Lee Kaplan Case and Libertarians

Posted on by

lee kaplanLee Kaplan, Daniel Stoltzfus, and Savilla Stoltzfus were recently found guilty of horrific crimes. The case is quite interesting from a Libertarian perspective because all the criminals and victims don’t think anything illegal happened. They are all happy with events as they transpired.

The case is centered around the fact Kaplan helped the Stolzfus family financially and they in turn handed seven of their daughters over to him. He began sexually molesting the girls at least from the time they were only seven years old. The mother lived with Kaplan and helped deliver her own granddaughters. In testimony, the accused and their victims argue they did nothing wrong. The parents contend they have the right to hand over the children and the girls imagine they love Kaplan and he loves them in return.

What happened is vile and criminal. Just because the victim of a crime doesn’t realize she or he is a victim doesn’t mean no crime occurred. This seems to be at odds with the general Libertarian mantra that victimless crimes are not crimes at all. Just people engaging in behavior they desire. Libertarians certainly argue this case for the many and myriad drug crimes on the books and also for cases of prostitution.

This is where I break from a number of what I would call fundamentalist Libertarians. These are those largely ideologically in line with my own thoughts but who have come to despise all forms of government and regulation. This is where Libertarians slip into being Anarchists. I think there are people in this world, children included, not capable of making their own decisions. Those who can easily be manipulated into believing things are perfectly normal and acceptable when they are not.

One of the leading Libertarians, who I largely respect, recently wrote a long article about how children should be allowed to work without government intervention. That by allowing them to earn money we emancipate them. This is a problem for me for a number of reasons. One of which is that I like to consider myself a student of history. Child labor laws, while sometimes draconian, came about in response to terrible crimes against children.

Industrial captains went to orphanages and adopted groups of children to work in their factories doing dangerous jobs. One of the most prominent stories involving this sort of behavior involves an orphan named Joseph von Fraunhofer who became a famous physicist.

In addition, it was not uncommon for men to adopt young girls grooming them for eventual marriage much in the way Kaplan did in this case. The history of horrible abuse against children goes back as far as the written record.

There are people in this world in need of protection. People who simply cannot, by the circumstances of their birth, mental, and physical conditions, take care of themselves. They can be manipulated into performing terrible acts and believing they enjoy doing them.
This is one of the roles of government in society. I’m certainly not suggesting government doesn’t make a mess of things and overregulate and over criminalize. I’m just saying cases like this one convince me some form of government is necessary.

Kaplan is a sick and depraved individual. His manipulation of the Stoltzfus family is appalling. When he convinced the parents to relinquish their children to him he was being despicable. When the parents handed over their children to someone else they were, in my opinion, breaking a justified law. It must be illegal to barter children because they cannot protect themselves.

Just because someone thinks they are doing something willingly doesn’t mean the actions being done to them should be legal. We must take into account the victim. Children, physically disabled, mentally disabled, and others need protection by the state.

Now, if the Stoltzfus’s had simply handed over all their money to Kaplan I wouldn’t have a problem. It is their money do with as they will. If they handed over possessions or allowed Kaplan to live with them and use their car, I would have no problem. They are fools, certainly, but they are adults giving away their own possessions.

Children are not possessions and that’s why I’m a Libertarian, not an Anarchist.

Tom Liberman

The Power of Antioxidants

Posted on by

antioxidantThe people who want to see you achieve better health have long recommended antioxidants be a major part of your diet. There’s only one catch. The people who want to see you become healthier are largely not the same ones trying to sell you antioxidant stuffed supplements.

Those who promote good health have long recommended you eat fruit, vegetables, and whole grains. These people don’t own fruit farms or sell the actual product they are recommending. They are largely doctors and others associated with a group called health professionals. They are recommending you eat things filled with lots of antioxidants.

On the other hand, the people who want you to purchase supplements filled with antioxidants are the same people who are producing and selling that particular product. They have a vested interest in you purchasing their supplements because it enriches them.
“Well, Tom,” you might say. “What’s the difference? They are both promoting antioxidants.”

There is a big difference and it’s exactly what common sense predicts. Antioxidant supplements have a proven track record of not doing anything to help and actually causing harm. A number of studies of people who flooded their bodies with antioxidant supplements showed an increased mortality rate!

Antioxidants from fruits, vegetables, and whole grains do your body all sorts of good. Eating such a diet combined with regular exercise will statistically increase the quality and length of your life. You are less likely to have heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and a host of other medical issues if you pursue such a diet.

The problem is that most people don’t want to eat fruits, vegetables, and whole grains each and every day. They don’t want to spend time buying such healthy foods. They would prefer to make an unjustifiably expensive purchase for a particular supplement and simply take the pill once a day. It’s so much easier of a way to good health. The problem is that it doesn’t work.

One of the most difficult things in life is sustaining consistent behavior. If you want to be healthy, you must eat properly most of the time. That’s not to say there is anything wrong with dessert or an unhealthy meal once a week, but the reality is good health requires good habits. While true, that is somewhat tangential to the point I’m trying to make today.

Beware of people trying to sell you things. If someone tells you a particular product is going to make your life better, take a moment to find out about the person doing the talking. If they don’t have anything to do what is being sold it’s more likely you’re getting good advice. The converse is true as well. It’s not really rocket science.

I think most people are aware of this instinctively. It seems as if there is no need to tell people to be aware of the problem and yet the supplement industry rolls on to the tune of billions of dollars. People purchase antioxidant supplements and convince themselves they are doing what is healthy when, to some degree, they must be aware they are not.

In the end, it’s your decision. Fruits, vegetables, and whole grains or supplements. Now, pass me a Fuji Apple, I’m hungry!

Tom Liberman

Michelle Carter is Encouraging Someone to Commit Suicide a Crime?

Posted on by

michelle carterThe case of Michelle Carter has begun and it presents interesting questions for a Libertarian. Carter essentially encouraged and cajoled a man named Conrad Roy into suicide. He was feeling suicidal to begin with but in a series of texts over numerous days she pushed him to do it, despite the fact he was clearly reluctant and afraid.

I’d like to dispense with the fiction that Carter somehow thought he was not serious about his intentions or that she didn’t actively attempt to bring about what she desired, Roy’s death by his own hand. Anyone who reads the messages must come to the conclusion she wanted Roy to kill himself. We can only speculate as to why she wanted this outcome but that she wanted it to happen is beyond debate.

Without a doubt, we can conclude she is a failed and disgusting human being. But is she a criminal? She didn’t take any physical part in Roy’s death. She did not even purchase any of the equipment he used to kill himself. She took no direct actions that caused his death. She simply told him, repeatedly, that his family would be fine, that his problems would be over, that he would be in heaven, and that suicide was clearly the best and only solution. When he promised to do it and failed, she chastised him for his shortcomings and encouraged him to finish the job.

When the fact of these texts came to light, Roy’s family alerted the police and now Carter has been charged with Involuntary Manslaughter. Essentially, she is being charged with killing Roy.

Therein lies the problem. Carter didn’t kill Roy. She just encouraged him to kill himself. Roy was clearly vulnerable to such manipulations but there is no indication he was mentally handicapped. He was of legal age when he killed himself and of relatively sound mind. He clearly wasn’t thinking very well and was manipulated by a terrible person. I freely acknowledge as much. But he was not legally impaired. As such, Roy is ultimately responsible for his own actions.

People want to punish Carter for her reprehensible behavior and I well understand this desire to make her pay for her actions. She is a horrible person. She deserves a punch in the face at the very least.

Sadly, I don’t think she should be put in prison for her actions. While she certainly encouraged Roy to kill himself, Carter took no concrete actions in making it happen. It’s largely the same as if I said I wanted someone dead. It’s a horrible thing to say but I haven’t actually killed anyone. I can talk about committing all sorts of crimes but it is only when I take physical action toward committing those crimes, or actually proceed, that I’m subject to law enforcement.

If Carter is found guilty of the crime it has rather far-reaching implications. Anyone who encourages anyone to commit a crime might well be charged. Saying something in Social Media about wanting President Obama or President Trump to burn in hell could well encourage a lunatic to attempt murder. There are plenty of fanatics out there and they don’t need much encouragement.

The important reality is that we must be held responsible for our own actions. In this case Roy is dead and that’s a terrible shame. Carter is a nasty piece of work and one would hope people will shun her in the future, but it’s not up to me or the courts to force punishment upon her.

Tom Liberman

Cosby and O’Reilly – Take the Money or Take the Abuse

Posted on by

bill-cosbyThe Bill Cosby sexual assault case is in full swing and I think it brings into amazing clarity the terrible position people find themselves in when they are sexually assaulted or serially harassed. On the witness stand and in the court of public opinion, the people who come forward with these accusations almost universally face vicious attack from the supporters of the accused, particularly when the suspects are celebrities.

In the Cosby case, the first woman to take the stand is being accused of all sorts of things by the defense attorneys. We see this same scenario play out again and again, most recently against people who accused Bill O’Reilly of misdeeds.

The attacks against the alleged victim are vicious to the extreme and it makes me wonder why anyone would come forward rather than taking a large monetary settlement. I think that’s why most victims of such crimes suffer in silence and why attackers get away with their behavior year after year. Some victims attempt to come forward and are squashed by their powerful attackers. Some come forward and pursue the case as best they can. Proving these attacks is not so easy. Many fail to have enough evidence to support a conviction.

In a court of law, we must have evidence and in these situations, it is generally the word of one person against the other. The need for this burden of proof is important and necessary. We cannot deny some people make false accusations. We cannot presume the accused is guilty. That is one of the factors making coming forward all the more difficult.

There are no easy answers to these sorts of situation nor is there any chance they will stop occurring. People in power unfortunately will sometimes abuse that power, that is an unhappy fact. Victims of such attacks have two initial options. They can go on with their lives and ignore the event happened. This is certainly the easy course. A terrible thing has been done but there is no chance to undo it. Bringing it to light will potentially harm the person accused but it might well not, and the accusers own reputation can be destroyed.

If the victim pursues the case there are again two possible outcomes. The accused can offer some sort of financial settlement or the case can proceed to criminal charges. Again, it seems to me the path of least resistance is to simply take the money and move on with your life. Pursuing a criminal case is going to take considerable time, money, and effort and there are no assurances of a positive outcome. The accuser can easily lose the case.

What’s the point of all this? I just hope to make these facts apparent to everyone negatively judging those who take money as settlements or those who go on about their lives without bringing charges.  The victims are doing what most of us would do and what is, frankly, sometimes the best course of action. Unfortunate as that may be.

Our court system protects criminals, particularly when it is the word of one person against another. I’m not saying this is a bad system, in fact I’m a firm believer in our legal doctrine, but I am suggesting in these sorts of cases it makes the decision to pursue criminal charges a difficult one.

Don’t be quick to leap to conclusions after finding out a person didn’t file charges immediately after the incident.

Tom Liberman

How About Admit Culpability Rather than Claim Responsibility?

Posted on by

culpabilityWhen we do something wrong we don’t claim responsibility for our actions, we admit culpability. I’m a writer and well aware of the power words convey. I’ve been thinking for a number of years that we should start using different verbiage after terrorist attacks.
Anyone who claims they took part in a terrorist act is admitting they have done terrible and irreparable harm. They are saying they admit culpability to their vicious crime. Let’s call it what it is. That’s what I think at least.

Some might argue terrorist organizations have succeeded in their goal and therefore they can claim credit. That the attack is ostensibly a good thing from the point of view of a terrorist or those that support such. The reality is far different. I’ve written before, at some length, how terrorist attacks actually harm the people they are intended to help far more than immediate victims.

If you look at the larger picture of a terrorist attack, the only conclusion to draw is the people the act purports to help, suffer horrifically. I’m not even sure what the terrorists hope to accomplish anymore, but their stated objectives are generally based on the removal of oppressors from their land. The problem is their actions don’t work. They just make the oppressors more virulent, violent, and oppressive.

There is no doubt the theocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt are extremely brutal. Those governments are backed, almost without question, by the United States. I get where the terrorists are coming from, I really do. I know this point of view will raise eyebrows. The reality is people who are carrying out these violent attacks have a legitimate complaint. The problem is their method simply makes the situation worse; for the terrorists and the people the terrorists hope to help. These actions generally create sympathy and solidarity within the governments the terrorists hate so much.

For every person killed by a terrorist, thousands of those the terrorist purports to support are killed. The regimes they hope to oust are made stronger, the oppression greater, and the resolve of the western nations that support them more stalwart.

For each and every terror attack, there is no winner. There is no claiming of responsibility, just an admission of terrible wrong. The terrorist has directly killed and maimed innocents and indirectly killed and maimed even more.

Doing as I suggest is not going to stop a terrorist from carrying out heinous activity. They are bent on their destructive ways and there is likely nothing anyone can do to talk them out of it. Still, I think it’s best to use the proper words in situations like this. It’s culpability we’re looking at, not credit.

Do you agree?

Tom Liberman

Oxon Hill High School Feud and Internet Reaction

Posted on by

oxon-hillI just read an interesting story about two Oxon Hill High School graduates who were not allowed to speak at their commencement ceremony and more particularly the certitude of right and wrong in the comments below the story.

More information might well become available but what I find incredibly striking about the story is the lack of information. Basically, we know the two young women were told a few days before the ceremony they weren’t to speak. There is no reason given for them being left out of the Oxon Hill ceremony although it is implied they were, at one point, on the schedule. This might not be true, it’s just implied.

Meanwhile an Oxon Hill school board member who was speaking at the commencement told the young ladies they could have some small amount, thirty seconds, of his time. Then, before the ceremony, the girls were told they couldn’t give a speech but the message was perhaps unclear as there were two possibilities, their original speech or the short period offered by the other board member. In the confusion, they went on the stage and the microphones were cut off. Confusion reigned. They tried again and again the microphones were cut off. Finally, the principal told them they could not speak at all.

The Oxon Hill board member who ceded some of his time is apparently in some sort of feud with the principal and other members of the school board. It’s possible the students were going to speak out for him although much is left to doubt.

Therein lies my problem. There is one group of people calling out for the firing of the principal and the school board members. Another group is calling the two young students entitled little brats who can’t follow rules.

It’s quite clear to me that neither assumption is supported by the facts as we know them. Most people seem to simply leap to conclusions based upon the result they’d like to be true. As a nation, even as a world, we seem to largely be living, and happily so, with conclusions that are not based on strong evidence.

I am encouraged by the fact I made a comment on the article expressing these thoughts and it has gotten quite a few thumbs up.
Still, it’s discouraging seeing the vehemence of those calling for heads to roll, be they the kids or the principal and board member. There just isn’t enough evidence currently available to justify a strong conclusion one way or the other. I’m sure more will eventually be known but that doesn’t change the facts, or lack thereof, in the current story.

Not only is it discouraging but it’s rather baffling. One of the things that drives my entire persona is that I hate to be wrong. Many people mistake this for a need to be right and I understand the confusion. I try to avoid conclusions until I’m in possession of enough facts. It’s mystifying to me that so many people are willing to take such a strong stand when there is no possible way to know if they are right or not.

I feel as though I’ve hopped into my Prius and somehow ended up in the Kingdom of Wisdom. If only, like Milo, I could find my way back to the real world.

Tom Liberman

The Relationship Between Welfare and Disability

Posted on by

welfareWelfare is a word that conjures images of poor black and Hispanic people living in an urban environment. Like it or not, that’s the image. Disability, on the other hand, brings to mind pictures of people in wheelchairs struggling to get up a ramp. The reality is somewhat different but what I’d like to talk about today is the relationship of the two entitlement plans. The two programs basically take money from taxpayers and give it to those who cannot afford to get through life for whatever reason.

We have these programs because in the United States we do not like the idea of people living in hunger. We see pictures of children in poor nations standing in line to get water, children dying of disease in fly infested hospitals and we say; not here. Rightfully so. In a wealthy country, there should be protections for people who cannot care for themselves. I have a disabled niece who will never be able to care for herself, so I’m aware of the value of the so-called safety net.

There is a general dislike of entitlement programs in the United States. This contempt is probably centered with Republicans but there are plenty of Democrats and Libertarians who find the sheer amount of money being distributed to be troubling. We, as a whole, largely think people should live within their means. Most people believe there are people like my niece who need help, but think the majority of people receiving this help aren’t trying hard enough. There is likely a lot of truth to these thoughts.

That’s where the relationship between welfare and disability comes into play. Two things happened. The first was the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Reagan. It loosened the screening process by which the designation of disability was awarded.

Then came the Contract with America, Newt Gingrich, and President Bill Clinton. When the Republicans came to power in 1996 they wanted to reform welfare. Welfare, again, being imagined as poor black people living in the city. They did not, on other hand, seek disability reform. Mainly because it wasn’t much of a problem.

The result was The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. This was passed by the new Republican majority and signed by President Clinton. It is law today. It essentially forces people to work before they can collect welfare. After a couple of years, the amount being paid in welfare went down. Success! Our plan worked! Hooray!

The reality is less pleasant. The amount of people applying for and receiving disability skyrocketed. The majority of people getting this money live in rural areas, are white, and are generally Republican. We now have generational disability families. The entire family lives off their government checks. The percentage of United States citizens on disability has doubled since 1985, which of course means a larger increase in total recipients.

There is no work requirement or time limit on receiving disability checks. Once granted, they arrive monthly for the rest of the recipient’s life.

We hear all about how the Social Security fund is scheduled to run out of money in thirty years or so. The Disability Insurance fund is scheduled to run out of money this year! People on disability are being cut off in ever greater numbers as the money runs out. Desperation, largely in rural areas, is beginning to be felt.

Our Congress is pretty much unwilling to discuss this entitlement for various political reasons. I don’t want to get into the blame game, I want to highlight the issue and the fact people often misperceive what is happening to whom and why.

Just be aware when you criticize people on welfare you are essentially censuring people who have been determined, for whatever reason, to be disabled. These people used to be on welfare and have simply switched the government agency which provides them with money.

Ask yourself, why isn’t this being discussed? Could it be political?

Tom Liberman

Stoned BMW Workers Misleading Headline

Posted on by

bmw-workersStoned Assembly Line Workers Cost BMW $1 Million in One Day, Report Claims: Screams the misleading headline from TheDrive. The implication is BMW workers were high on marijuana and made some horrible mistake.

This one’s a doozy. If you read the headline and the first paragraph you’ll assume  the two BMW workers smoked a marijuana joint and then collapsed on the line causing a forty minute shutdown. This costs BMW about a million dollars.

It’s a good thing your trusty sniffer out of misleading headlines, that’s me, is on the case!

In the story we find out that one of the workers was way, way over the legal limit for alcohol and the other was flying on amphetamines. But, heck, let’s blame marijuana! Because it’s reported, but not confirmed, they smoked a joint before heading onto the line. Marijuana is an easy target. Mission accomplished Aaron Brown, you win for the most misleading headline. I sometimes let the author off the hook because the headline is generally written by someone else but Brown is an accomplice in the crime this time. The lead of his story is the marijuana use and, oh, by the way I’ll mention later, they were drunk as skunks and sailing on Crystal Meth.

This sort of thing is journalism at its worst. It’s designed specifically to be consumed by the anti-marijuana people of this world so they can pass it along in Facebook to everyone they know, that’s how I came across the story.

Always read the full story, my friends. Or come to me, because I do!

Tom Liberman

 

Maple Syrup and Why We have Government

Posted on by

maple syrupI just read an interesting article about maple syrup and it gave me insight into why we have government. I’m a Libertarian and sometimes butt heads with Anarchists who hang out in the same Social Media circles as me. When I first read the story about the Federation of Quebec Maple Syrup Producers I was all keyed up to write an anti-government rant, one said Anarchists would have enjoyed. Then I found out it’s not a government organization. It’s purely private. My rant dissipated but there is a story to be told nevertheless.

The FPAQ basically regulates how much maple syrup is produced in the Quebec province of Canada. They do this by limiting the number of trees that can be tapped. This was done back in the 1960’s in order to compete more effectively with United States maple producers. In addition to limiting the amount of maple syrup produced, they keep a strategic reserve in case of crop failure, and sell all the maple syrup as a collective to control prices.

The organization has fundamentally changed the nature of maple syrup production in the world. Before it came into existence, Quebec maple syrup producers were not able to compete with producers in the United States, primarily Vermont. They now control about 70% of the market and export $362 million worth of the sweet, sweet stuff.

My original blog was going to be about how the maple syrup farmers in Quebec are upset by the quotas and how big, bad government was interfering with free enterprise. Oh well, so much for that.

The question then becomes, why did the FPAQ form? Why didn’t each maple syrup producer simple make as much as they wanted and sell it at a price they determined? That’s what us Free Market Libertarian advocate. But here is a case of people quite voluntarily giving up part of their freedom to become, in essence, a government regulatory agency.

The answer is simple. It was in their best interest to do so. By banding together, they created a more powerful entity. By pooling and selling their syrup together, they weren’t constantly undercutting each others’ price. By creating a reserve, they were ensuring a steady stream of revenue in case of a disastrous harvest season. By limiting production, they were driving up prices, creating scarcity where before there was none. And all these worked quite well for them.

Now the United States has been increasing its maple syrup production, taking some of the market back, and the members of the FPAQ are beginning to chafe against the rules. They are selling on the black market and producing more than their quota. They are rebelling against their own organization.

And this is the very root of government. The reason the FPAQ formed is the same reason most governments form. It is much safer for a group of people to organize. Once organized they need structure to ensure everyone is playing by the rules. Thus, government comes into being. The bigger the organization, the more rules are needed. In order to compete and be safe in this world, bigger and bigger organizations are required.

Of course, the pseudo-government grew despotic, as is its nature. It created rules and regulations that were actually hurting its members rather than helping. The members began to rebel.

All this explains why I’m a Libertarian and not an Anarchist. If we destroy one government the result will not be no government, but most likely a despotic regime. Having no government at all is a lovely dream. It is something I think might be possible in the future, when we have endless energy and there is no more scarcity. That day is in the future, sadly.

Government is in our nature. I remain a Libertarian. I think government needs be unobtrusive. The more government intrudes on our lives, largely the worse it is for all of us. But I cannot pretend government exists for no reason. People want government and they create it. Then they rise up and destroy it. Then they create a new one.

Tom Liberman

Kathy Griffin, Margaret Court, and the Freedom to Hate

Posted on by

kathy griffin margaret courtThere is one thing Kathy Griffin and Margaret Court have in common, the Freedom to Hate. I think both women and their supporters will vehemently deny this fact. They will argue the two are merely stating a firmly held opinion and not backing down. Their opinions are not based on hate but passionate belief.

I’m here to tell you; Court and Griffin are filled with self-righteous hatred and it completely clouds their ability to think about their words and artistic expressions. As vile as I think both of these ladies are; it’s their right to be filled with as much hate as they want. They can express that hatred in whatever way they want as long as it is not physically hurting other people. If they want to post vile pictures and make completely unsupported claims about homosexuals, whatever. Go right ahead. That is the Freedom to Hate.

Almost everyone else has the right to say whatever they want about either of the women. You can despise one and revere the other. You can hate them both. You can like them both, although that has to be an awfully short list of people.

Advertisers have the right to stop purchasing commercials for things in which they are involved. People have the right to not buy items they are selling or attend events at which they are appearing. The only entity that doesn’t have the right to do as it pleases is the government. Griffin and Court, vile as they might be, cannot be arrested for their words. They cannot be fined for their words. That’s what Freedom of Speech, or in this case, Freedom of Hate is all about.

The world has many people like Court and Griffin. People completely overwhelmed, for whatever reason, by hatred of other people. The good news is the vast majority of us aren’t filled with such hate. The problem is we get drawn in by all that rage. The need to tell other people how awful and wrong is their behavior.

One of the lessons I’ve learned in life is when to disengage. You’ve all encountered someone so filled with rage they are unwilling to listen to reasonable arguments. People so locked into a position talking with them is an exercise in frustration. My advice, disengage. Forget about it. Their lives are filled with anger. They spend it trying to find more people to hate, more people to harangue in a vain attempt to feel better about themselves. The problem is, of course, the hate they so feel is internally generated. Someone filled with self love just can’t be bursting with that sort of rage. It’s not possible.

The bottom line is Griffin and Court are allowed to engage in lives filled with hate. They can create as much art as they want that embodies this hate. They can say as many hateful things about others as they want. Naturally, they must face the consequences of this hate. Freedom to hate doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of hate. It just means they can’t be imprisoned or fined.

That is an important distinction. There are nations in this world where people are not free to express themselves so. There are states where anyone who dares speak out is imprisoned, tortured, murdered, and even their families punished. What happens in these states is not the eradication of unwanted thoughts but the multiplying of them.

The people in nations in which government has the ability to act in this fashion become violent. Instead of expressing their hatred with words and art, they act out as terrorists. They kill people.

You most likely don’t like what Court or Griffin is saying, but their right to do so is important.

Feel free to hate, it’s a right.

Tom Liberman

What Covfefe Tells us About Our Nation

Posted on by

covfefePresident Trump was attempting to write a tweet about what he perceives as unfair press coverage. He was doing so around midnight and something happened that caused him to start to spell the word coverage as covfefe. I’m not here to talk about the tweet but the sadly predictable reaction therein.

Those who do not like Trump are pointing to it as a sign of his incompetence, stupidity, and possible derangement. They are making fun of the tweet. Those who like Trump are defending it as a simple typo that he didn’t get around to fixing. That he accidently sent the tweet rather than deleting it.

I’d wager that the vast majority of people reading this article believe one of those two things. What I find sad is the undeniably reversal of reactions had it been President Obama who made the same tweet. I can say with absolute certainty those responding would almost universally change their opinions.

Those who don’t like Obama would be pointing to the tweet as a sign of incompetence, stupidity, and possible derangement. They would be using it as an excuse for impeachment. These are the largely the same people who are defending the tweet from Trump as harmless.
Meanwhile, those who are attacking this tweet would be defending the same if it came from Obama. Harmless, they would say.

There is a reason for this. It is because human beings are willing to forgive behavior from people they support. They are not willing to forgive the conduct of those they don’t like. They are oblivious to the fact the behavior is exactly the same. They will largely deny this is the case. They suppose they are thinking critically and rationally.

I guess this behavior can be classified as simply being human nature. We are generous with those we like and stingy with people we dislike. While it might be nothing more than natural humanity, I find it disturbing. It is a complete lack of critical thinking. It is turning off the brain in order to convince yourself of something. I want to like Trump so the tweet is fine. I want to hate Trump so the tweet is bad.

I understand that prior behavior is part and parcel of the criticism of Trump. Still, the consternation about this tweet is baffling. He was clearly trying to write the word coverage. He failed to do so and then proceeded to send the tweet anyway. This perhaps deserves some ridicule. The President of the United States should be careful with her or his words, but that is just not Trump’s style. He will continue to use words loosely and it’s important to understand this fact.

In any case, my main point today is not to criticize Trump, but instead those who are both defending and attacking him. Take a moment of introspection. What would be your reaction if Obama made that tweet? If you’re willing to be honest with yourself, I think we all know the answer to that question.

This lies at the heart of what is dividing the United States these days. The words, or gibberish words, don’t matter. The policies don’t matter. It’s all a matter of who is saying them. If we continue to be divided the nation is in trouble. If we cannot accept good ideas even from those we dislike and we cannot criticize bad ideas from those we generally support; it becomes impossible to govern.

We elect our politicians; therefore, they are a reflection of the people of the nation. When we give up critical thinking, we can only expect our politicians to behave in the same fashion.

I guess I’m simply saying; listen to the message, not the messenger. Not that I have much hope people will do so.

Tom Liberman

The Tangled Web of Manuel Noriega and the United States

Posted on by

Manuel NoriegaI suspect most people reading this blog will remember Manuel Noriega, who recently died, as a bad guy. A brutal dictator who trafficked in drugs and whom the United States eventually removed from power in Panama. All these things are true but they were all products of our meddling in the affairs of other countries. We created Noriega and the blame for his horrible deeds rests upon our shoulders.

I’d recommend reading the entire Wikipedia article about Noriega to get a full view of his life and our responsibility in all of it. It’s a disturbing story to be sure, but what I want to talk about is the deep-rooted nature of why we interfered and how we continue to pursue the same policies today. How we set ourselves up for long-term failure, and cheerfully do so. Not only cheerfully but vigorously and with absolute confidence we are doing the right thing.

At its center is the idea other nations in this world do not have our best interests at heart. There are theocratic regimes, communist nations, autocratic dictators, and others whose desires are not aligned with our nation. We deal with these sorts of nations in various ways. We spy on them, we support opposition parties with money and military hardware, we sanction them economically, we bomb them, we invade them. Generally speaking, these strategies are applauded by the people of our country. These foreign nations want to hurt us, so we must actively attempt to do the same to them.

Our pursuit of these policies causes tremendous harm. To the people of the nations in question, to our own citizens, and to our ethical reputation. In the case of Noriega, he was considered a powerful United States asset. We paid him huge sums of money and helped him come to power in Panama. In return he funneled money to other insurgents in Central America who were fighting against regimes we did not like. That’s the tangled web we weave when we get involved with people like Noriega.

This involvement with Noriega led us to, at the least, ignore his drug trafficking. There is credible evidence we not only ignored it, but actually took part in the manufacturing and distribution of cocaine because part of the proceeds went to support opposition to regimes we were trying to overthrow.

This is not a one-time outcome. Again and again, the United States has meddled in the affairs of other nations and had it come back to hurt us. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953. We installed the Shah of Iran, a brutal dictator and much of the terrorism we see in the world is a result of this policy. In our zeal to overthrow the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan we gave the Taliban military hardware. We advised them on tactics. When we wanted to rid ourselves of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad we supported paramilitary organizations that eventually became ISIS.

It can be argued that the entire Mexican drug trafficking organization that brings death and misery to so many is solely tied to a fellow named Miguel Angel Felix Gallerdo. He was heavily backed by the CIA because he helped us against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

What’s amazing about all of these facts is they are well known. The people making policy decisions today understand the failure of all this past meddling. They understand how it caused so much harm. And yet we continue and extend these exact same policies. We support regimes likes those in Saudi Arabia because they ostensibly help us against perceived enemies like Iran. We destroyed the government and nation of Iraq only to see the situation grow worse.

We arm organizations like the Kurds because they are helping us in Syria not recognizing the eventual outcome of all the destabilizing of the region.

We support despotic dictators the world over. We not only allow but partake in the illegal drug trade where it is perceived to be to our benefit. To put it succinctly, we meddle. We meddle, and we keep on meddling despite the fact that it has caused nothing but trouble.

Manuel Noriega is a tangible representation of all that I have written. He is the poster-child for why the United States needs to stay out of the affairs of other nations.

I know those arguing for so-called hardline solutions mean well. I know you hope for the best. I know you consider yourself patriots and want what is good for this nation.

I beseech you, read about Noriega and the horrible results of all our meddling.

Tom Liberman

Bill Snyder and Corey Sutton

Posted on by

Bill-SnyderI wrote this blog post and it was accepted by Sport Digest but then Bill Snyder and Kansas State reversed their course and allowed Sutton to leave the school. I still think the article has some merit so I’m posting it here on my own blog anyway. Keep in mind it was written before the announcement to release Sutton from his Athletic Scholarship. Let me know what you think.

** END EDIT**

A college football player named Corey Sutton wants to leave Kansas State University but Head Coach Bill Snyder is so far not allowing it to happen. Snyder does this by refusing to release Sutton from his athletic scholarship. While Sutton is under scholarship to Kansas State, no other school can offer him financial aid. Sutton cannot afford, or claims not to be able to afford, the price of an education at another university.

Complicating this situation greatly is that Sutton tweeted some pretty nasty things about Snyder, a man who is considered by all who know him to be an outstanding human being. I don’t know much about Sutton but judging by the tweets he seems like a pretty immature young man. Reading the comments on the story it seems Snyder has a great deal of support on this, likely because of his long history of gentlemanly behavior.

I, like many commenting, would tend to give Snyder some benefit of the doubt but I’m afraid I have to side with Sutton, character flaws and all. Particularly after Snyder gave his reasons for refusing to release Sutton. Snyder basically said Sutton is a backup and Snyder can’t let all his backups leave or he won’t have any number twos. He also did something pretty despicable, he tried to justify his decision by telling everyone that Sutton failed two drug tests.

Note, Snyder didn’t tell everyone about the failed tests while Sutton was still playing for and helping the team. He only released the information after Sutton said some pretty awful things about Snyder. I get that, I understand the frustration being called horrible things can do, you want to lash out at the person so doing. But, as the old saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. Snyder was way out of line to reveal the failed drug tests.

Snyder also made noise about not wanting to keep Sutton on the team based on the failed tests but being forced to do so by athletic department rules. If that was the case, I’d think he’d jump at the opportunity to get rid of Sutton.

In my opinion, Snyder is wrong, but within his rights, to refuse to release the scholarship. Sutton is not blameless in all of this. He should have announced his intention to depart earlier, leaving Snyder time to bestow the scholarship on a new player, a junior college transfer most likely.

Sutton seems like an immature jerk. I’m not sure why Snyder wants him on the team. Keeping him there can only be a distraction. Perhaps he merely wants to be cruel to Sutton, although this is not in keeping with Snyder’s well-known character.

Honestly, I’m really not sure what is going on. I can say with certainty that it’s a mess.

Tom Liberman

Home Economics and Gym Class

Posted on by

home economicsOver one in three people in the United States is considered obese. The price of that obesity is beyond measurement in dollars and human suffering. These are undeniable facts, but what solutions are available in a free nation where we cannot, and should not, control what people choose to eat and drink? One answer lies in education. Home Economics. Gym Class.

These are places we can teach young people to prepare healthy foods at a reasonable cost and learn to love exercise. These are things a free nation can do. The popularity of cooking shows is undeniable and the joy in preparing a meal for the people you love is palpable. Athletic achievement is a feeling of delight that I find difficult to express with the written word.

There are so many wonderful things about exercising and cooking that it’s astonishing we’ve managed to drift away from such pleasures. I understand people are busy today. I get that we have easy access to food prepared for us. I do not deny the reason we are so obese is related to the abundance of food and our sedentary society.

One thing I’m sure about is we can’t force people to stop eating and drinking fatty foods. We cannot regulate exercise. When I say can’t, what I really mean is we must not. In a totalitarian state, we can restrict the size of drink. This works. You might laugh when the state attempts to restrict a drink size, you scoff and say people will just purchase two drinks. They sometimes do but they sometimes don’t. Restricting the size of a drink works. Raising taxes on cigarettes works. All the studies indicate the state can effectively, but not completely, modify the behavior of the people. Yet, this is a path we must not follow.

Food is abundant. Cheap food with a high fat content is everywhere. People drive everywhere instead of walking. Most jobs require people stay seated for the entirety of their work day. Kids can find endless entertainment in front of their computer. They can socialize with all their friends without leaving the comfort of their favorite chair. All these things are true, all these things contribute to the problem of obesity. All of these things are not going to change.

Obesity effects all our lives. People are suffering health problems in increasing numbers and that has essentially put our entire healthcare industry on the brink of failure. People are unable to do their jobs which puts an unnecessary burden on the able-bodied. We can’t find enough people to serve in the military. We must sit next to obese people on planes, buses, in cars, on benches. We share our lives with them in many undeniable ways even if we are not obese ourselves. It is in my interest for this nation to overcome the problem, but in a way that does not destroy our freedom.

The answers are not easy. Good solutions are rarely simple. But, it seems a good idea to spend some time teaching kids the wonder of cooking, eating healthy foods, and exercising. There is so much value in these things. We prepare children for adult life in school and we used to consider cooking and exercising part of that education.

I know many children don’t want to take gym class. I watched with pity as friends of mine stood against the gym wall not only feeling the humiliation of being picked last but also dreading the moment when they were asked to perform in the field. I was certainly not interested in cooking when I was forced to take said course while in school.

I know our school districts are strapped for funds and I know there is no easy way to make all this happen. Still, it seems to me there is a clear course of action we can take. We can enforce recess starting at an early age. Go out, play. No phone. We can teach cooking starting in kindergarten and make it a mandatory course through high school.

Certainly, we cannot force people to eat less or exercise more. Perhaps by giving them a little shove when they are young, we can change our nation. It’s worth a try.

Tom Liberman

Gary Player is a Jerk and Rules Sticklers are No Fun

Posted on by

gary playerGary Player is one of the greatest golfers in history. He’s also pretty well known as a jerk. Golf is a sport known for being incredibly strict about rules interpretations. All of these things were on display when Player ranted against a record Bernhard Langer set, or didn’t set, this weekend.

Player is upset that Langer is being credited with winning the most Majors on the Senior PGA Tour. Langer won his ninth at the Senior PGA Championship which eclipsed the eight won by Jack Nicklaus. Except, The Senior Open, the British Senior Open to most people, was not always included as a Major. Player won The Senior Open when it was not considered a Major three times. This technically brings his total of Senior Majors to nine.

The reason The Senior Open wasn’t considered a Major on the Senior Tour like it is on the PGA Tour is because it wasn’t well established in those first few years. It has since become a Major Championship.

Thus, we arrive at the situation in which we find ourselves. Player is upset he is not recognized as the all-time leader in Senior Majors. For a man with a massive ego like Player, this is intolerable. He must speak out angrily and has done so.

I think there’s an interesting reality in all of this. Player is an egomaniacal jerk which he has displayed on any number of occasions. However, in this case he has a point. The Open has been considered one of the premier tournaments in all of golf for over a hundred years. The fact that the Senior Open wasn’t considered a Major Championship during the years Player won three times seems like a rather petty distinction.

But petty distinctions are what the rules of golf are based upon. Those who interpret such rules are notorious for enforcing them to the letter. In this case Player comes out on the wrong end of that understanding. The Senior Open was not a Major Championship when he won and therefore his total wins do not take those into account. A more generous interpretation of the Senior Open wins would give Player nine wins. The fact that the Senior Open was later designated a major indicates its importance.

The end result of this little contretemps proves at least two things. Player is, as advertised, a jerk. Those who enforce the rules of golf are, as history proves, ridiculous sticklers for the letter of the law even when it subverts its intent.

I suppose it’s nice you can count on some things.

Tom Liberman

Why is Terry Frei Very Uncomfortable?

Posted on by

terry freiA former sportswriter for the Denver Post, Terry Frei, wrote that he was “very uncomfortable” with Japanese driver Takuma Sato winning the Indianapolis 500. The Denver Post fired Frei after a second tweet in which he seemed to associate Sato winning the race with the death of his father’s friend in the Battle of Okinawa.

There is the predictable political divide with one side hailing Frei for speaking his mind and calling critics snowflakes while the other insists it is Frei who is the snowflake and clearly a supporter of President Trump. I’ll leave the political nonsense to the jungle gym crowd where they can scream and yell at one another and accomplish nothing. I’d like to examine why Frei is uncomfortable. Because in this feeling he is not alone.

What’s important to state is there is no doubt the win made Frei uncomfortable. He felt that way and no apology can change his feelings. He was so uncomfortable he felt compelled to tweet about it. But from where does that feeling of discomfort arrive? Frei did not know his father’s friend at all, he did not serve in World War II, he has suffered no injustice from anyone Japanese. Certainly, Sato himself has done nothing to Frei. There is no personal animosity between Frei and Sato. And yet the victory makes Frei uncomfortable.

Maybe I’m wrong but I think the heart of Frei’s uncomfortableness is the notion people from Japan represents something he does not like. His dislike becomes more palpable when the race in question comes on Memorial Day. A day to honor fallen soldiers.

Frei learned to dislike or even hate Japanese people reading about the death his father’s friend. He carries mementoes that once belonged to the man. He has, bear with my amateur psychological diagnosis, almost taken on the role of that man. He seems to believe, in some sense, that he is carrying on the legacy of his father’s dead friend. He has written about him. He has learned to hate Japanese from his story.

I’m not trying to criticize Frie, although I’m sure it looks as if I am. I’m trying to understand how someone who has never had anything done to him by someone from Japan can clearly feel so deeply about an issue. His feelings are terribly wrong and he admits as much in an apology. He became emotionally overwrought. I get all that.

This pathology is important. I hated people of Arabic descent in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack. When I read about a white nationalist stabbing two innocents to death on a train in Portland I want to kill him and all those who espouse his views. The same hate Frie clearly feels, although he rationalizes it by merely saying he is uncomfortable, is within us all.

This hate fuels much of the sentiment we read each and every day in diatribe filled comments. This hate is what fuels the enemies of the United States. They hate us for what we have done. We hate them for what they have done. Frie hates the Japanese even though they did nothing to him, it is second-hand hate but it is real. He understands and controls that hate. He’s not spouting off nonsense or advocating killing anyone. He controls his feelings and understands their origins.

I think it’s important to understand from where we generate this hate. Those who cannot, or choose not to, understand the hate fall victim to it. Their own lives are consumed and destroyed by these feelings. They project their feelings onto anyone who is perceived to be associated with the same group as the one so hated.

They convince themselves everyone around them feels the same way and they must take extreme action. This is how a terrorist is born.
Frei is nowhere near this terrible fate. He is merely a peripheral victim. He lost his job and that’s pretty serious. But he didn’t do anything physical. He is not in prison. He is still alive.

What Frei did is within each of us, much worse lies below the surface of our civility.
I think that is the lesson for us all. Understand from where the hate comes. Understand it, control it, and be a better person. Don’t let it control you. Nothing good can come from this hate and rage.

Try to be a decent human being. Frei failed but his failing is not as egregious as it might have been. I’m more than willing to give him another chance. I hope others feel the same way.

Tom Liberman

Does Spider-Man Need a Super Spider Suit?

Posted on by

spider-manOne of my favorite superheroes, Spider-man, is getting another movie released this summer and the trailers have a few fans up in arms. It seems young Peter Parker has a fancy spider suit with all sorts of gadgets, provided to him by Iron Man, Tony Stark. This is causing much dismay in the Spider-Man fan community and I think it’s an interesting situation.

Spider-Man appeals to me, and I suppose others, for obvious reasons. I’m a rather small and anti-social lad, much like Peter Parker. Unlike me, Parker gets his powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider. He is very unlike Iron Man. This hero is buoyed by millions of dollars, a genius intellect, and a fantastical costume which can perform wonders. Spider-Man has only the abilities provided to him by the spider bite. Super strength and agility, the ability to cling to walls, a spider-sense that warns him of danger, and fast healing abilities. Initially he used mechanical webcasters but the spider bite eventually allowed him to manufacturer and fire webs organically.

In the new movie, it is apparent he has an enhanced spider suit that can do all sorts of things including deploying a parachute. As a side note, falling from great heights was one of the things that proved quite dangerous to Parker over his years of crime fighting, so the parachute makes sense from a practical standpoint. Many of the features of the new spider suit seem to be designed to make up for the weaknesses inherent in the Spider-Man character.

All this is pretty much explanation as to why people are upset about the apparent powers of the new spider suit. It’s just not traditional for the character of Spider-Man. Spider-Man has weaknesses, he is not Batman, Iron Man or Superman. He is Peter Parker, a sweet young man who becomes a crime fighter because of an accident. The death of his first love, Gwen Stacy, resulted from the fact he wasn’t as super as other heroes. This costuming strikes people as a betrayal of the very nature of Spider-Man. A coarse commercialization in trying to create a connection between Iron Man and Spider-Man. It hurts. I agree with those complaining but with a caveat.

I’m not running a motion picture studio. I like Spider-Man because some little nerdy part of my brain thinks maybe I could be like him. I’m not trying to make a movie that appeals to the maximum number of people and generates revenue to keep my business up and running.
Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios are in a business and that business requires making money. A number of super hero movies failed horribly at a financial cost. They have a vested interest in making money, not having Spider-Man conform to what a few geeky fan-boys, that’s me, believe the webcaster should be.

Still, frowny face.

Tom Liberman

Hollywood Makes Movies You Want to See

Posted on by

hollywoodWhenever a movie doesn’t do well the comments below the story lambaste Hollywood for making movies that no one wants to see. ‘I’ll never go to a movie by that studio again’ is a refrain I often read. Or, ‘The Hollywood elites are out of touch with us regular folks’. Anyone who says something like this is clearly completely out of touch with reality for a number of reasons.

Yes, some movies don’t do very well and lose the studios money, but the reality of movie making is that it is largely a money-making machine. A single hit like Disney’s Beauty and the Beast creates huge profits that make up for any number of bombs. The major studios top a billion dollars in profit on a regular basis. That’s profit, not box office. People are not only going to movies in record numbers but they are also purchasing them from Netflix and other outlets for viewing at home.

People love entertainment and it is an enormously profitable industry. Listen, I get it. Hollywood makes what I consider to be awful movies filled with action and lack of character development. I’ve got nothing against a good superhero film but I don’t see many of them. In my opinion Hollywood creates far too many movies that don’t really tell a story, they just blast the screen with nonsensical action and stupid jokes.

I was reading review for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest on IMDB and was stunned to see it got an overall rating of 7.3 which is pretty darned good. Many of the reviewers were waxing poetically about how wonderful was the movie. I must have had an expression of slack-jawed astonishment on my face as I read glowing review after glowing review. Finally, I started to come across reviewers who shared my opinion of that atrociously long and hideously boring piece of film.

While I agree with those who lambaste Hollywood for making many bad movies, I certainly can’t accuse them of not understanding their audience. Hollywood fully understands exactly the kind of movies you want to see and caters to that desire.

They provide amazing entertainment for people around the world. Perhaps you don’t like the politics of a particular movie, or, more like me, you don’t like the reliance on action. But if you deny the fact Hollywood is quite good at doing their job, you’re living in a fantasy world. Which is fine, I just choose to accept reality.

In addition to making movies that are not so good, Hollywood also makes movies that are fantastic. They make movies of every genre that appeal to a wide range of people.

So, in the end, I have to celebrate the fact that movies I hate make hundreds of millions of dollars for the various studios because that means they can make some great ones also.

Tom Liberman

Best Whiskey or Whatever

Posted on by

best whiskeyThere is a plethora of phony contests in this world and I recently read a story where some rye whiskey I’ve never heard of was declared the Best Whiskey in the World! I was immediately skeptical.

I got even more doubtful when the article mentioned the distillery has been in operation for about seven years. They purchased the winning whiskey from a Canadian wholesaler and “finished” it later. I’m sure it’s a fine whiskey, but it’s not going to win a more rigorous contest.

This story does give us insight into modern marketing techniques.

Basically, what is happening is someone decides to start a contest. San Francisco World Spirits Competition in this case, but there are thousands of them. They send out invitations to spirit manufacturers all over, mainly boutique companies without a large audience. These invitations come with a price. A steep entry price and then tons of additional fees. Now, I’m not certain that’s the case with this particular event but I’d be willing to wager a bottle of Booker’s it is.

There are so many of these competitions out there it’s becoming quite difficult to separate the legitimate ones from the fly-by-night operations.

I’m a novelist. I’ve written a pretty good number of Sword and Sorcery fantasy novels. Not a week goes by that I don’t get some spam in my inbox inviting me to submit one of my novels to some phony competition for only a $200 entry free. If I were to do so I’d undoubtedly win some prize for which I’d have to pay. Then they’d offer to sell me a marketing kit and a medallion that I can use on my website. All for more money.

That’s the way these contests stay in business. They simply collect money from people who are desperate for publicity. Then the winners, and I use that term loosely, of the contest begin following the marketing kit’s advice and write stories they submit to various publications. Inevitably some of them get accepted and you and I end up reading stories about award winning whiskeys that are nothing of the sort.

Hey, more power to them, I suppose. If some company or individual enters a contest like this they are doing it of their own free will. If someone reads an article in which some unknown whiskey from a seven-year-old distillery is declared best in show they deserve what they get if they shell out $500 for a bottle.

It’s all good old fashioned capitalism. People have always been socially conscious. They’ll purchase something based on its reputation rather than its actual quality. There will be those who want to take advantage of this facet of human nature. They’ll package a wholesale whiskey in a fancy bottle with a bunch of fake awards splattered across their website and sell it at a premium price.

The people who drink it will pat themselves on the back for finding such a marvelous whiskey and eagerly pay for another bottle.

The lesson to be learned here, for those of you who care to listen, is that just because someone says something is the best, doesn’t mean it is.

Of course, if you enjoy it, go out and buy a bottle. You don’t have to listen to this old curmudgeon.

Tom Liberman

Computer is now Best Go Player in World

Posted on by

goThe march of Artificial Intelligence continues on as was demonstrated when a computer defeated champion Ke Jei in two matches of the game Go. Go has a staggeringly large amount of moves and it was long thought it would take decades for computers to become as dominant in Go as they have become in chess. It didn’t take that long and this is good news, despite what you may be reading about the dangers of AI.

The reason it is fantastic can be inferred by what has happened to chess since computers became unassailable at the game. There was fear about the rise of computers and the game of chess. It was generally assumed once computers could defeat people, chess would largely be solved. That all anyone would have to do is memorize the few correct plays and that would be that. The game would die.

The reality turned out to be exactly the opposite. Before computers there were a limited number playable chess lines at the highest levels. By lines I’m talking about opening sequences and general ideas. For less skilled players it was more than possible to use many different lines but at the top level the game had become somewhat stagnant. Chess great Bobby Fisher lamented this and predicted the end of the game.

Computers do not get discouraged because a particular line doesn’t seem to be working. They continue to calculate the possibilities. These chess computers discovered many of the lines considered inferior were actually quite playable. They came up with innovate new ideas that expanded the repertoire available to top players. The Super Grandmasters took note of these moves and began to expand upon them. Then computers in turn extended each of these new ideas.

Chess is experiencing a golden age thanks to computer intervention. There are many new lines and competition at the highest levels is filled with exciting games rather than boring draws played down familiar openings.

I would expect exactly the same thing to happen with Go. But that is only the beginning. As AI is tasked with solving all sorts of problems it will only expand the possibilities. It will think through lines that a human would discard out of hand. It will find innovative solutions to problems we thought impossible. This will take place in industry after industry. Computers with AI will expand our knowledge, increase the possibilities, and deeply enrich all our lives.

I know there are those out there with fears and I respect their opinion but politely disagree. Humanity is quickly approaching a new age. Artificial Intelligences will lead the way with breakthroughs in medicine, energy, transportation, crop management, and virtually every other endeavor.

Within fifty years our lives will be changed dramatically and, in my opinion, almost universally for the good of all. I only hope I live long enough to reap the benefits.

Tom Liberman