High School Basketball NIBC Cash Grab

NIBC

The Situation

A group of six of the best high school basketball teams in the country are forming their own league. The National Interscholastic Basketball Conference. They will play a regular season, special events, and a post-season tournament.

The organization will add two more teams before league play begins this year and there are certainly plans to expand further in the coming years.

Why is this being done? Let me quote Rashid Ghazi a partner at Paragon Marketing Group who will serve as commissioner of the NIBC. The NIBC represents a tremendous platform that combines elite-level basketball with excellent academics in a real campus setting. These six schools have outstanding histories and helped develop countless young men to achieve their dreams of excelling in both college and professional basketball.

Ha, I say. Ha, I repeat for emphasis. It’s a cash grab.

My Problem with the NIBC

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against a nice cash grab. The fact six powerhouse high school basketball programs are forming the NIBC to make money doesn’t bother me at all. Good for them. I recently wrote how elite teams in all leagues win virtually every championship. Largely because of enormous financial advantages over their less well-off counterparts.

What bothers me in this situation is the players and their families will make nothing. Not only will they make nothing but the laws of the United States of America make it essentially illegal for them to make money from their efforts.

These are the kids performing on the court and yet it is the leagues, the league offices, the venues, the officials, certainly commissioner Ghazi. Almost everyone but the kids will take all the money. It’s actually against the law to pay the athletes and let them continue to play in the league. Once any athlete accepts payment, she or he is a professional and barred from amateur sport thanks to insane rules upheld by judges in this supposedly free country.

It’s no far-fetched leap to see an eventual television contract for the league, shady associations with college recruiters tied to college coaches, and any other corruption that comes when this much money is involved.

Conclusion

The NIBC is nothing more than extension of the amoral NCAA which exploits its workforce while making billions of dollars. It’s not right for the NCAA and it’s not right for the NIBC.

How long before we see Crack Baby Athletic Association? My disgust is immeasurable.

Tom Liberman

Woke Sexual Assault on The Nevers

Woke Sexual Assault

What Happened

Our drunken protagonist, Amalia, walks up onto the stage, grabs the lute player’s instrument and kisses him violently while grabbing his genitalia with her free hand and violently stroking him. Yep, that’s sexual assault.

She then breaks the presumably expensive musical instrument over the head of another patron who had the temerity to ask for kiss. That’s theft and destruction of property. Earlier, Amalia proffered a kiss in exchange for a pint of beer, several of which we witnessed her guzzling down with gusto. You see, she made an offer and the man, perfectly reasonably, asked if it was still available. Of course, he wasn’t as physically attractive as the lute player so he deserved to get smashed with an instrument and violently punched for this transgression.

Amalia performed her woke sexual assault on the lute player because she assumed it was welcome as he made eye contact with her from the stage and smiled. Clearly a signal he wanted a woke sexual assault.

The fact an executive producer for The Nevers, Joss Whedon, is under considerably scrutiny for equally vile behavior seems all part and parcel for a world in which understanding and tolerance are preached by all sides but only shown to those who are in lockstep agreement.

This is not Anti-Woke Incel Propaganda

I’m sorry to break the bad news to you Incel maniacs. Just because it’s horribly wrong for Amalia to grope and assault the lute player doesn’t absolve you. If it’s wrong for Amalia, it’s wrong for you.

I consider myself woke in that I know transgenders, people of color, women, religious minorities, and various other groups face tremendous discrimination and violence in this world and this country. Deny it all you want, it happens, it is happening, and you are responsible for this environment.

The woke agenda is absolutely right. It’s the woke playbook imitating those it condemns which bothers me.

A Personal Interlude

There is something in human nature that seems to turn horrors inflicted on themselves into doing the same to others. I played sports. In sports there is hazing. I witnessed bizarre pseudo-sexual violence committed by older athletes on younger athletes more than once.

The absolute glee on the faces of those committing the assaults stays with me to this day. It is almost certain the offender was the victim just a few short years earlier.

Conclusion

Respect for others means respect for those with whom you disagree and dislike. It doesn’t mean respect for your circle of friends who sit around blaming everyone else for the world’s problems while slapping themselves on the backs and advocating for atrocities. You sicken me as much as does Amalia with her woke sexual assault.

All this being said, There is a great deal of hope for humanity. I think we are making progress. I think we will get to a good place, someday.

It doesn’t help when those advocating for change are happy to glorify violence and assault on those they despise. Yes, I’m talking to you, all of you.

Tom Liberman

Apple Buy or Rent Lawsuit

Apple Buy or Rent

What is the Difference between Buy or Rent?

A federal judge allowed a class-action lawsuit against Apple involving the difference between the options buy or rent to continue. At question is the option at offer in selling music, should customers of Apple Buy or Rent their music, movies, and television shows? I love the law so let’s examine the issue.

As it stands in the Apple Buy or Rent conundrum the company offers people the option to buy but in reality, if the owners of that content ever decide Apple no longer has rights to it, the customer also loses the ability to consume the media.

When you buy something from Apple you are not really buying it. Apple gives you the opportunity to consume that media on your device at the time of your choosing but nothing more. People seem to think the store should use the word rent instead of buy because you never actually own the content.

I have a couple of problems with the lawsuit; primarily I ask what end result the litigants hope to get. I also see no damages resultant of the difference and therefore I’m not sure if compensation is in order.

Compensation for Apple Buy or Rent

I don’t want to, and am not capable of, getting into an in-depth discussion of Tort and Contract law but one of the principles involved is damages. In order to receive compensation, the plaintiff must show damages. If Apple does not lose rights to the media in question and revoke it; there are no damages. Therefore, the entire lawsuit seems aimed at making a point. What is that point?

What Result do Litigants Want?

Change it to Rent

If the Apple Buy or Rent wording changes, what difference does it make? I rent something rather than buy it but that doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the business. It’s exactly the same either way. The consumer is not helped in any way.

If the content creator revokes the license from Apple the customer loses rights, exactly as things currently stand.

Rent the Content from the Creator

If the litigants want to force Apple to allow us to purchase the content outright it essentially drives Apple out of the business entirely. Customers must buy directly from the content creators who do not have convenient stores available to the consumers.

Essentially, every content creator will make their own store front and buyers will navigate a myriad of avenues in order to purchase their content, and, in reality, things don’t even change. When we purchase the media from the content creator, we still merely rent it. If they revoke the license, we’re exactly where we started.

Buy the Content Outright

The final intended goal is possibly that we simply purchase the content outright from the creator. In this case we have to store the content and that costs money. After years of purchasing, we have enormous volumes of media stored on the cloud by Apple. That’s really what our payment is all about. Apple holds all our content on enormous servers and grants us access to that content when and where we desire.

If we want to own the content outright, just like any physical product, we must take care of it ourselves. Ford doesn’t make a garage for our car and keep it shiny and clean and away from thieves. We do that, or we don’t, but it’s up to us in the end.

If I decide to store the media on a home server and there is a fire, it’s gone. If I rent a server from some company and they go out of business, likewise, all my content is gone. I prefer the current model and I think the vast majority of people agree with me.

Conclusion

The convenience Apple offers us through Cloud Storage is the reality of the Apple Buy or Rent question. The remedies to the lawsuit seem to be either pointless or actually an enormous inconvenience. They only make things worse for everyone.

What difference do the words Buy or Rent really make? Nothing. Yet, if this lawsuit somehow persists and proves triumphant in the courts; we lose. Great.

Tom Liberman

The Super League might be a Harbinger for all Sport

Super League

What is the Super League?

A group of futbol clubs in Europe hope to form a new association called the Super League. Hopefully comprised of the highest revenue teams in England, Spain, and Italy. The plan is to have twenty teams divided into two groups with a playoff scenario at the end of the season.

The Super League founders hope to lure the top revenue teams from Germany and France. Those teams have so far resisted such attempts.

Why are they Doing it?

This league is similar to the Power Five football conferences in the NCAA and money is the driving force in both cases. In European futbol and the NCAA there is an enormous gulf between the high revenue teams and the low revenue teams.

The teams making huge amounts of money must share the wealth with the teams who don’t make nearly as much. This seeming unfairness rankles the owners of the wealthy teams and drives them into creating their own leagues, the Power Five conferences in the NCAA and now the Super League in European futbol.

This revenue gap creates an almost unbridgeable divide in the quality of the top teams as compared to the lower tier teams.

Over the last twenty years one of the proposed Super League teams won the English Premier League championship nineteen times. In the Spanish La Liga, it is eighteen out of twenty and in the Italian Serie A, it is nineteen out of twenty.

European soccer is almost no longer a competition at all. It is simply a long line of the wealthiest teams playing amongst themselves for a championship. In essence, it is already a Super League with all the other teams essentially being doormats for the top teams to crush week after week while getting a share of the revenue as payment for the shellacking.

Is it any wonder the top teams and individuals don’t want to share the wealth they generate?

Why are People Angry?

The Super League clubs are receiving general outrage from most fans as it is considered an enormous cash grab. That’s the absolute truth. Teams like Manchester United, Barcelona, and Juventus have fan bases around the world. The television contracts the league shares are almost universally driven by the most popular teams.

The fans of secondary teams in all the other leagues enjoy rivalries with the top teams. Games against Super Teams, in their enormous stadiums filled with rabid fans, generate most of the revenue for smaller franchises. The Super League teams plan on continuing playing their regular leagues but people see the writing on the wall.

Outraged by this blatant cash grab, the fans want to see the big teams punished for their behavior. Punishment such as banishment, championships rescinded, and fines.

What can be Done?

Is there a way to stop such new leagues? Is stopping them possible? There is already a strong movement to prevent the Super League. If things don’t change as far as revenue is concerned, I’m not sure how the current sports structure can hold together.

Teams from larger markets will generate more fans, more revenue, and more championships. Even in U.S. sports, where salary caps keep the competition relatively even, the vast majority of revenue comes from a few of the big city teams and everyone else is fighting for scraps.

The world is becoming more global and the idea of a Super League across countries and even continents is not going away. I get why people are angry, but I don’t see a viable way to stop the revenue generators from creating their own competitions. They just want to stop sharing their wealth with the smaller market teams.

I’m sure that’s not a conclusion most people will like.

Tom Liberman

The Nevers Baggage Free Review

The Nevers

An Objective Review of The Nevers

The Nevers is a new show on HBO and I’m right at the center of the demographic audience for whom it is intended. That’s a fancy way of saying I’m a nerd with money to spend.

Not long ago I wrote a review of All Creatures Great and Small and Miss Scarlett and in it I discussed the ideas of reviewing a show for its objective good or bad traits rather than any baggage associated with the show or those who are involved in it.

If ever a show needed an objective review, it’s The Nevers although I’m not going to go into reasons why it is necessary, trust me on the subject. Most review are going to be at least partially if not mostly influenced by said baggage. None of that here.

What is The Nevers?

The Nevers is a much-hyped show on HBO which follows the exploits of a group of late nineteenth century Londoners dealing with the results of an unexplained phenomenon that left a number of people touched, that is to say, with special abilities and traits.

It’s a nerdalicious show with all the elements that have intrigued me since the early days of such shows which arguably began with the underrated Misfits of Science. To say that I’m a fan is to damn with faint praise indeed. I eat this stuff by the gallon and beg for more.

The Review

Acting

The ensemble case, and I do mean ensemble, for the premier episode did an excellent job for the most part. It doesn’t hurt that lead actor Laura Donnelly is an athletic, dark-haired vixen with more than a touch of crazy in her eyes. I have a weakness for that type. Still, trying to ignore my rapidly beating heart, I thought she was believable in the lead role as Amalia True.

Ann Skelly as Penance Adair was also excellent as a sidekick. She brought a sweetness to the role that seemed to shine through. The secondary characters all performed well. Amy Manson seemed over-the-top as the murderous Maladie and I thought hers was the weakest performance although she had little to do so I’ll withhold judgment.

I have only one quibble with the acting and it’s probably more with the sound team and the writing than the actors. I struggled throughout to understand the dialog. Their accents along with a lot of mumbling made it really difficult to follow.

Characters

The characters were all quite interesting and the opening vignette where we met them was relatively nicely managed. It’s not easy to get in so many backstories so quickly and I felt somewhat shortchanged, particularly in regards to Amalia who attempts to commit suicide but why?

In addition, Amalia’s Touched power is precognition but she somehow has ninja skills and is a martial arts master. I’ll talk more about this in the writing section.

Likewise, the Beggar King was introduced almost as an afterthought and attempting to make him menacing with so little to do didn’t work well for me. Lord Massen was handled particularly well as the big baddy. They did a nice job of explaining, at least partially, his hatred of the Touched in that his daughter collapses after the inciting incident.

Mary Brighton’s introduction seemed very forced as well and I just didn’t care about her at all even in the climactic opera scene. I think the big problem was too many characters too quickly. There’s just not enough time to get to know or care about them.

All in all, I think the characters are interesting and promising.

Writing

In a nutshell, this is where things went wrong. The writing falls into the typical trap of action shows where entire scenes appear out of nowhere, make no logical sense to the plot, and take me out of the moment. By this I mean I leave my immersion and shake my head in astonishment at the stupidity.

Particularly egregious from my perspective is Amalia with martial skills. Why does she have them? It makes no sense. They really needed a third lead along with Penance who has such Touched abilities but I guess the cast was already far too large.

In addition, Amalia’s precognition is a real problem in that she sees the future, changes her behavior, and alters the timeline removing what she just witnessed. I kind of have this problem with precognition in whole. I’d like to see her Touched ability give her insight into what to do after the event happens, not prevent it entirely.

From a scene related perspective, when Amalia and Penance went to investigate a touched girl, Myrtle things made little sense. Suddenly, while downstairs with her parents, kidnappers arrive upstairs and an enormous chase scene ensues. The investigation was just an excuse to have the chase.

Now, I will give the writers credit, they tried to explain the coincidence of the kidnapping at that exact moment as a result of the Beggar King giving the same information to the group led by Maladie. Still, I’m not buying it.

The pivotal opera scene made no sense whatsoever, from beginning to end. Why were they there? Maladie was there apparently to capture a Touched girl but goes on a nonsensical rant on stage as a way to introduce her compatriots, I guess. I couldn’t follow her dialog at all. Why did Mary start to sing?

It was an enormous hodgepodge of a chocolate mess. Why didn’t security rush the stage immediately? How did Hugo Swann only notice the murderous rampage on set when Maladie rushed by with Mary? I mean, he was standing right there for the entire thing.

The weepy dialog between Amalia and Penance after the failed pursuit didn’t make any sense at all. The entire scene, arguably the most pivotal in the first episode was baffling.

The writing really killed my enjoyment of what otherwise seems like a promising show. Too bad.

Sets and Costumes

The sets are stunning and believable and the costume design work is absolutely first rate. No quibbles here.

Music

Music is generally a problem in shows of this nature as it grows overbearing and preachy. When should I be afraid? When should I sense romance? Just listen to the volume cranking up. I’m thrilled to say the music was used with a relatively deft touch. The action scenes weren’t drowned by the music.

I am happy with the relatively deft touch displayed by the sound team here although they must do something about making the dialog understandable.

Conclusion

I didn’t enjoy the show almost exclusively because of poor writing. Many scenes seemed to be setups for action sequences rather than a plot moving device. Everything else was worth watching and I’ll keep tuning in for the moment, but we’ll see.

Tom Liberman

SciManDan Trolls for Flat Earth and Finds Great Kids

Great Kids

What’s Going on?

I just watched a great YouTube video from SciManDan in which he chatted with random people via Omegle in the hopes of finding Flat Earth proponents. What he found instead was a bunch of great kids from all over the world and it was glorious.

SciManDan is a popular YouTube content creator who largely, but not solely, debunks Flat Earth videos. He was trying to disprove the general hypothesis among proponents that their numbers were growing exponentially. While this was successful, the lesson I took from it was something I’ve talked about before, the world is filled with an ever-growing number of great kids.

The Experiment

Omegle is a chat site in which you are randomly paired with strangers in order to partake in presumably interesting conversations. SciManDan went onto the site with a sign indicating he believed the earth is a sphere and wanted people to convince him otherwise.

He spent about fours trying to find anyone who espoused a position against a spherical earth and failed. That’s good news in itself but not really the point of my blog. What I’d like to discuss is the reaction of many of the predominantly young people he encountered on his mission.

The Great Kids of the World

For the most part the young people he encountered all pretty much immediately said the world was, in fact, a globe and they didn’t disagree with his position.

Several of them thought for a moment, declared the Earth is a sphere, but then tried to come up with arguments to convince SciManDan. I found this quite impressive. The willingness to take up a position with which you disagree is a sign of an agile and inquiring mind. The age of many of the young people who proved ready and able to take on this challenge was quite a bit younger than most of the Flat Earth proponents I’ve seen on SciManDan’s channel.

The ethnicities and accents of the various young people he spoke with indicated a fairly broad cross-section of the world.

Many of the youngsters asked pertinent questions about what he was doing. Sure, some were pretty goofy and at least one was stoned off his gourd, but they wanted to know what he was doing. They took the time to look him up on YouTube. One of them even had a sibling fan of SciManDan resulting in a bit of shock and awe that I enjoyed watching.

By and large they wished him well and told him to keep fighting the good fight.

By golly, by George, by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the great kids of the internet with inquisitive minds who are happy to talk with or type to people of all nationalities really gives me tremendous expectations for the future.

Conclusion

Today’s great kids grew up with the internet and largely seem to understand we are not separated by gender, race, religion, sexuality, nationality, and all the other false divisions foisted on us by those in power who wish to stay there.

Kids get it and this boomer is confident the world will soon be in better hands. Frankly, it can’t come soon enough.

Tom Liberman

Your Desire for Beer Defines you

Desire for Beer

The Need

You have a desire for beer. That’s it, that’s the focus of this blog. Well, it’s a bit more than that, but I will explain. It’s what you do after you realize your desire for beer that brings us together today. It’s how you go about getting the beer that defines you.

We all have a desire for beer in one manner or another but how to you get to the point where a mug or bottle filled with the elixir arrives in front of you?

The Types of Desire for Beer

Needs an Excuse

Some of you cannot indulge yourself with the beverage in question without knowing others will join you. You make inquiries. Does anyone want a beer with dinner tonight? Yo, Tommy Boy, do you want a beer with dinner tonight, we’re having brats and burgers. If you’re having one maybe I’ll have one too.

What am I supposed to say? Nah, I’m bloated today, sorry. I know you want a beer; you’re not fooling anyone. If I refuse your offer then I’m punishing you, which I can’t do, I’m a nice guy. Well, I at least like to pretend I’m nice guy. Sure, I’ll have one, how about you?

The Helper

Hey, Tom, I’m getting a beer, can I get one for you? You can’t indulge in your desire for beer without bringing me into the equation. What do I have to do with it? What am I supposed to say now? You waited until the strategic moment my glass was empty just so you could ask me and prove how damn polite you are.

Again, my options are limited. I can tell you no but, frankly, I kind of do want a beer so that’s not happening. Ya, I’d love a beer, thanks. You’re a superior human, you win.

The Lazy Drinker

You wait until I get up to get a beer before you utter the words we all know are coming. Hey, Tom, as long as you’re up ….

What am I supposed to do, keep walking and pretend I didn’t hear you? Because that’s what I want to do, trust me, that’s what we all want to do. Then I’m the bad guy and you’re the victim. Get your own damn beer seems like a reasonable response but the reality is that we can’t say that.

Sure, what do you want, another one of those dirty dish-water things or a manly stout?

The Anti-social Jerk

The desire for beer comes over you and you stand up, notifying no one, saying nothing, all Gregory Peck, walk boldly to the cooler, grab yourself a bottle, crack it open, optionally pour it into a glass, and return to your seat without a word.

Ever think someone else was thirsty you ungrateful bastard? Have you ever consider the needs of anyone else or are you just a selfish prick?

Conclusion

In conclusion, we all want a beer but the only way to get one is to be a jerk. Life ain’t fair sometimes. So, anyone want a cold one?

Which Type of Beer Drinker are you?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Qualifying Mayhem in the Bullet Chess Championship

Bullet Chess Championship

What is a Qualifier?

What does the word qualify mean to you? That’s a question of great importance in regards to the 2021 Bullet Chess Championship. In the tournament a number of players compete to play for $25,000 in prize money. This group of competitors is broken into two parts.

One group, made up of those who are considered the best bullet chess players in the world, are prequalified into the Bullet Chess Championship finals.

The rest of the players are required to enter four qualifier events. In each of these, the top four players of a 20 round Swiss tournament advance to a knockout stage with the eventual winner gaining qualification for the Bullet Chess Championship.

That all makes a lot of sense. You don’t want the best players in the world knocked out before the final which is streamed on various outlets including Twitch. They are the personalities who draw the viewers.

So, that leads us to our question. What does it mean to qualify for a tournament? You’re probably wondering why I’m even asking this apparently simple question. I ask because the Bullet Chess Championship organizers apparently don’t know the answer. Read on.

Prequalified Players Enter the Qualifier

Here’s where the tournament organizers made what I consider to be an egregious error. The first group, those already with a place in the final tournament, played in the qualifying tournaments.

What? You rightly exclaim. That makes no sense. What if they win? Good question. During the first two qualifiers none of the exempted players made it into the top four of the Swiss so it was a moot point. However, in the third qualifier a fellow named Hikaru Nakamura, who is widely considered the best or near best bullet chess player in the world, won. As might be expected.

I assumed if a prequalified player made it into the top four, the next best player moves forward. Nope, the prequalified Nakamura went into the knockout and defeated both his opponents. The final was pointless. Whoever played Nakamura qualified because Nakamura is already qualified. If that sentence makes sense.

Why I think it is Horribly Wrong

In my opinion there is no way the prequalified players should play in a qualifier. It’s right there, in the word. Such players have an enormous advantage in that they don’t have any pressure on them. In addition, every game such a player wins or loses in the Swiss affects who makes it to the final four.

In the knockout stage it’s the same thing. No pressure, if they win in the semi-final then another player, desperately trying to qualify, is knocked out and the player who wins the other semi-final is automatically qualified for the finals even if they lose.

Conclusion

What moron thought this was a good idea, let alone a fair one? I’m a chess fan and I’m triggered!

Should Prequalified Players play in the Qualifier?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

The Death of Satire because People be Dumb

Death of Satire

Is Satire Really Dead or Am I Making a Point

I hereby declare the Death of Satire on this day of March 26, 2021. Satire is great and it’s not really going away, it hasn’t died, but it’s becoming all but impossible to differentiate between satire and something truly idiotic that a group of people, sometimes a large group, believes.

I’ve written a number of blogs on the lack of critical thinking ability but the problem seems to have reached a point where it’s impossible to tell if someone is just really stupid or trying to use satire. If there is no substantive difference between reality and satire, then, to some degree it is the death of satire.

The point came home to me when I saw video produced by The Onion some eleven years ago that was biting and hilarious. One of the people commenting noted the current content isn’t as good. Someone else replied the competition with Fake News was so steep it became impossible to write good satire.

Um, yeah, valid.

How did We Get Here?

Our erstwhile leaders; be they local, state or national in stature, seem to want to lay the blame at the feet of social media and various extremely unreliable news sources. I am not so inclined to blame the death of satire on such organizations. I think the problem lies in the mirror. People be dumb.

The confidence trickster relies on the fact people believe what they want to believe, rather than what the facts tell them, in order to take money from their victims.

My opinion is the underlying problem is our personal identity has become too closely aligned with a variety of issues. If I’m of one particular religion, political party, gender, sexual orientation, skin color, or whatever, I’m unwilling to examine a situation with critical thinking.

It’s not that people haven’t always lacked critical thinking skills, it’s that a certain percentage of our society now lacks them, and I’m convinced that number is reaching a critically dangerous point. If enough people simply refuse to look at facts and come to rational conclusions, decisions are going to be flawed; which leads to enormous difficulties.

We need look no further than the current pandemic to see people on both sides of the issue completely abdicating reason in order to push an agenda.

How do We Fix it?

I love satire and I want a world filled with it. The fact of the death of satire makes me sad and I’d like to get about fixing it. The problem is there is no easy solution. If people refuse to think critically then satire must continue to slowly lose out to its unyielding competition: stupidity.

I say there is no easy solution and that is accurate, but the concept is quite simple. Teach critical thinking skills starting from early childhood. Create a generation of people who look at facts and make decisions not on what they want to be true, but what is true.

Yeah, good luck with that, Tommy Boy. I hear you.

Tom Liberman

Conservation in Children Leads to Brawl Among Adults

Conservation

The Video

I watched a fascinating YouTube video on the psychological phenomenon of Conservation in developmental stages of a child. As I scrolled down the comment section there immediately occurred a clear and virulent divide among those who watched.

This divide intrigues me. I enjoy dissecting the machinations of the human mind and the study itself was interesting but the rancor displayed in the comment section, by the various sides, is what I’d like to talk about today.

What is Conservation?

The theory, proposed by Jean Paiget, suggests when presented with various tests of liquid, numerical information, solids, and weights; children of a certain age are able to answer two questions correctly while younger children are generally only able to appropriately answer the first.

I won’t go into great detail but the experiment basically follows a simple outline that involves two equal things or groups being presented side by side and then again with their form changed in full site of the child. Younger children answer the first group as the same but the second group as different. This seems to indicate a lack of understanding the liquid when poured into a taller but narrower glass is still the same amount of liquid despite appearing taller.

The Comments

The comments broke down into three categories. One group of people saw the experiments and were convinced younger children seem to have trouble with the concept of conservation.

The second group of people thought subtle nuances from the experiment encouraged the child to answer one way or the other. Or that the children simply did not understand the concepts of more, less, and the same.

The third group thought it was cruel of the experimenter to present this as evidence for the stupidity of the child.

All three groups tried to explain why they were right and things degenerated, as comment sections often do, into personal insults and demands for sources. There was various forms of yelling at the stupidity of anyone who did not agree with the commenter.

I don’t think anyone’s opinion changed.

What did I Learn from all of this?

First off, let me say the idea of Conservation makes sense to me. I believe younger children have difficulty understanding flattened playdough has less volume than a ball of playdough. I think Conservation is real and also understand it is not done to judge the child but to understand the development of cognitive thinking in humans.

I’m also of the opinion I’m never going to make people who disagree change their mind with a comment or a simple blog post. Others are going to remain convinced their opinion is correct and there is little I can do about that.

So, should I stop writing novels, this blog? Should I stop commenting on posts? Will I stop trying to convince people my political and ideological philosophy is best for the United States and the world? Should I shrug my shoulders and give up on humanity?

The answer is, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, no. It’s really not up to me to decide how you think, even if you are being stupid. Your stupidity is your own to have and if you think something ludicrous is true; I’m going to explain why you’re wrong but having done so, it’s all on you. My responsibility is over.

In short, prepare yourself for more blogs, more novels, and more smug self-righteousness.

Tom Liberman

Why the Simp Shamer is Worse than the Simp

Simp Shamer

What is a Simp Shamer and a Simp?

A Simp is someone who donates money or other gratuities to an entertainer on streaming services like Twitch. The general term of Simp indicates a male who donates to the stream of an attractive female who then says their username in an affectionate way.

The term has significant negative connotations; so much so that Twitch has banned its use in chat. People who laugh at and otherwise denigrate so-called Simps are to be found on virtually every stream but I find a Simp Shamer to be far viler than those who donate the money.

A Simp Shamer is someone who denigrates the Simps at every opportunity, apparently in order to show the world how much better a person are they.

Why is a Simp Shamer such a Douche?

The problem for me is the so-called Simp is donating money of their own free will. It is certain the often-attractive female streamer is using her sex appeal to illicit such donations but a lot of people donate to streams on Twitch.

People donate to chess streams, game streams, music stream, ASMR streams, and plenty of others. Yet the derogatory term seems to only apply to men donating to the streams of attractive women. Listen, I spend money on role-playing games, my gym membership, chess site memberships, and plenty of other things that others certainly would not spend their money upon. Good for them, spend your money on the things you enjoy.

The Simp Shamer goes onto streams essentially to pat themselves on the back for being better than the Simp. The reality is they are worse, far worse in my opinion. Why do you care how other people spend their money? Why do you think your stupid hobbies are somehow better than mine? What weakness in your own character makes you have to shame others to make yourself feel better?

You’re a douche, Simp Shamer. Let me say that I’ve never donated to the stream of an ASMR artist but who cares? Maybe someday I will. They work hard, I enjoy their efforts. It’s like any other voluntary expenditure and completely my decision to make.

Conclusion

What is it with our willingness to negatively judge other people in this world for the things they enjoy? Why do so many of you derive your sense of personal worth from shaming others?

Shut your yap, Simp Shamer. Mind your business. There’s nothing wrong with the Simp, there is something fundamentally wrong with you.

Tom Liberman

Meghan Markle and Donald Trump Two Peas in a Pod

Meghan Markle and Donald Trump

Narcissistic Personalities

In an attempt to anger the entirety of the human race I thought I’d write about how Meghan Markle and Donald Trump are pretty much the same person. It appears to me they clearly share a few traits; namely a long-term pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive craving for admiration, and struggles with empathy.

It’s called a narcissistic personality and the way both of them endlessly center their woes on the perceived behavior of others and refuse to accept any personal responsibility for the situations they find themselves in does not sit well with me.

Why You Support One and Not the Other

More to the point of this blog are the people who choose to support Meghan Markle and Donald Trump. They tend to be on the opposite end of the political spectrum. This paradox may surprise you but it does not come as any shock to me.

You see, politics don’t matter when it comes to people of this nature. They exist in a simple transactional environment where the only thing you are to them is a means to an end. Nothing political, ideological, moral, or ethical binds them from their goal of using you to get what they want. And, of course, you oblige.

We all have experience with this sort of person. You run into them after a long absence at some place you frequent. They tell you how great you look, laugh at your wonderful jokes; then they get to the point. What can you do for them? The meeting was no accident.

Meghan Markle used Piers Morgan to get into a party where she targeted Prince Harry, then she had no more need of Morgan so she dumped him. Donald Trump flailed around various political ideologies until he found a Republican base willing to listen to his completely disingenuous ramblings on immigration. When he no longer needs them, he dumps them. Meghan Markle and Donald Trump are largely one and the same.

Enlightened Self-Interest

I thought this might be a useful time to speak briefly on the concept of Enlightened Self-Interest because you might mistake the narcissism of Meghan Markle and Donald Trump for it. Nope. They tend to destroy all they touch in their mindless grasping for the glittery trinket in front of their face.

Someone who act to further the interests of others, or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong, ultimately serve their own self-interest. That’s enlightened self-interest.

Narcissists are Sometimes Right

It’s also important to understand that Meghan Markle and Donald Trump sometimes have good points. They aren’t wrong all the time and just because they are selfish, transactional people doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to their legitimate grievances.

I live in the real world and I’m quite certain Meghan Markle was subject to racist abuse and that Donald Trump was occasionally harassed not for his policies but simply because of his name. When bad things happen to bad people, we should call it out. That doesn’t make the narcissist less self-centered, it just makes us a better person.

Conclusion

When it comes to Meghan Markle and Donald Trump it is likely you hate one and support the other. If you dislike them both you are in the minority but, if it’s any comfort, you have my support.

Tom Liberman

Kristi Noem and Transgender Girls Government Overreach

Transgender Girls

The Situation

The governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem, delightedly announced she eagerly anticipated signing a ban on transgender girls playing sports on female restricted teams. For those of you eagerly anticipating a defense of transgender girls’ right to play sports, you should start looking elsewhere. This isn’t a defense of transgender girls but an attack on government overreach.

The problem is the governor of South Dakota is of the opinion that she can force her will upon her constituents in a matter far outside the purview of her office. Why would the state government think they can tell local school districts who can and cannot play on their sports teams? That’s the problem and it’s pandemic among both Republican and Democratic legislatures.

Why It’s Wrong

Trying to legislate who can play on a sports team from the governor’s mansion tramples on the rights of the people in local districts. You must remember, if you support Governor Noem and this law then you must also support the governor of another state who signs legislation stating transgender girls must be allowed to play on the local sports team. If you cede such power to the governor then you deserve a totalitarian state that dictates virtually everything to you, because they think it’s better for you. That they know better how you should lead your life.

This is clearly the sort of situation that must be handled at a local level. If one district wants to allow transgender girls to play on their sports team, as decided by the school board members who were elected by the people of that district, then that is exactly what they should do. If the school board members in another district argue against allowing transgender girls to play then that is likewise perfectly reasonable.

When another school district decides they would rather forfeit a game than play against a school that either allows or disallows such a player, then that’s their business as well.

If the parent of a student disqualified doesn’t like it, they can attempt to sway the constituents of their district. If the parents of a student playing against such an athlete doesn’t like it, they can attempt to sway the constituents in a similar manner.

That’s the way government should work. It shouldn’t be the party in power at a federal or state level simply issuing decrees to the people of their state about everything they get a hair up their ass about. If you’ll pardon my strong language.

Conclusion

I don’t think my conclusion will surprise anyone. Governor Noem and those who voted for this legislation are engaged in enormous government overreach. It’s clearly not a matter for government to be involved in, it’s something for every school district to decide for themselves.

When you permit government overreach with which you agree, you clearly allow government overreach on topics you oppose and which you will certainly start whining about on social media.

Tom Liberman

Wind Power in the United States and China

Wind power

Overview

The recent freeze in Texas, a law in Missouri, and wind power installations in China give me an opportunity to write a blog. Given such a chance I’m not exactly the sort inclined to turn it down.

Basically, wind power in the United States is considered a Green Agenda and largely, although certainly not completely, associated with the Democratic party. The recent freeze in Texas caused enormous power shortages and Republican politicians are using this talking point to attack wind power in general. In Texas the governor blamed frozen wind turbines and now in my beloved home state of Missouri the Republican led legislature has disallowed eminent domain to install wind power lines. Meanwhile, in China they are being installed in ever greater number and soon they will lead the world in wind power.

The Issues

Renewable energy is cleaner than fossil fuels and causes far less, although some, environmental harm. Of this there is no question. Soon wind power and other renewables will provide cheaper power to the communities that avail themselves of its use. There is some debate about this although the trend of ever cheaper wind power is difficult, but not impossible, to ignore.

Because the United States is currently embroiled in a political situation in which what is best for the country is secondary to getting elected, wind power is in the crosshairs. It’s relatively interesting because Texas is one of the leading wind power producing states and when the governor attacked that revenue source, he rather quickly walked back his statements, likely because it is generating enormous profits for powerful players in the state.

However, walking back statements can’t undo harm in our current political environment. It’s clear to me Republicans have largely decided that wind power is good election fodder and bashing it will not stop any time soon.

Wind power installations in the United States have crawled almost to a complete halt in large part because of Trump administration policies favoring coal and gas.

Missouri Law

The Missouri law is a case in point about politicizing such things. I agree eminent domain should be used sparingly and I’m not opposed to the law enacted by the legislature banning its use in bringing wind power to the state.

There are no such laws prohibiting such use for any other energy source. The Keystone Pipeline was largely built using eminent domain to steal farmer’s land in Nebraska, North and South Dakota. Likewise, eminent domain was used to steal the land being used by build a border wall in Texas and other states.

This is a clear example of politicians playing favorites for one industry or one company and subverting capitalism.

Likely Results

The result of our political climate in the United States is clear. Wind power installations will be curtailed and delayed. Meanwhile in Europe and China such installations are moving ahead with great rapidity. This will inevitably put the United States behind in power generation and the costs associated with it.

If you were going to build a large factory and the energy costs in one country were significantly cheaper there, it must play a role in your decision. If the citizens of the region where it was to be built didn’t fight it for environmental reasons, thus saving you court costs and headaches, it seems clear you would build your factory in that country.

Conclusion

The reality of the situation is wind power should survive on its own merits. I’m opposed to the government favoring one form of power generation over another because it is simple a subversion of capitalism. It’s a sad day when China appears to adhere to the capitalistic mantra with far greater fervor than the United States. When the people of the United States want government agencies to determine which business succeeds rather than natural economic forces.

Tom Liberman

Lying About the Texas Power Crisis

Texas Power Crisis

The Question

The Texas Power Crisis of 2021 has engendered a lot of media attention in the last weeks but what I’d like to address is the lying associated with the crisis. Why are people failing to be honest about the causes of the Texas Power Crisis and what are the long-term impacts of such lies?

The Facts

The Governor of Texas, Greg Abbot, attributed the Texas Power Crisis to the freezing of wind turbines and he was followed largely by Republicans on both a state and national level.

Texas is a big wind power state for the simple reason there is a lot of open space but even at that, wind power only accounts for about 23% of the state’s total power output. When the cold weather swept down into the south many of the wind turbines froze but the primary cause of the power crisis was the loss of natural gas production.

Those in charge of energy production in Texas ignored warnings after a similar crisis called the Groundhog Day Blizzard back in 2011. They chose to hope that such a cold weather crisis would not happen again and are now reaping the consequences of that choice.

Why did Governor Abbot and his fellow Republicans lie about the main cause of the problem? The answer is quite simple, for political gain. Green Energy is largely considered a talking point of the Democratic Party and by blaming the wind turbines for the crisis, Abbot hopes to convince people that Democrats are to blame and, obviously, to vote for Republicans.

Not long ago, I wrote about how the Covid-19 crisis engendered similar lies along an anti-science line. I’ve also written about how green energy will supplant fossil fuels and why that is a good thing for all of us. I’ve also delved into the false belief of a Flat Earth and I think these subjects dovetail nicely with the Texas Power Crisis.

The point is anti-science rhetoric causes people not to trust science. It’s certainly true many people don’t subscribe to the lies Governor Abbot peddled about the Texas Power Crisis and most people believe that we live on a sphere. That being said, every time someone in authority lies to us, there are going to be people who believe those lies and make decisions about their life based on those falsehoods.

That’s the danger of lying in this manner and we have to gauge the benefits against those risks. Is the perceived benefit of political gain for one political party worth the potential losses that will certainly be sustained by a country that refuses to follow science and begins to fall behind the rest of the world in many ways?

I don’t doubt for a moment Governor Abbott and those like him think the risk is well-worth it. They believe if they come completely into power, they’ll be able to make the world a better place. They believe the ends justify the means and they are not alone. There are opportunists in every party and my own Libertarians fall into the same trap. You should read some of the crypto-currency nonsense floating around out there. And I’m a believer in the eventual rise of said monetary system.

In any case, that’s the question each one of us has to face. Are the lies worth it? Will enough people believe the lies to elect my politicians and few enough to avoid catastrophe for the United States?

Conclusion

My answer is, of course, tell the truth no matter where it leads. If I make a mistake, if my actions are responsible for the negative outcome; then I must show personal responsibility. I understand the consequences to an entire nation that devalues truth and science. I see the writing on the wall. I’m not willing to sacrifice my integrity for a few votes. Your opinion may differ.

Tom Liberman

All Creatures Great and Small versus Miss Scarlet

All Creatures Great and Small

The PBS shows All Creatures Great and Small and Miss Scarlet wrapped up this weekend and their run gives me a chance to speak on their relative merits. I think a fair analysis of the two shows is in order because Miss Scarlet clearly has a Woke Agenda while All Creatures Great and Small displays many of the themes associated with that movement but with a significantly gentler touch.

The problem is that Miss Scarlet isn’t very good, in fact I’d argue it’s awful, while All Creatures Great and Small is rather a delight. Because of the Woke Agenda displayed by Miss Scarlet I suspect many detractors will lay blame on this theme while apologists will defend the show’s shortcomings as actual strengths.

I’d like to take a more objective look at the two shows and what makes All Creatures Great and Small what I would call good and Miss Scarlet bad. I’ve spoken of subjective and objective in other places so I won’t go deeply into them here.

What makes a show objectively good? Characters, cinematography, plot, theme, acting, directing, the ending, and other elements; not our subjective desires for a show to be good or bad.

The characters in Miss Scarlet are strikingly one dimensional. We know little about the titular character other than she was raised by a father and wants to be a detective. We know even less about The Duke, her love interest. Meanwhile, James, Tristan, Siegfried, Helen, and even the minor characters of Hugh, Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Pumphrey, and a host of others are more fleshed out than the main characters of Miss Scarlet. I have more empathy for the farmers whose cow is sick than I do for Miss Scarlet. One farmer stays up all night rubbing salve on his sick charge and that tells me more about him and his wife, who never lets James leave without a meat pie or two, than I know about anyone in Miss Scarlet. The most developed characters in Miss Scarlet are her patron and Moses, two side characters. Sadly, the director apparently chose to have Moses speak with such a heavy Jamaican accent I often don’t know what he is saying.

The chemistry between the Miss Scarlet and the Duke is akin to Anakin and Leah if you’ll permit me a Star Wars reference. I’m mystified as to why anyone would be attracted to either of them other than their appearance. Meanwhile the tension between James and Helen is palpable from the start. They care about the same things, they ask one another questions, they show interest in each other’s lives, if they bicker it’s just a good-natured jibe here or there, not a constant bombardment of quips designed to show us how clever is the writer. Even Hugh, the romantic rival, is portrayed as a real human being who cares deeply about Helen.

The acting in Miss Scarlet is atrocious. Both main actors display no range of emotion and their constant flirt/bickering takes the tension out of every scene that is designed to be tense. Someone is pointing a gun at them, time to throw quips at each other and grin condescendingly. Meanwhile I can’t think of a bad performance in All Creatures Great and Small. Tristan starts out as an obnoxious, entitled, moron, and by the end he is a lovable, if flawed, fellow. The minor characters are believable and add to the show at every step.

The music in Miss Scarlet is overbearing and attempts to force us into emotions. It’s time for action, time for fear, time for joy. It’s loud and obtrusive. I barely notice the music in All Creatures Great and Small. It is subtle and enhances a scene rather than dominating it.

The cinematography in Miss Scarlet is boringly repetitive. Almost every shot in the entire series is a front on close-up of a character as she or he speak. Not to mention the bleak, dark, washed out background which are clearly designed to contrasts with what must be the focus of our attention, the vivid and bright Miss Scarlet. The vibrant country life depicted in All Creatures Great and Small is colorful and stunning although some scenes are dark and gray as appropriate. It is never dull, predictable sameness. Just look at the images I picked for this blog. One is sterile and one is filled with life.

The sets in Miss Scarlet are stark and tell us little about the inhabitants. There are few nick-nacks on shelves, few paintings on the walls, few personal items scattered about. Even Miss Scarlet’s office has barely a picture of the father who supposedly so influenced her. Meanwhile the sets of All Creatures are filled with personal objects from the opulence of Mrs. Pumphrey’s house to the peeling wallpaper in the home of the interracial couple whose dog is having trouble with her puppies. I believe real people live here, people with lives outside of the shot required for the show.

The story in Miss Scarlet makes little sense and the finale was so convoluted I completely lost track of what was happening. It was as if multiple pertinent scenes were left on the cutting room floor. As an example, Miss Scarlet has been put in a cell for her protection, although it’s not clear why the villain wants to harm her, and suddenly, she is in the detective’s office working on solving the case.

The story in All Creatures Great and Small certainly takes liberties with reality in order to further the plot but largely remains believable. I was regularly unsure of what would happen next. Would Helen go through with the marriage, would James turn around, would the cow die? I didn’t know and I was invested in finding out.

The ultimate villain in Miss Scarlet is sprung on us at the last second and I’m not even sure why or how he managed it all. So much was unexplained I was left utterly baffled and dissatisfied. The ending in All Creatures Great and Small was bittersweet and totally in line with all the events that happened before it. I was left satisfied even though there was no final resolution.

In an English period piece, the clothing and scenery is almost always fantastic but in Miss Scarlet the tone was dark, darker, darkest with little of London on display. The clothes, you ask? Miss Scarlet and the Duke are always impeccably dressed in clothes that look like they just came from the tailor, this despite having been locked in a dirty cell all night or having been investigating in filthy brothels for hours. Speaking of brothels, I was instantly turned off to Miss Scarlet when she threatened to burn down the brothel and kill dozens of working girls and patrons because Moses stole her purse. I mean, she’s vile and selfish, she doesn’t think about others. Why would I like her?

Meanwhile the wardrobes in All Creatures Great and Small looked like clothes people actually wore all day. People got dressed up for fancy events but it was clear their fineries were not new from the tailor. Shirts look rumpled and lived in. Everything looked alive and real, as if these were real people from real life who happened to come across the camera that day.

I’ve gone on too long. You can certainly subjectively like Miss Scarlet and the Duke and subjectively dislike All Creatures Great and Small. That’s your decision to make. However, an objective look at the elements of both shows comes to but a single conclusion.

Tom Liberman

The Bleating of a Conservative about Taxes Funding Our Communities

Taxes Funding Our Communities

The other day on Social Media one of my self-proclaimed Conservative friends posted a missive about taxes funding our communities. After I cleaned the vomit from my mouth, I decided to write an article about why this is utter insanity rather than berate said bleating Republican in a scathing reply.

You see, loyal readers, my social media friend can certainly call himself a Conservative but his attitude about taxes funding our communities shows his true colors as nothing more than an odious Republican who long ago gave up on all but the word Conservative.

The post in question was in regards to a mall that had long ago lost most of their stores through natural economic forces, a process I discuss in other blogs. The space was being used as a sporting venue for citizens to play games. My self-proclaimed Conservative friend wrote: It is a frequent re-purpose but sad for the economy. The drop in property value, lower property taxes, and less sales taxes to fund our communities.

The mere idea that it should be taxes funding our communities, let alone the delusion they are actually funding our communities is the worst sort of liberalism. Taxes do not fund our communities. They are collected by the government in order to provide services for the citizens. The community funds the government not the other way around.

Government does not build the roads. Roads, pipes, electric lines, green spaces, security, and fire protection is built because of our needs. Yes, the government uses funds collected through taxes to pay construction companies, police officers, and others but that is not funding our communities that is merely streamlining from a central point.

Let me illustrate with the example of the original social media post. My self-proclaimed conservative friend laments the loss of tax revenue from giant malls that no one has an interest in going to anymore. Doesn’t that say it all. Darn it, I can’t steal your money to prop up a business endeavor no one wants while paying myself a hefty salary to do so. Why should we pay taxes for utilities, roads, parking lots, emergency services, and a myriad of other things that go to a place no one uses anymore? Hint, we shouldn’t.

That’s the misguided role of government in a declining nation. To prop itself up with money stolen from citizens for things they don’t even want and certainly don’t need.

We want roads that go places useful to us. When a sales tax isn’t collected because no one is going to the store, that’s not a bad thing. That’s not a loss to the community. It’s a natural economic impact and the idea government is responsible for that store in the first place is misguided at the least. We were responsible for the store’s existence and now we don’t need it anymore. Good riddance.

It’s ass-backwards what my so-called Conservative friend advocates. It is not taxes funding our communities. It is our communities funding government and we should only fund what we need, not its bloated and endlessly empty belly.

Tom Liberman

Cancel Culture Collides with Gina Carano

Cancel Culture

Oh what a tangled Cancel Culture we weave when we try to cancel a person on the opposite side of the debate. The Cancel Culture insanity is in full view in the Gina Carano situation which I will avoid detailing because in the immortal words of Tripper; It just doesn’t matter.

Carano was fired from her show because the producers didn’t like something she said. Those who like what she said now want to cancel Disney+.

But, but, but they started it! Remember Dixie Chicks? No, no, it didn’t really start until Confederate Statues! You’re the one trying to cancel me! No, I’m not! You’re trying to cancel me!

Let me be clear. I hate each and every one of you in my own, special, Libertarian way. You’re all part of the Cancel Culture and the more rage you toss at the other side, the more you reveal your own fervor in that regard. You love the Cancel Culture. You adore it. You worship it. You eagerly embrace it when the person being canceled is on the other side of the political spectrum. Oh, how you wail and weep against it when someone with your point of view is being canceled.

First off, you miserable cretins, no one is being canceled. No one! Decisions in regards to a statue or an actor are being made. The free market is determining what networks survive.

Everyone is perfectly capable of deciding if they want to watch the Mandalorian for themselves. It becomes Cancel Culture when you try to orchestrate a movement against an actor on the show or the network that produces the show. You are the Cancel Culture, if you weren’t, you’d stop watching the Mandalorian or cancel your Disney+ without mouthing off about it all over Social Media in a desperate attempt to get more views and destroy those with whom you disagree.

Did I mention I hate you all? Because if I haven’t, I’d like to reiterate it here. I’m quite clear about my feelings on this subject. However, please continue to go about your business canceling everyone. That’s your own prerogative. I’ll choose if I want to continue to follow your social media or relegate you to the ignore bin, most of you are there already, because, I hate you. In case there is some confusion in that regard.

Now, I’m going to watch some chess.

Tom Liberman

The National Anthem before Sporting Events

National Anthem

The Dallas Mavericks haven’t been playing the National Anthem at the start of their games this season and apparently no one even noticed until recently but now, of course, it’s a big deal. The question I ask is why do we play the song in the first place? What sort of failed patriots are we that we need to play it to affirm our patriotism?

I’ve always thought it was pretty silly to play the awful song anyway. Not horrible in its symbology but in the actual song. It’s awful. Singing it is difficult. It’s all over the place without a chorus. I mean, seriously, listen to Oh, Canada sometime to hear a decent anthem. I digress.

When did we start playing the National Anthem before sporting events? Why did we start doing it? What does it have to do with my beloved St. Louis Cardinal playing the hated Chicago Cubs?

The Star-Spangled Banner didn’t even become our National Anthem until 1931. It all started back in 1918 when it was played at the World Series and people seemed to like it. Keep in mind, it was just a song then, not any national symbol of pride.

It didn’t really start as a tradition before games until after World War II when the NFL commissioner ordered it played at the start of games and other sports soon followed.

Now, don’t get me wrong. If team ownership wants to play the National Anthem before a game, more power to them. Go right ahead. It’s your team, play whatever song you want as far as I’m concerned. If you don’t want to go to games because they aren’t playing the anthem, that’s your business. You know you don’t listen to the song when you’re at home watching, you take a pee break.

Of course, Texas legislators want to remove tax breaks to American Airlines, owned by Mark Cuban who also owns the Mavericks. They think they get to tell private companies how to run their business all the way down to the song played before games. If that’s not government involvement in private business then I don’t know what is. Don’t get me started on government overreach.

The willingness of government and the average person to force their traditions onto others is growing ever more disturbing in this country supposedly founded on freedom.

I digress again. Personally, I’d like to see a song relevant to the team in question if anything at all. I just don’t think a sporting venue a particularly pertinent place to play patriotic songs. I’m sure many disagree.

Tom Liberman

Batwoman Criticism Legitimate or anti-Woke Propaganda?

Batwoman

The second season of Batwoman on The CW is getting universally bad reviews for any number of reasons but is any of it simply anti-Woke backlash? What makes this interesting for me is that I’m just about ready to write a negative review about Miss Scarlett and the Duke which also includes a Woke objective.

This is a real problem when a television show or movie is objectively bad and is also being used as a platform for social issues. When someone like me; as white, male, and privileged as you can find in the world, writes negative thoughts about Miss Scarlett there often follows accusations of being hostile toward such social issues.

When someone like HeelvsBabyface, Nerdrotic, or TheCriticalDrinker makes similar complaints about Batwoman, they sometimes come across as anti-Woke rather than simply critical of the show in question. The show has numerous problems but the focus of the criticisms from people often is the subversion of good writing and logical plotlines in order to present Woke issues. The fact the producers of some of these show state quite clearly this is their objective muddies the water further.

The reviewers I’ve listed above are rather caustic in their tone and brutal in their assessments and do come across, fairly or unfairly, as anti-Woke. Ryan George of Pitch Meeting fame is far gentler in his criticism and includes a great deal of humor which makes him appear less negative.

This all leads to the answer of my question if the criticism of Batwoman is legitimate or simply the raving of anti-Woke activists. It’s both and it’s neither. Some of the criticism is certainly coming from an anti-Woke bias while a great deal of the criticism is legitimate and concerns other problems with the shows in question. Who gets to decide which is which? You. That’s the point here.

There is no question that raging Incel, anti-Woke nut jobs look to certain videos as validation for their misogynistic and misguided hatred. There is also no debate that some of the people who watch these reviews are not so inclined.

If a reviewer has a caustic and negative style that’s their business. Perhaps they do have an anti-Woke bias against Batwoman or perhaps they just find the show intolerably bad regardless of its Woke agenda. You get to watch the reviewer you want to watch and if you think they are overtly anti-Woke then stop watching. If you like the reviews, continue to watch.

I like to consider myself Woke and my novels address some of those self-same issues although I try to put logic, plot, character arc, and general theme above those ideologies. I also think my upcoming negative review of Miss Scarlett is not based on the Woke aspect of the show but other elements that are sorely lacking.

The question of Anti-Woke or legitimate review is largely for you to decide for yourself. I can’t decide for you, nor do I want to make such an attempt.

Tom Liberman