’m a big fan of science fiction and fantasy and The Ark looked like it might be right up my alley. I’m sad to say the first episode was lackluster in a number of ways. What went wrong? Is it salvageable? These are good questions and I’ll take a look.

I will say that a first episode can be difficult. The actors and writers don’t always have a full understanding of the characters. The structure of the story can change as things move deeper into a show. Watch the first episode of a show you love and then compare it to what it became. Starting off slowly isn’t uncommon and I’m happy to give The Ark some time.

That being said, it wasn’t good. Let’s get on with the review.

What is The Ark?

The Ark details an interplanetary mission to colonize a new world. The best and brightest of Earth are on The Ark to find a new home for humanity. The crew is in hibernation while the ship makes its five-year journey to this new world.

The Opening Scene

The opening scene is designed specifically to set the tone for the show. There is some sort of disaster and the ship experiences catastrophic failures. The hibernation pods are turned on so the crew can deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the entire command crew of The Ark dies when their wing of the ship is destroyed.

This creates the underlying plot structure specifically mentioned by the show producer, Dean Devlin. The idea is to see how ordinary people work together once the people picked to be in charge are no longer around.

It’s an interesting idea and well-worth exploration.

The Stereotypes are Everywhere

The show stereotypes almost every single character and it’s more than a little annoying. The nerdy guy and girl are the geniuses who save the ship. The female lead is the headstrong, take-charge type. The hunky guy is full of himself. The pretty girl is a narcissist.

Some people are complaining the show is Woke, I guess because of the female lead, but in reality, it’s the opposite of Woke. The characters are all stereotypical and dull. They are excellent examples of anti-wokeness. Judge a book by its cover. Nerdy people stammer and are awkward. Pretty people are vain.

The Science is Bad

I’m certainly not a stickler for hard science in a show of this nature. What tends to bother me are scenes where doing the science right is simple and yet overlooked. What is with all the number keypads on the doors? Why is the drama wrapped up in the door not opening? Why does the combination work the third time when it didn’t the first two?

How are they going to grow crops in one inch of soil spread out on the floor? You need beds. Consult a gardener. How difficult is it to figure this out? Not to mention stomping all the soil it until it’s hard as rock.

How come the crew of this enormous spaceship is four-hundred people? There is a huge amount of space and almost no one living there. It makes no sense. What are all the open spaces? If the crew was supposed to sleep in hibernation until arrival, the ship is just an incredible waste.

Why do they need water recyclers? Again, the crew was supposed to sleep until a few weeks before arrival. They have food and water for that time-frame. No need for recyclers. There were a few other things I noticed but I’m rambling now.

Conflict with no Build Up

This was probably my biggest problem with the entire first episode. Each major obstacle occurred without any buildup whatsoever. The ship malfunction that awakened the crew is the opening scene.

Next is the water and food crisis. Why not have a few scenes where people are examining the situation, talking about the amount of food and water available. The number of crew members remaining. Discussing putting people back in stasis. There’s no setup, it’s just instantly a problem.

The nerdy guy, mentioned earlier, suddenly has a solution. Why not show him going to the cargo bay and making sure his special items are indeed stored? Have him discuss the possibility of growing food with someone. Build up to the crisis and then cover the possible solutions. The show just throws it all at us instantly.

The oxygen crisis came out of absolutely nowhere. Why not show parts of the damaged ship, show valves leaking oxygen? Show indicators as the problem slowly rises. Build some tension. Maybe one person notices it but is told not to worry.

Why not have the crew member charged with putting oxygen in helmets stop for the day at the important hallway? She’s exhausted and thinks about going on but then leaves it for tomorrow. This is foreshadowing. This is writing a plot, a structure. Building tension. When the conflict arrives out of nowhere with no warning, it’s just not as impactful as seeing it slowly coming.

Solutions with no Explanation

The oxygen problem is solved instantly because the nerdy girl, mentioned before, happened to do her dissertation on the guy who wrote the software. Why not spend some time with her beforehand where she discusses her life, her experiences. Perhaps even in a way that’s not incredibly annoying because the writers felt the need to stereotype her so badly. Then when she knows this stuff, we understand how.

Her solution isn’t really a solution at all. It’s just her pushing some buttons and everything being solved despite the leak still existing.

Conclusion

I’ve been rambling here for a while so I’ll wrap up. I did have other problems with the first episode of The Ark but I’ll leave them for now.

Stereotyped characters. No rising tension. No thought-out solutions. Rushed. That’s the word I’d use. Very rushed. Slow it all down. Let the stories unfold, build the drama. The first ten minutes of the show, the disaster, finding the command crew dead, survivors finding out what happened and adjusting to the new paradigm. That’s interesting. That’s a good first episode. Make that the first sixty minutes and you’ve got something. As it is, I’m not hopeful. Too much, too fast. Not interesting.

Tom Liberman

His Dark Materials a Descent into Maudlin

Posted on by
His Dark Materials

I recently completed watching the HBO series His Dark Materials and found myself with mixed emotions. The series is based on the trilogy of the same name by Philip Pullman. The three books, Northern Lights, Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass follow the heroine Lyra through a series of adventures.

Why am I mixed in my opinion of the show? The three season series went from superb to standard action fair to maudlin. When it was great, it was great. When it was not, it was not. Let’s get into the review.

A Season and a Half of Wonder

His Dark Materials starts out wonderfully with playful Lyra and her friend Roger running about with wild recklessness at Logan College where she is something of a ward, having been dropped off by her parents and abandoned.

The story unfolds leisurely but interestingly as we meet the major players. Lyra’s uncle Lord Asriel and the evil Mrs. Coulter who are, of course, her parents. She becomes embroiled in the kidnapping of young children when Roger falls afoul of the villains.

What’s great about this first section of the series is it moves slowly but steadily. We are drawn into the plot and the characters. There are dramatic moments followed by frolic. Comedic relief. Action scenes. Things are mixed up nicely and the story tells itself, no one need explain what is happening and why. I found myself eager for each new episode and not disappointed when it came.

His Dark Materials becomes Action Adventure

The last couple of episodes of the second season suddenly abandoned this approach. It became standard action adventure. Everyone was running around fighting one another. One battle after the next. Lots and lots of running, shouting, and shooting.

All the pacing of the first part of the series vanished in this orgy of violence and drama. It’s almost as if someone told them to spice it up a little. It’s getting boring with all this pacing and interesting character development. Let’s shoot some things, crashes and explosions galore.

The Maudlin End

The death of Scoresby seems to signaled the end of any fun. The entire third season is nothing more than maudlin introspection, heartfelt conversations, and weeping. Lots of weeping.

At least the final season didn’t have as much running around and shooting as the end of the second. Instead, we had one teary-eyed important conversation after the next. We … will … speak … slowly … with … emphasis … on … every … word.

Particularly distressing was Mrs. Coulter’s transition from a frightening villain who brought fear into every room she entered to a weeping and wailing caricature of herself. Every conversation was of the Utmost … Importance and needed teary eyes.

Too Many Explanations

The books are complicated, I understand that. I think the screenwriters needed to remove a lot of complexity, dumb it down a bit. In the end we got tons of exposition but mostly without context. Where did Asriel’s army come from? What were his machines? The specters came from where? Who were the elephant things again? What exactly did Mary do? What was Asriel’s pit weapon thing? Why did worlds have to be closed? Why did the angel die when it killed the priest?

They tried to explain everything and give rationality to it all but it was too much. Too many rules being made up at the last second with little backstory to explain why things needed to happen. Confusing is the word I’d use. Very, very confusing.

The Real Ending

His Dark Materials is really about one thing. It’s the correct interpretation of the fall of man from the Garden of Eden. In Abrahamic religions this is considered a terrible moment. The end of eternal happiness and the beginning of the world’s miseries.

Pullman tells us Eve chose rightfully to escape a horrific cell. She was nothing more than a mindless pet, slavishly worshipping an egomaniacal warden. The escape was our salvation. All we enjoy today, all the good, the wonder, the happiness, and the freedom is a result of their willingness, the human need to escape such a pretty prison.

That’s what His Dark Materials is all about. In the final moments of the last episode, we finally get around to understanding this theme but it’s too late, too late to make it effective for the audience. We needed less time on the complications and more time on the underlying theme. Then it hits home with force.

Conclusion

The books are complex and the series spent the first two seasons in a largely compelling adaptation. Then they thought gunfights, chases, and tear-wrought scenes were what people wanted. It’s a shame they didn’t manage to finish the way they started.

Still, worth a watch.

Tom Liberman

Young Scooby-Doo Characters

Posted on by
Scooby-Doo

I’m following the reviews and general hate for the new Scooby-Doo animated show and it brought to my mind how interesting are the characters. I watched Scooby-Doo back in the day although I can’t say I was a huge fan. I found the show pretty formulaic and boring after a few episodes.

That being said, the characters are interesting and writer Tom, that’s me, started thinking about how I might portray the gang as youngsters, before they became Mystery Inc.

If you’re here to read yet another hate-review then best move along. I’m not going to talk about the current show as it exists, but how I might do it.

The Scooby-Doo Characters

I find the friendships between the characters quite interesting. Fred is a stereotypical dim but handsome jock. Daphne is the beautiful prom queen. Velma is the intelligent, nerdy girl. Shaggy is the stoner. Scooby is Shaggy’s loveable dog. How did such a diverse group become friends?

Early Relationships in Tom World

If this was a Tom Liberman production, I’d start off with them in their separate high school worlds. Fred and Daphne still in the same circles after a failed relationship. Both of them popular kids, consumed with sports, status, fashion.

We’d find Velma perhaps playing Dungeon and Dragons with the other nerds and in the advanced classes being a teacher’s pet to the annoyance of the other students. Shaggy perhaps once a promising young man introduced to marijuana and beginning to spiral into a haze.

How do we get them together? What propels their various arcs?

The Beginnings of Mystery Inc.

It’s obviously got to be a mystery of some sort. There are plenty to be found in the high school milieu. We don’t necessarily have to make them supernatural in appearance. It’s not necessary to keep the same structure as the earlier shows, this is a reimaging, so let’s use our imagination.

Perhaps a teacher’s gradebook was stolen and Velma and Fred are in danger of getting a bad grade. Something to get them together to solve the mystery. It’s a modern show so we are not tied to the episodic nature of the earlier show. We can have one main mystery cover the entire first season. Of course, there will be smaller crimes to solve along the way in each episode. Infidelity in the teacher’s lounge. Pay for grades scandals.

We can use Fred and Daphne’s failed relationship to make them antagonistic at the start, lots of references as to what broke them up, did he cheat? Did she cheat? Was it a misunderstanding? Plenty of material for conflict.

We might discover Shaggy was once an A student but his grades are falling off. Perhaps he has an absent parent, his mother is an alcoholic, something along those lines. The perils of genetic predisposition. Velma is under intense pressure from academically outstanding parents. Even a single B brings their scorn.

Anyway, the four discover they have some unexpected things in common. Breakfast Club style.

The Season Moves Along

Certainly, friends of the four protagonists are not going to like this change of dynamics. Not just the popular kids wondering why Fred and Daphne are now hanging out with the nerds but the other way around as well. Why is Velma, the pretty girl at the Dungeons and Dragons club, now hanging out with that jerk Fred?

There can be side-plots involving friends of the four trying to break-up them up. Sabotage. Lies. Teen angst. Lots of good material there.

How did Shaggy acquire Scooby-Doo? That could be an entire episode in itself. A lost dog wandering to school finds Shaggy stoned in the basement. Shaggy has to care for the beast, leaving his dope behind.

End of the Season

The mystery is solved. Is it back to social normal? How do the four feel about each other when they’re not solving mysteries? How do old friendships compare to the new? Daphne realizing her old friends were backstabbing her. Velma sees the jealousy toward her new popular friends and realizes Fred and Daphne aren’t the terrible people she imagined.

Throw in some sort of setup for the next year with a new mystery unveiled.

Conclusion

I’m not going to go on a rant about the failures of the new show, plenty of other are doing so. Nor am I going to tell everyone my ideas are wonderful and amazing. I find the characters interesting and worthy of exploration. It’s as shame the new show apparently is doing a poor job of it.

Tom Liberman

The Ten Thousand Dollar Blow Job

Posted on by
Ten Thousand Dollar Blow Job

In a show called The Deuce a former prostitute gives a ten thousand dollar blow job and it feels very dirty. I found my disgust at the situation interesting because a few episodes before she’d been performing the same service for twenty dollars.

How, you might ask, can a ten thousand dollar blow job be worse than one provided for far less money? Let me try to explain and you can tell me if you agree.

The Circumstances of the Ten Thousand Dollar Blow Job

Eileen, played superbly by Maggie Gyllenaal, has transitioned from her job as a Times Square hooker to making pornographic movies. She finds herself in Los Angeles for an awards ceremony and tries to sell her idea for a new movie based on the Little Red Riding Hood story.

The money-man is willing to help her with a check for ten thousand if she performs the aforementioned sex act on him while he writes the check. She clearly doesn’t want to do it but in a moment of self-reflections gives in. Later she stares at the check and smiles. It’s certainly the most she’s ever been paid for performing in such a way.

The Twenty Dollar Blow Job

When Eileen, or Candy as she called herself in those days, worked the streets she often gave blow jobs for twenty dollars. Men approached her or she flagged them down and that was that.

What’s the Difference?

What is the difference? That’s a good question. It was clear in my mind the ten thousand dollar blow job was worse. I knew it. Then I had to figure out why. Candy wants money. Eileen wants money. Men have the money and they want blow jobs.

Candy’s job is to give blow jobs. Eileen’s job is to make movies. Does Candy like her job? Does Eileen? We can argue perhaps she does not. It can be argued she likes one more than the other but the reality is we don’t know. Would she rather be doing something else for money?

The Difference

To me there is one important difference between Candy and Eileen. Candy’s job is to give blow jobs. Eileen’s job is to make movies. If the producer wanted a blow job, he could easily find a girl for far less than ten thousand. He used his position of having money and power to coerce Eileen. She didn’t come to him offering a blow job, she came to him with a good idea for a movie. He got his sick jollies by making her do something she didn’t want to do.

I think it’s not difficult to argue Candy doesn’t really want to give blow jobs either, that men use their money to make her do something she doesn’t want to do. The difference is she’s made the decision to give the blow job and men who see her on the streets know why she’s there.

The producer knew why Eileen was there. To make a movie. If he thought she was going to make a good movie then he should finance it.

Conclusion

It’s akin to your boss making you bark like a dog in order to get your paycheck. You’re there to do your job, not bark. Sure, you probably don’t want to do your job all that much but you signed up for it. That’s why you get paid.

The reality is the world is filled with people like the producer. They enjoy feeling superior to others. They use their money, or some other incentive, to coerce people into behaving a certain way. It’s wrong, it’s sick, but it’s reality.

Not everyone has the wherewithal to tell people like that no. Not me. Not this time, bub. It’d be nice if the world didn’t have people like the producer.

Stop coercing people.

Tom Liberman

The Pleasure of Shelling a Pistachio

Posted on by
Pleasure of shelling a pistachio

I thought I’d turn my eye to something important today, the pleasure of shelling a pistachio. The reason this topic comes to mind is a commercial I saw while riding the stationary at the gym this morning. I’m not sure what the commercial was about but in it an anthropomorphic creature of some sort flicked pistachios in a bowl and commented something along the lines of it’s time to get rid of shells.

I think I speak for a healthy majority of people in saying the pleasure of shelling a pistachio is a great deal of the joy in devouring the tasty nut. Yum. Now, I’m sure there are those who disagree and please feel free to tell me so. I welcome dissent here.

My question is, why do I enjoy the process of removing a pistachio from its shell and then eating it as opposed to having them pre-removed and just eating them?

The Unshelled Pistachio

Lest I be accused of not trying both methods, I’ve eaten from a large bowl of unshelled pistachios in the past. You just dig in with your grubby fingers, or perhaps use the spoon the germophobic hosts provide, and pop them directly into your mouth. They certainly must taste the same either way. A pistachio is, after all, a pistachio.

But do they taste the same? My answer is no, they don’t. My brain does something. When I pop pistachio after pistachio, or even a handful, right in a row, the taste is diminished. They just don’t taste as good to me this way.

Now, obviously, this is mental. There is something in the pleasure of shelling a pistachio that changes the perceived flavor, for me at least.

What’s the Difference?

Two things come to mind in trying to decipher why I enjoy the taste of a pistachio I’ve removed from its shell more than one I have not.

The first explanation is simply the time between eating one. When I shell them one by one, there is a delay before gratification. I’m not the sort to remove ten from their shell and then eat them in a row. I remove one, eat it, move to the next. I even take some time to sort out the larger and smaller at times. The smaller being more difficult to shell, generally.

The second explanation is the effort required to shell a pistachio somehow translates to the joy of eating it. The sense of accomplishment in getting it open, casting aside the shells, and then popping it into my mouth. There is also the satisfying sound of the shell breaking open.

Conclusion

There’s no doubt in my mind that I enjoy the taste of a pistachio I’ve removed from the shell more than one I have not. How do you feel about it? Is it a human thing? A Tom thing?

Do you like the taste of pistachios more if you shell them yourself?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Tom Brady and FTX

Posted on by
Tom Brady and FTX

I don’t like Tom Brady. I’m convinced he and his teammates cheated the Rams out of a Super Bowl. I’m certain he was heavily involved in Deflategate. He left his pregnant wife for a super model. I don’t think he’s a good person. I think he’s a liar and a cheat.

There are now news stories he and his super model ex-wife were heavily invested in FTX and they might well face financial ruin. Am I happy about that? Does it make me feel good to see someone I dislike so intensely suffer? It’s a good question and I think it goes to the heart of a lot animosity we see in world today, particularly with politics.

Is the Tom Brady and FTX Misery my Joy?

The real question becomes, should I take joy in the misfortune of others if I don’t like them? I totally understand why people feel this way. If I don’t like a person then their misfortune makes me feel good. I’m guessing to feel this way is human, normal.

Then I start thinking about it a little more. Do I really want to be the person who cheers in joy when someone else is suffering? There is not only Tom Brady to think about. What about all those other investors in FTX who are suffering? People I don’t hate, probably people I like.

Then there is Brady’s family, his children, his friends. They also count on the money Brady provides to enjoy their life.

Should I feet bad about Tom Brady and FTX?

Taking into account the general misery of the entire situation and the total number of people affected, should I feel bad? I’ve spoken about the nature of Cryptocurrency scams. How the lure of easy money causes people to lose sight of their better judgement. How scammers steal from people with false promises.

Now Tom Brady is a victim, just like any other. I’ve written that I feel bad for people who are taken in by such scams but I also don’t excuse their greed. Tom Brady, like a lot of other people, got greedy. Maybe it was his financial advisors, maybe it was all Brady, I don’t know. Someone got greedy and is paying the price.

I feel bad for Brady and others, I do. It’s a terrible blow to lose your fortune like Kevin Bacon and so many others did in trusting Bernie Madoff. This disaster might well have played a role in Brady’s divorce, his decision to return to the football field and risk his health. Lack of money, or the pursuit of it, makes people do things they don’t want to do, sometimes dangerous things.

I really do feel bad for Brady.

The Bigger Picture

It’s my opinion this wishing ill upon people we don’t like his problematic in the United States these days. Every time I see thousands of likes on stories where a Democrat or a Republican figure suffers misfortune I think about it. Thousands of people relishing the horrific car crash that killed Anne Heche. Why are so many people happy to see those they dislike suffer, die? Suffering is terrible. I wish we lived in a world where no one suffered.

I’m not the most empathetic person in the world. I don’t feel the suffering of others. I’m far more intellectually inclined. Still, I do feel bad for Brady. I don’t like him, never will, but I get that his suffering isn’t my happiness. Anyone’s suffering is not my happiness.

Conclusion

Does this all make me a better person? I actually think so. I think people who relish in the suffering of those they dislike are not doing themselves or anyone else any good. I certainly understand it’s human nature. Believe me, when I first heard Brady may have lost his fortune, it made me smile. “Good,” I said. “No one deserves it more.”

Then I started to think about it and changed my mind. Maybe you can do the same when you see the misfortune of someone from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Maybe you can admonish friends who do the same. Maybe you can’t.

Tom Liberman

Bernie Kosar Gambled and got Fired

Posted on by
Kosar Gambled

Former quarterback Bernie Kosar gambled and got fired from his job for doing so. What’s up with that? Well, Kosar works for the Cleveland Browns, where he spent his career playing football, and is a regular guest on various programs associated with the team.

With gambling becoming legal in Ohio, Kosar gambled $19,000 on the Pittsburgh Steeler game this weekend. He bet on the Browns to win but that’s not really the cause of his firing. The NFL has strict rules about employees, in any capacity, placing bets.

Should Employees be Allowed to Gamble?

I find the situation quite interesting from a number of perspectives. Let’s dispense with any silliness right away. The league clearly has a vested interest in keeping their employees from gambling on games. This is the case for a number of reasons.

Employees who gamble might have access to inside information and tip other gamblers to a particular way to bet. Employees might well get into gambling debt and become compromised in some way or another.

Any employee gambling gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. Even betting on the team with which the person is associated doesn’t help all that much. Could the person know something about the other team? It’s a tangled web and I completely understand the various sports leagues prohibiting gambling.

I won’t go deeply into problem gambling that is escalating across the country as I spoke about that elsewhere.

Kosar Gambled his Job and Lost

Kosar knew the rules. He stated well-ahead of time he planned to make the wager. It was almost certain the Cleveland Browns had to let him go once he placed the bet. When Kosar claims he is “shocked” by the turn of events, I find that pretty dubious. He knew what he was doing, the consequences for doing so, and chose to do it anyway.

The League is a Hypocrite

Up until now you’d think I my case open and shut. Hardly. Sports leagues don’t have a strong ethical position to enforce this ban. The leagues and individual teams profit enormously from legal gambling. They are sponsored by legal gambling website. Some of the stadiums even have areas in them associated with those websites.

Gambling fuels interest and betting information is available in any number of places associated with the various sports leagues. It’s hard to say how much money the leagues and teams make from gambling but it’s not insubstantial.

Basically, what the NFL is saying to Kosar is they can associate with gamblers all they want but he cannot. Kosar gambled and he’s out. The league takes millions from gambling sites and that’s just fine.

I do recognize that gambling itself and being paid from the profits of those bets are two different things, but the association and hypocrisy is not to my liking.

Conclusion

Kosar’s firing is completely legitimate from the point view of the league and he should not be surprised. Those in power need to take a closer look at their own behavior. Winners here? Not that I see.

Tom Liberman

The Coffeezilla and Logan Paul CryptoZoo Kerfuffle

Posted on by
CryptoZoo

*** UPDATE ***

Paul has apologized to Coffee and dropped all threats.

*** END UPDATE ***

I know most of my loyal fans have no interest in Coffeezilla, Logan Paul, or CryptoZoo but I’m afraid that’s today’s topic.

In reality, my discussion is more about defamation lawsuits and frivolous lawsuits. It’s an interesting topic to me because it comes down to wealthy people using the law to stifle those who criticize them. It’s not something new and it’s growing.

Who is Logan Paul

Logan Paul is a media personality, athlete, and actor who specializes in self-promotion. There’s nothing wrong with someone hustling to promote themselves and make some money. Paul did so in questionable ways in the past; filming a corpse of someone who committed suicide and posting it on his YouTube channel as an example.

He’s largely been successful in his promotional activity and has a big following on YouTube.

What is CryptoZoo

CryptoZoo is a project headed by Logan Paul. In it he hoped to make a game where people purchased digital eggs, largely in the hopes of making a profit. Eggs were sold for millions of dollars. The game has thus far not materialized and several people involved in the project have lengthy criminal backgrounds.

Several of those people apparently made off with a great deal of the money although Paul is not one of them.

Who is Coffeezilla

Coffeezilla is a YouTube personality who specializes in exposing scams. He became interested in this when any number of people tried to scam his ill mother with phony cures. His coverage of several large financial situations including FTX and Save the Kids Token earned him a great deal of respect in the industry and he is now well-regarded.

What’s the Point of all this Tom-o?

I know you’ve been reading for a while and now I’ll get to the point. Coffeezilla ran a three-part episode in which he indicated his opinion that CryptoZoo was largely a scam from the beginning. The developers hired for the project had little or no ability to deliver the project. Millions of dollars in sales were made with only basic development on the project. Meanwhile Paul, when confronted with angry investors demanding refunds, continually claimed it would soon be finished.

Coffeezilla declared the entire project largely a scam from the beginning. Paul claims he too is a victim of the scam as his developer and main stakeholders absconded with most of the money. Paul is now threatening to sue Coffeezilla for defamation.

This is my point. Paul is quite likely guilty of mismanagement at the best. He’s probably lucky he didn’t cash out, like his partners, as there might well be fraud charges if he had done so. The point of the lawsuit is, I suspect, to silence Coffeezilla and Paul is not alone in using this tactic.

Frivolous Lawsuits

Frivolous litigation in the United States was once framed as lawsuits filed against big business in order to delay a particular activity. Weirdo crackpots trying to stop progress. If a judge determines a suit is frivolous the person filing might have to pay the legal fees of the other party and also face a fine.

In reality the law has been twisted from its original intent. Now, wealthy people and companies file such suits forcing their critics to hire expensive lawyers and spend a great deal of time, effort, and money to defend themselves. Meanwhile, if the suit is determined to be frivolous, it’s not a big deal to the wealthy person who can afford such activity, it’s simply the price of doing business.

If they can silence critics, force settlements for smaller sums from those who run out of money to defend themselves, cover-up wrongdoing, etc., why not file?

Cryptozoo Case

I’m not a lawyer. I can’t say whether a case against Coffeezilla brought by Paul will be successful, a failure, or determined frivolous. That being said, it seems extremely frivolous to my eyes. Paul has to prove Coffeezilla intentionally lied and from the videos I’ve seen, Coffeezilla did quite a bit of research and appears to believe his assertions completely. He makes a convincing argument.

Paul, on the other hand, seems largely eager to silence a critic using his financial advantages.

Conclusion

The law is perverted to help the rich, again. We’ve got a problem in this country and it’s with the legal system. The system was designed to be blind. To help the poor get justice when they are in the right. It’s not working anymore.

Tom Liberman

The Problem with a Skill Challenge

Posted on by
Skill Challenge

I play role-playing games and one of the difficulties in running an adventure is something called a Skill Challenge. At its heart, the skill challenge creates a problem because the character being played and the player playing that character don’t have the same talents.

The person playing the heavily muscled but intellectually challenged warrior might actually be the most intelligent and articulate person in the group. Likewise, the crafty rogue might be a player who doesn’t pay a whole lot of attention to the ongoing game. Thus, the skill challenge conundrum.

Incompatible Players and the Skill Challenge

A skill challenge can be something as simple as breaking down a door or something as complex as convincing a truculent character to reveal vital information. In either case, the person attempting the challenge isn’t always suited to achieve the goal.

A player might not have the adroitness of language to fast talk the information out of a non-player character run by the game master.

Easy Fix, just Roll the Die

The easy path is to simply have characteristics or skills that allow to test for success rather than relying on player interaction. A powerful warrior makes a strength check to kick down the door. A crafty rogue makes a Fast Talk roll to convince the bartender to give him the key to the locked chest.

The problem with this method is that there is no role-playing, which is the nature of the game. The fun of the game is the player getting to pretend for a few hours she or he is someone else. With this method, it’s just a roll of the die.

What if they Miss?

Missing the roll is another enormous problem. If the warrior needs to open the door for the adventure to progress and fails, where does that leave the game? It can be much more complex than a simple roll to open a door, it can be about finding a series of clues. If the players don’t have the luck to get the information, then the game master must somehow get it to them in another way. This can come across as railroading the adventure.

If the game master is just going to give us what we need to succeed, why bother even trying?

Best Solution to the Skill Challenge Problem

I’ve been playing and running role-playing games for over forty years now and I’m sad to admit there is no perfect solution to this problem. If the character with the best chance to succeed isn’t great at role-playing or the dice just don’t cooperate, it’s a problem.

I think the best solution is to give the player the opportunity to do some role-playing if they want but never bother with the dice. Just give them the answer no matter what.

Player: I try to break the door down with a running shoulder bash.

GM: You smash into the door and hear a crack as a panel breaks but it remains closed.

I’ve seen far too many adventures derail simply because of a bad roll of the die or a poor decision by the players in a crucial moment. That’s no fun for anyone, well, the sadistic game master might enjoy it but that’s another matter altogether.

Conclusion

Let the players succeed, that’s the fun of the game.

Tom Liberman

Does a Bad Link make a Difference?

Posted on by
Bad Link

I just witnessed a fascinating instance involving a bad link and a series of comments. One of my Facebook friends spotted what she presumably thought an interesting article and clicked the link. It went to a story about a completely different topic.

She then pointed out not a single person, other than her, noticed the story went to a bad link. Her observation was completely on point but not exactly what I want to discuss today. What about all those comments and likes?

The Headline is all that Matters

The picture and headline of the Facebook link indicated psychological reasons for feeling anxiety after heavy drinking. There followed some 150 comments and nearly 700 likes or emoji responses, primarily likes. Yet, it was a bad link. Not a single person making a comment or reacting to the story actually tried to read it, other than my friend.

Now, I’m used to the idea that people comment on stories without reading them. I see all sorts of behavior like that, particularly in regards to my Misleading Headline series. Even I, in my cynicism, didn’t imagine they don’t even bother to click the link.

What percentage of people commenting on a story failed not only to read the article itself but didn’t even try? From the evidence on display here, I’d guess it might be as high as 90%.

Is Humanity just a Bad Link?

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest a healthy percentage of people just don’t care. They don’t see. They don’t read. They don’t listen. They look for what they superficially desire and call it a life. Is this disturbing reality what drives much of the misunderstand between people we see in the world these days?

Has mass media, social media, quick snippets of targeted lies found their ultimate audience? Are the rational of the world doomed to be destroyed by those who don’t even bother to find out it’s a bad link?

Conclusion

I don’t think so. I think there’s plenty of hope for humanity but we need to start teaching critical thinking skills at the very earliest levels of education and never stop. Click the damn link.

Tom Liberman

My Encounter with a Bad Logic Troll

Posted on by
Bad Logic Troll

I read and comment on a lot of news stories and I thought a recent encounter with a bad logic troll might be of some interest to you, my loyal and vast audience. I follow chess fairly closely and commented on the recently completed Rapid and Blitz Championship which resulted in a pair of victories for Magnus Carlsen.

This comment resulted in me getting involved with a bad logic troll. I appreciate a good troll as much as anyone and I’ve engaged in the practice a few times myself. In this case I thought the use of logical fallacies worthy of an examination.

The Backstory

Magnus Carlsen recently declared he will not defend his world championship title in classical chess. This means when a new champion is declared later this year, he will no longer be eligible to win all three of the main chess championships in the same calendar year. A number of people are lamenting this fact and such thoughts led to my original comment.

One of the reasons Carlsen is not defending his title is such a defense occupies two years of his time. Carlsen preference is he’d like a yearly tournament to determine champion and I echoed that in my original comment. See the image above.

The Bad Logic Troll Arrives

Cue stage right, the villain has arrived! His or her original argument is a classical chess game, which lasts many hours, is unsuitable for a Swiss style tournament with many players. Now, at this point I already suspected a troll but I’m always willing to engage in conversation.

My Rebuttal

I replied, with a bit of snark you’ll notice when reading the exchange, there are Swiss style tournaments playing classical chess on a fairly regular basis. That one of these tournaments is called the Grand Swiss. The fact that Swiss style tournaments with a hundred or more players are not only possible, but happen, seems to win the argument.

End of story, right? Troll wrong. Tom right. Time for a whiskey and celebration. Not so fast. The bad logic troll now tries lying. He or she claims the Grand Swiss tournament is played over a long period of time and involves pools. Both of these things are false. Either it’s a lie or just made up to support her or his original assertions. We haven’t gotten to the bad logic yet although certainly the behavior exhibited by my foe is egregious.

My Reply

I reply with simple facts copied and pasted from the Grand Swiss wiki page. The tournament lasts thirteen days and is not a pool event. Irrefutable, you exclaim. Victory for Tom! There’s no way the troll is slipping out of this one. Ah, my naïve friend, you haven’t dealt with trolls, have you? Just you wait.

The Bad Logic Appears

The troll counters with an argument completely different than the one originally made and shows a not unanticipated lack of basic math skills in adding up the time between two dates. This is the bad logic. Rather than admit her or his first argument was clearly defeated by a superior intellect, that’s me if you’re not following along, the troll goes down a different path. It really doesn’t matter what argument follows. It’s always the same and it’s a logical fallacy called Moving the Goalposts. When the original argument fails, just try a new one.

Conclusion

What to do when encountering this fallacy? Well, I suppose you can continue to argue but the person with whom you are debating is not worthy of the effort. Cut your losses, move on. That’s my advice at least.

Smile with smug self-satisfaction knowing you’ve won the argument because they, by moving the goalposts, conceded the point.

Smug Tom Liberman

Iranian Women Chess players and Subtle Misogyny

Posted on by
Iranian Women Chess players

A subtle version of misogyny is on display in news stories about Iranian Women chess players. I’ve written about the subtleties of racism previously and today I take on a similar topic. Just because something is misogynistic doesn’t mean it’s obvious or even an intentional act.

Let’s examine stories making the rounds about Iranian women chess players. Basically, Iranian women are required to wear a hijab. Recent protests in that country brought attention to the practice and a pair of Iranian women, Sara Khadem and Atousa Pourkashiyan are playing the World Rapid and Blitz championship not wearing hijabs.

What’s the subtle misogyny in that? Let me explain.

What is Misogyny

I think the first thing to understand is the idea of misogyny. The dictionary defines it as dislike of, contempt, or ingrained prejudice against women. When we see a definition like this we think of open misogyny. Someone going around telling people that women are not deserving of human rights, they are weak, stupid, worthless.

The reality is that misogyny comes in many flavors and is not always obvious. That’s where such things are insidious. We look at behavior that, at first glance, appears perfectly normal, and accept it as such. Even when it’s actually not quite so harmless.

The Case of the Iranian Women Chess Players

If you look at the picture I’ve included at the top of this article, you’ll see of the players in question. Khadem on the left and Pourkashiyan on the right. Can you guess what image the articles in question are displaying? Both women? Khadem? Pourkashiyan? I don’t even really need to ask. You know the answer already. That’s my point.

In fact, when I first read about this story, the only name I saw was Khadem. They didn’t even bother to include the fact that Pourkashiyan also chose not to wear a hijab. It was only today I realized there were two women involved in the protest, if that word can be used.

Attractive Women are more Valuable

What’s the subtle message from the fact that Khadem’s picture is plastered all over the articles and Pourkashiyan’s is not? Prettier is better. A woman’s worth is in her beauty.

It’s a little more complicated than that. The picture of an attractive woman brings more clicks to the story. The agencies publishing such articles want clicks, therefore they choose to put up the picture of Khadem.

That being said, if we boil it down to its essence, the misogyny is there. It’s subtle, it’s not easy to see. Not virulent. Not overly damaging. A shrug of the shoulders type of misogyny, still, it’s there.

If you were the brother of Pourkashiyan, what would you say?

Conclusion

Little things add up in the mind of those prone to thinking this way. The path to misogyny, and most prejudices and hatreds, is not always obvious.

It’s not always easy to be a better person and sometimes we don’t even realize what we’re doing is wrong. In this case, it’s wrong not to include pictures of both women. It is misogyny, ever so subtle.

Tom Liberman

Gambling Banking to Increase Savings?

Posted on by
Gambling Banking

I just watched a YouTube video about gambling banking and how it might incentivize people to increase their savings. I’ve written about gambling addiction and predatory loans recently and this video brought both of those topics to my mind.

It’s highly likely that my research for those articles led the YouTube algorithm to send me this new video. In any case, I found the idea of gambling banking to be quite interesting and thought you might as well.

The Human Mind Prefers Gambling Banking

The basic idea behind gambling banking is the human mind’s propensity to prefer a low chance with a high reward more than a high chance with a low reward. Studies seem to show, and my own personal experience with people confirms, that people much prefer these types of gambles.

As a quick example. When offered a choice between a 100% chance to win five dollars and a 1% chance to win $500, people almost universally choose the later. Obviously, the math shows an equal return of investment but the allure of the high reward is much greater.

The studies cited in the video went into great depth to figure out exactly where the general cutoff point is in these mathematical models. At what reward point do people take the small amount over the large? If you’d like to learn more about those things, watch the video as I’m not going to focus on it any more. I think the results are accurate and that’s what’s important.

What is Gambling Banking?

Now, knowing that people much prefer the low chance, high reward model; a test case was setup at a banking institution. If people put a certain amount or more in their savings account, there was a small chance the bank would match that amount.

The result, according to the video, was startling. Many, many more people started putting money in at the minimum level, let’s say $5000, than the bank saw in the past. This makes sense to me.

Why is Saving so Important?

The amount of money you save is a tremendously important factor when it comes to predatory loans. People who have enough to pay for a financial emergency, a few thousand dollars, don’t have to take out high-interest loans. Thus, they don’t get into financial trouble that plagues them for the rest of the lives.

A common reason people take out such loans are car repairs. If they can’t get to work, they lose their job. A short-term loan of a few thousand dollars makes financial sense. Sadly, these are the sort of people who the bank generally will not give loans because of their poor credit rating.

Do we need Government?

This is the part of the gambling banking plan that really attracted this Libertarian. No government necessary. If the banking institution become aware of this model and realize it will result in people putting more money in the bank, they will implement it completely on their own. Banks don’t need the government to tell them how to make money.

Downside

It’s important to recognize there are very few scenarios without some downside. In this case, if people are putting more of their discretionary money into banks rather than buying luxury items, there is less spent overall.

Still, this isn’t a huge deal as the money people put into banks doesn’t just sit there. It is loaned out to others who use it.

Conclusion

Interesting study, great idea. Let’s go!

Tom Liberman

Predatory Loans in Utah

Posted on by
Predatory Loans

I just read an interesting article about how a loosely regulated market allows for what can only be described as predatory loans in Utah. It’s an interesting question for me because the main rational behind allowing loans with an interest rate of up to 200% is aligned with a Libertarian ideology.

Basically, predatory loans in Utah are allowed because the legislature in that state doesn’t put a legal cap on the highest interest rate allowed. Most states do so and the Federal Government mandates active-duty service members, but no one else, cannot be charged more than 36%.

Are they Predatory Loans?

Let’s dispense with this question right away. The loans are structured in a way to trap low-income borrowers into paying back far more than they took out. The loans are absolutely predatory. Most of them come with a 90-day stipulation that if you pay it back in that amount of time the higher interest rate doesn’t apply.

They are largely taken by people in desperate situations, often an unexpected car repair. Without a car the borrower will lose their job. Without a job …. Anyway, the design is predatory, that much is certain.

The Service of the Loan

While the loans are certainly predatory, the people who take them are in desperate need and cannot get a loan legally any other way. They generally have poor credit ratings and cannot get a loan from a bank that doesn’t offer such a high interest rate. This because most states regulate an interest cap.

Banks know that such loans have a high default rate. In order to make up for that default rate, a crazy-high interest rate is charged for those that cannot repay immediately.

The people who take these loans are the same people who end up owing money to extra-legal lending sources and payday loan companies.

Different than Banks and the Government?

I’ve written about how the government itself operates like a loan-shark with ridiculous fees and escalating fines for late payments. I’ve also talked about how the government and private industry intentionally created the student loan situation in which we find ourselves.

The government intentionally bankrupted the United States Postal service largely at the behest of banks in order to take out massive loans with the never-ending interest payments.

Financial Ruin of Unpaid Predatory Loans

One of the interesting things about loans is if a bank gives issues too many that default, the bank itself goes out of business. The bank doesn’t have a pile of cash sitting in the vault. They take the money you give them in interest payments and loan it to others. If enough others fail to pay, the bank gets into trouble. Some may remember the recent housing crisis. The student loan crisis we currently face. These are directly related to too many bad loans resulting in defaults.

This is why the Utah banks in question don’t do the majority of their business in such loans. It’s a dangerous game to play.

Is Utah in the Wrong?

Is Utah wrong to allow banks to charge up to 200% interest rates for these types of loans? If the banks do not provide this service, will extra-legal loan-sharks step in? The government, with their long record of predatory behavior, is hardly an institution I trust to rein in this practice.

There is real damage, of course. A certain percentage of those who take out the loans cannot pay them back in 90 days and end up with unsustainable payments. Even if people stop paying and incur some court-ordered lesser payment plan, they suffer financial difficulties for a long time if not the rest of their lives.

Conclusion

Ok, Tom. The loans are predatory and people will suffer. But you don’t think regulating them will help. Do you have anything useful to say or was this just an intellectual exercise?

Good question. I think some problems just don’t have solutions. As long as people are poor and need money, such loans will exist, legal or illegal. It’d be nice if we didn’t have poor people. If there was a way to provide for all people in need, whether they deserve it or not, whether they’ve earned it or not. There currently is not such a system in place.

I guess my only real point here is to beware of what appears to be a simple solution to a complex problem. It can make things worse rather than better.

Tom Liberman

Cloud Password Security Pragmatism versus Paranoia

Posted on by
Cloud Password Security

I just read an interesting article about Cloud Password Security in regards to the popular LastPass software. The comment section, as it often does, inspired me to write a blog about what’s going on and why I like to consider myself a pragmatic person.

The problem is simple enough. Creating a secure password is a bit of a pain and keeping track of all your passwords is even more difficult. Thus, cloud password security programs began to sprout up. They store your passwords online in an encrypted format and allow you to access your online sites without actually risking hacking.

What Happens when the Cloud Password Security Software is Hacked?

This is the focus of the article and what generated so much debate in the comments section. It’s fairly self-evident a storage silo for secure passwords is going to attract the attention of hackers. Why spend all that time getting my password when a hacking group can access millions all at once?

Lots of people chimed in with immediate and visceral responses. No way was he or she going to trust some cloud-based password system. In many cases the commenter listed local password security as a better solution. Generate your own secure passwords, store them locally in an encrypted way. That way you don’t put your passwords in a big old pile with a million others.

Pragmatisms versus Paranoia

The thing to understand about the various commenters lashing out against cloud password security is they have a point. The suggestion of storing all your passwords locally and encrypted is marginally more secure than using an online vendor.

The problem is, of course, the vast majority of people don’t want to or are technically incapable of doing so. With online cloud password security your passwords are automatically generated and put into sites you visit, bypassing the need for you to type them in manually. For many people, this alone is reason enough to use such services.

The real problem against using locally stored and encrypted passwords is much more pragmatic. A large majority of people simply do not create secure passwords and tend to reuse the same password over and over, perhaps with a number added to the end. Many people write down a list somewhere which means even a casual visitor or repair technician can get them easily enough. One of your kids’ friends. More people are in your house than you realize.

This means for the most internet users, their information is serious danger of being hacked. Your bank information. Your photos of loved ones. Everything.

My Personal Experience

It’s frankly impossible to remember all your passwords so you’re going to have to store them somehow. Over the years, several websites to which I belonged years ago informed me that they’d been hacked. That my password information for that site was now in the hands of the hackers. No problem for me, I never reuse passwords, but a huge problem for the majority of people.

Conclusion

I actually use a locally stored and encrypted system so you’d think I’d recommend that solution for everyone. I don’t. It’s just not realistic. I’m a pragmatist. I know the system I use for myself just isn’t going to work for many other people. What’s good for me isn’t good for everyone. That’s an important little life lesson all by itself but I won’t elaborate.

Please, for your own financial security, purchase a monthly subscription to a cloud password security service. You’ll hear horror stories about it being unsafe but don’t listen. It’s safer for the vast majority of people and that means you.

Tom Liberman