Category Archives: Critical Thinking

Why did General Grigsby Get Demoted for Having an Affair?

Posted on by

general wayne grigsbyGeneral Wayne W. Grigsby Jr. was demoted from Major General to Brigadier General for having an affair with another officer. He is the sixth such general in the last year to be demoted for such activity. Why? What about marriage infidelity would cause him to do his job less effectively? Why should anyone be demoted from their position? I think it’s an interesting question.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the army, or any employer, has the right to discipline their employees as they see fit as long as it doesn’t run afoul of the Constitution of the United States. However, I think it’s important to keep people who are good at their jobs in their positions even if they have human failings. We all have human failings. We all lie. We all make mistakes. In the military, there are potentially lives at stake. If Grigsby Jr. is an outstanding officer in every way, demoting him is detrimental to the military.

It’s also entirely possible Grigsby Jr.’s wife was perfectly happy for him to have affairs. It wouldn’t be the first marriage where such things were tolerated. It’s a well-known fact one of the finest generals in the history of the United States, Dwight Eisenhower, carried on a long-term affair with his secretary. Would the country have been served by firing or demoting Eisenhower?

To be fair, it’s certainly likely having an affair can cause real issues in a command. It’s entirely possible there was good reason to demote Grigsby Jr. Certainly the circumstances of this case seem to indicate the demotion might well have been justified. That his behavior was negatively affecting his ability to command. I’m just worried by the fact so many officers are getting removed from their position for this personal issue.

I guess what I’m saying is that I’d be more comfortable if the military stopped using having an affair as the excuse to demote officers. Let’s judge people by the job they are doing. If the officer has lost control of his command, demote her or him for that reason. If the affair is having a detrimental effect on the other soldiers, demote for that reason.

What concerns me more is that I consider it undeniable the military is quite aware other officers are having affairs and is not doing anything about it. This smacks of cronyism. The officers in good standing are allowed to have their affairs while those who fall out of favor are subject to a strict interpretation of the rule. Even if this isn’t happening, even if the military only moves to make changes when the affair becomes detrimental to the command of the unit; there is the appearance of impropriety.

When the military first demoted Grigsby Jr. they cited lack of confidence in his ability to control his command. Good enough for me. Why elaborate? Why have specific examples of behavior that will result in potential issues? Because then you have to be consistent. If you punish one officer for doing something, you must punish all who behave that way. At least if you want to be consistent.

The question should simply be if the officer doing a good job.

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

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

Bad Logic Memes

Posted on by

bad logicGood old memes. The idea verbalized by Richard Dawkins twisted into a phenomenon seen everywhere in Social Media. Generally, memes are simplistic and shallow but they are also often filled with bad logic and that’s where I get annoyed.

If you post a meme with bad logic, that tells me you have a flawed brain. This conclusion might not be completely fair. Perhaps you saw the meme and didn’t bother to think about it too much. You just saw it corresponded with your political point of view and shared it without thinking too much.

However, it’s my opinion not bothering to think about something is perhaps even worse than being stupid. A person who thinks the meme they are posting makes sense when it clearly does not, is stupid. The person who is capable of understanding the logic is bad but posts it anyway, is showing a deeper form of ignorance. Willful ignorance.

Basically, a person has intentionally turned off her or his brain so that person can say something she or he knows is untrue or illogical, simply because it is politically expedient. I think we see all too much of that these days. People are completely willing to say illogical and stupid things about opponents while defending allies with equally bad logic.

It’s rampant and it doesn’t help solve the problems we have in this country and in the world. Not only is it rampant but it’s virulent. People call each other horrible names and say vile things about one another in response to the illogical memes. The sort of words that if used face to face would result in violence. Because they are being said from a distance there is a security otherwise not available. The rage engendered from such words is real, even if it cannot be consummated with fisticuffs.

It is clear to me the way to solve large problems is to work together. Working as a team involves communication and working through disagreement in a productive and positive manner. That is the best way to come up with lasting resolutions.

That’s the serious problem with all these nonsensical and illogical memes. We think they don’t do any harm, but they encourage people to turn off their minds and blindly state things that don’t make any sense. Not that people aren’t responsible for their own actions. If someone posts such an idiotic meme, then it probably means they are an idiot. That’s reality.

And, in case you’re wondering, the meme that set off my rant was about the removal of monuments in southern states that were dedicated to confederates. It read something along the lines of: If you remove Confederate Monuments then the Civil War never happened and that means slavery never happened.

There are examples of bad logic in that meme. Can you spot them?

Tom Liberman

Fyre Festival and the F35

Posted on by

fyre festivalWhen things go wrong in the private sector we have lawsuits available to redress the problem. When things go wrong in government, not so much. I’d like to take a moment to compare the Fyre Festival and the F35 Lighting II.

First the Fyre Festival. A couple of fellows named Ja Rule and Billy McFarland came up with an idea to have a music festival on an island in the Bahamas. The plan involved popular music artists and supermodels, ticket prices were extremely high. Everything went wrong.

Many people might say that the entire plan was a mistake but I’d disagree. One of the reason things went so badly is the number of people who paid to attend were far greater than the venue could accommodate. That clearly means people were quite interested in going to the festival.

A similar thing happened with the F35. It’s easy to say let’s build a single jet that does everything three other jets can do. We’ll save tons of money by having one plane with interchangeable parts. It seems like a good idea.

After the good plan is arrived upon, it is vital to hire pragmatic people who understand the details necessary to complete the project. People who understand the practicalities of organizing a complex festival or a technically challenging weapon’s platform.

That’s the problem with dreamers. They stop their ruminations seconds after telling everyone what a great idea it is. And it might well be a great idea, but without a plan and realistic implementation therein, it cannot come to fruition.

What happened with the Fyre Festival and the F35 is no one was willing or able to do the necessary hard work to pull either off in a timely fashion. There are two important differences. The first is the festival could actually fail whereas the F35 was going to continue on no matter how far delayed and how much money it cost.

The second is there is redress for those who suffered or lost money at the festival. For the taxpayers, there is no redress. Our money is gone. It is spent. There is no way to sue and get it back.

All the warning signs were there for both the event and the plane. The venue was horribly inadequate and it was apparently suggested to the organizers the festival simply be cancelled until next year. They chose to go on with it and now must suffer the consequences of the disaster. That’s a good thing, that’s what happens in the business world.

The technology to create the F35 really just didn’t exist and no one had ever done anything like it before. It relied on inventing technological solutions where none existed. It became clear fairly early on the three versions would not be nearly as interchangeable as hoped, the entire purpose of building the single plane. Costs skyrocketed as the plane’s deployment became delayed by years. Congress decided to go on with the project despite these problems.

This contrast of the private sector and government is stark. When someone shoots for the moon and ends up falling short, there must be consequences. Instead, we are the ones punished by being forced to foot the bill for their folly. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting awfully tired of politicians spewing out wild dreams and foregoing all practical planning. When things go awry, they just throw more money at the problem.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could file lawsuits against our politicians when projects they mismanage go hugely overbudget and even fail entirely? It seems like a nonsensical idea but we live in a nation where we get to elect our representatives. We can do whatever we want if we just vote for like-minded people.

Not that I’m holding my breath.

Tom Liberman

Is Discussing an Unanswerable Question a Good Idea?

Posted on by

philosophy-discussionYesterday on Facebook my friend posted a philosophical question about the nature of reality and I replied with a long post. He responded this morning with another interesting question. Is it worth discussing at all?

It’s a good question. The original query is largely unanswerable. Yes, we might be living in the Matrix but there is no empirical way to determine if this is true. Perhaps we are living in the Matrix or some other construct. On the other hand, maybe the evidence we gather with our senses and repeated trials is real. Arguments can be made endlessly but, in the end, neither side can prove their point.

So why bother with the argument, or dialectic, my friend asks?

Why indeed.

If the question cannot be answered, isn’t it a waste of time and energy to discuss it at all? Shouldn’t we move on to something more productive?

This time there is an answer to the question and one that is emphatically true. Yes. We not only should, but essentially must, have such debates. This despite the fact we are aware there is no final answer.

The first reason such debates are useful is because they exercise your mind in the same way a physical workout exercises your body. Riding a stationary bike, lifting weights, participating in a yoga class; all these things make you stronger and better in any number of ways. I’ll not diverge into a discussion of cardiovascular health, I think we can all accept the idea that physical exercise is a good thing.

This training of the mind helps you analyze situation through critical thinking and contributes greatly to your ability to find resolutions. In this case there isn’t one, but frequently in life when presented with a problem, there is a correct solution. It is imperative to think through any obstacles and derive a resolution. This behavior will help you navigate life successfully.

Another reason to engage in such civil discourse is to practice having disagreements without resorting to name calling and general rudeness. People are going to disagree with you on a fairly regular basis. We see all too frequently today an immediate and angry descent into attack dialog. Anyone who dares disagree with me on any point is the enemy. They must be ridiculed and destroyed! This sort of behavior is being exhibited virtually everywhere you look, and it is leading to unthinkable divisions in this nation and the world as a whole. When people can no longer disagree with civility, we are in trouble.

Another reason to have such discourse is that it teaches you to listen to ideas that you might not have considered. When we just shout at each other, there is no learning going on. When we engage in the back and forth of discussion we sometimes learn new things, we sometimes change our opinion, and that’s a good thing. New information doesn’t always change an opinion but sometimes it does. It’s important to get into the habit of listening to those who oppose your point of view, not just to avoid angry confrontation, but to actually increase your own understanding of the situation.

The answer to my friend’s question is simple. Yes. Have the discussion. And maybe a tumbler of Booker’s bourbon while you’re at it.

Tom Liberman

Overbooking at Airports and Hotels is there a Solution?

Posted on by

OverbookingThe recent case involving United Airlines has brought to the forefront of people’s consciousness the industry practice of overbooking on flights and in hotels. I understand the United Airlines case didn’t actually involve overbooking but that’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. The question is, should the airline and hotel industries engage in the practice?

In order to make a judgment in this regard we must understand why they do so. Overbooking is done primarily to maximize profits. There are always people who book a hotel room or a flight but don’t show up when the time arrives. This translates into losses for the airline or hotel as they would normally have reserved that ticket or room for someone else. Now it is too late to do so.

The problem occurs when fewer people fail to show up than are overbooked. The flight or hotel now doesn’t have enough room for all the customers. This is resolved in a number of ways, generally by offering incentives to take a later flight or providing a room at another location.

But how is it solved? There are basically two methods.

Laws might be passed that forbid the practice. This leads to decreased profits for the industries involved. Hotel rooms go unfilled and flights take off at less than maximum capacity.

The second method is for the hotel or airline to voluntarily refuse to overbook. This generally involves non-refundable transactions. If you purchase a ticket and are unable to make the flight or stay, you do not get any of your money back. It is as if you actually took the flight or stayed in the hotel.

Both solutions have significant problems.

When we reduce profit, there is a negative effect on all aspects of the business. The company might not be able to employ as many people, they might economize on things like safety, they might even go completely out of business. If laws are passed in one state or community rather than another, we create obstacles to the free market. One supplier has an advantage over another. In addition, companies are now given an incentive to break the law. When you make breaking the law profitable, you encourage crime. Companies that find ways around the restrictions are going to be more profitable than those who follow the regulations. These criminal companies succeed where their competitors fail.

The second solution is problematic for the consumer. Sometimes when we miss a flight or fail to stay at a hotel the cause is unavoidable. Perhaps a death in the family or an illness. It comes across as cruel and certainly generates an enormous amount of bad publicity in this information age to force people to pay for tickets under these circumstances. People lie. It would be impossible for an airline or hotel to track down everyone who failed to show up and prove their excuse, a death in the family, didn’t actually happen. Thus, they either stick to policy or face social media retribution.

I totally understand the outrage of a person who suffers because of overbooking. I’d be angry as well. I just think it’s important to understand the cause of a problem before going about trying to solve it. In this case, there are solutions but they are imperfect.

That’s the nature of this world sometimes. Contrary to what people might be saying, there aren’t always easy solutions.

Happy travels, my friends!

Tom Liberman

Masada Admirable Rebels or Foolish Martyrs?

Posted on by

masada-fortressAlmost two thousand years ago Roman soldiers besieged Masada which was held by a splinter group of Jewish people called Sicarii. This group strongly opposed Roman occupation of Judea and carried out a terrorist campaign to prosecute their beliefs.

Eventually less than a thousand of them took refuge in Masada where they held out for a few months before Roman engineers finished a ramp into the fortress. When the Romans finally arrived, they found the Sicarii had all committed suicide rather than be captured.

This event has come to be celebrated as symbol of Jewish heroism against overwhelming odds although another opinion is that it was simply a group of violent extremists who forced the Romans into drastic action. That the Sicarii brought about their own deaths because they refused to accept reality and engaged in a series of assassination against not only the Romans but any residents of Judea who they deemed sympathizers.

Which was it? Heroic martyrs or violent extremists? I think the answer to that question contains a great deal of value to the modern world. I won’t keep you in suspense. It’s apparent to me the Sicarii were violent, murdering, extremists tied to a hopeless position and willing to drag down anyone who opposed them.

The Roman occupation of Judea was generally, as were many Roman conquests, enlightened. The Romans brought their laws, clean water, and other benefits with them. This was one of the main reasons they were able to conquer much of the world. The daily lives of the average person improved under Roman rule as compared to the previous government.

I’m not saying it was all wonderful for everyone. Certainly, the leaders of the former regime often met gruesome fates or at least lost their power and prestige.

The reason I mention this is because the modern-day equivalent to the Sicarii are radical Islamic terrorist. The people who are carrying out the most horrific and terrible violence against innocent civilians would actually be far better off under the rule of those who they see as invaders. They live under despotic, theocratic rulers who allow them very little freedom and restrict their general well-being in any number of ways.

The terrorists are essentially fighting to preserve their own misery. As individuals, they have committed to a particular side and refuse to compromise in any way or even accept the fact their leaders are far from ideal.

While the terrorists are somewhat responsible for their own circumstances there are other culprits. The western world spent many years exploiting these nations for their mineral resources while propping up said brutal dictators. We are still doing so.

I think it’s important to understand that we can only be responsible for own behavior. We can’t tell a terrorist to stop her or his suicidal course. When we seek out and kill terrorists, when we support brutal dictators, when we cause terrible hardships through economic sanctions, we only push more and more of the population to terrorism. We can only control our own actions.

That’s a little bit off topic as to my point today. I’m saying that we all have choices in life. We should make decisions that are going to be in our long-term benefit. The Sicarii chose a path that led to their own destruction and did not benefit their nation in any way. Modern-day terrorists are doing the same thing.

The United States is making choices that create far more terrorists than we kill and has been doing so for some time.

What choices are you making?

Tom Liberman

Perceived Value of Starbucks Coffee and Organic Eggs

Posted on by

starbucks-perceived-valueA friend of mine on Facebook recently passed along a meme comparing the price of a dozen organic eggs to the price of a coffee at Starbucks. The ostensible reason for the post was to ridicule people paying five or more dollars for a coffee who then complain a dozen eggs is too expensive. The reality of both situations is something called Perceived Value.

The basic idea is that people want value for their money. The relative worth of a product and the value associated with expenditures are different for each person. For some people a dozen eggs has much more value than a cup of coffee from Starbucks, while for others it is reversed.

I don’t want to get into a long discussion of Perceived Value, although it’s certainly a fascinating subject. I want to examine why people in the United States, and much of the developed world, seem to value a cup of flavorful coffee at a higher level than a dozen organic eggs.

It’s because cheap eggs abound and we don’t need to purchase expensive eggs to stave off starvation. There are plenty of eggs in this part of the world. Eggs go for a very low price thanks to factory farming and other capitalistic endeavors. Thus, we balk when we see a high price associated with a dozen organic versions of the product we could get more cheaply.

But wait, you say. You can also get a cup of coffee for less than five dollars many places. This is true; however, a cup of coffee is not a vital human need. Eggs, as in nourishment, are something we absolutely must have. If we go without eating for a long period of time we die. Eggs are a human need. Coffee is simply a human desire; in other words, a luxury. We don’t mind paying extra for a cup of coffee as long as we really enjoy it. We don’t need the coffee to survive. We justify the expense as disposable income.

The reality is we cannot change anyone else’s perceived value of a product. If some people balk at spending a certain amount on eggs, that’s their business. The same for coffee.

The important lesson to be learned is that capitalism has brought us abundance. Certainly, arguments against factory farming can be made. The practices that allow for cheap eggs are not particularly savory. That being said, we can actually purchase a dozen eggs for a couple of dollars. In fact, most people in the developed world spend far less of their income and time getting enough food to survive than do those in underdeveloped countries. This allows us to purchase an expensive cup of coffee.

I’m of the opinion this is something we often overlook in an age of abundance and wealth. Sure, things aren’t perfect, but capitalism and technology have brought many of us to a level of wealth and luxury beyond the wildest imaginations of previous generations.

Rich people are very rich but poor people are a lot wealthier than their counterparts in underdeveloped nations.

It’s going to take some time before we achieve super-abundance. Where everything we truly need is available for almost nothing at all. Where the only money we spend is on luxuries. There are still people in the developed world suffering and hungry but that doesn’t mean we should turn back to older times.

The path to this level of abundance is through the expansion of capitalism, not the restricting of it. Five dollar coffee proves it.

Tom Liberman

MOAB and the Right Tool for the Job

Posted on by

moab** ADDENDUM **

Since I wrote this article, sources in Afghanistan are claiming that three caves were destroyed and 94 militants killed. I’m rather skeptical of this total seeing as no one has yet to clear the area and United States sources are silent. That being said, it that is true, then what follows is apparently incorrect.

** END ADDENDUM **

The GBU-43/B is the wrong weapon to attack caves and people supporting its use are coming up with contrived arguments to prove the value of the strike. I think it’s important to use the right tool for the job and optimistic hope that a shovel can pound a nail still doesn’t mean the shovel was used properly. Do we really want our military running on hope and using the wrong tools?

I’ve been in a number of discussions on various social media outlets about the effectiveness of the GBU-43/B against protected fighters in Afghanistan. The issue has largely been the GBU-43/B is designed as an Air Blast weapon to clear soft targets from the surface and to explode mines over a large area. Its very name indicates as much, Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB).

The United States military has a number of other weapon systems called Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) which are designed to penetrate caves and bunkers to destroy their targets.

The problem here is the caves are not a single target but a massive complex and the MOP can only strike a small portion of them. Meanwhile, the MOAB does affect a much larger area but only on the surface, not caves.

What I’d like people to think about is the design purpose of the GBU-43/B, the way it was used in Afghanistan and, most importantly, why and how they are defending the strike.

It’s my opinion that people are defending the strike because they support aggressive action against enemies of the United States holed up in the caves of Afghanistan. I don’t begrudge them this attitude. What I’m suggesting is that we should pound a nail with a hammer, not a shovel. I’m also saying it’s counterproductive to support people pounding nails with shovels. Tell them they are doing it wrong. Give them a hammer.

If you saw your enemy spending considerable effort in making attacks that were useless would you be frightened by the inarguably massive power of the attack or emboldened by the sheer stupidity of the misused weapon?

Most of the arguments I’m getting from supporters is the concussion of the blast might destroy tunnels below ground. This is true. It’s unlikely, but possible the force of the air on the surface might collapse a small section of the tunnels directly below the blast. The vast majority of the force goes sideways and destroys targets on the surface, as is the design parameter of the ordnance.

Basically, people are arguing the shovel is a good pounder of nails when it clearly is not. This because they want to support the strike. Again, I get you support the attack. I’m just suggesting that we use the right tool for the job.

If you have to contrive an argument to support your point, well, your point might not be so valid. Something to consider.

Tom Liberman

Turn North Korea into a Parking Lot?

Posted on by

north_koreaA rather common refrain I hear from people is the idea of using nuclear weapons to completely destroy a particular enemy of the United States. I probably first heard this in regards to Iran not long after the revolution in that nation, today I mostly hear it in reference to North Korea.

The idea is that North Korea doesn’t have the ability to damage the United States in return and they do not have resources we’re much interested in acquiring. If we simply use nuclear weapons on them we don’t risk any soldiers’ lives and solve the problem.

But what does saying something like “Turn North Korea into a parking lot” indicate about the person saying it? I think it’s fairly important to examine this idea. I’m of the opinion that most people are saying it rather flippantly, they are not really thinking through the idea nor do they actually want the plan carried out. Still, it’s important to consider your words. When you say something, other people hear you. People who respect and trust you often repeat your sentiment. It’s one of the ways fake news gets legitimized. When someone you respect gives an opinion, you are prone to believe it and repeat it.

So, let’s examine the consequences of turning North Korea into a parking lot by using nuclear weapons.

North Korea is a nation of nearly twenty-five million people. It has a land mass of forty-six thousand square miles. It is adjacent to U.S. ally South Korea and important trade partner China. It is less than a thousand miles from central Japan.

In order to completely destroy North Korea, the U.S. would likely have to drop hundreds of nuclear bombs. We could destroy the major population centers and military institutions with fewer but it would require a considerable effort in either case. We could attempt to bomb when prevailing winds would minimize the drift of the nuclear cloud. Most likely we’d kill, maim, and radiate hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in Japan, China, and South Korea in collateral damage.

In addition, North Korea has considerable artillery assets which are well within range of Seoul. They would almost certainly bombard much of South Korea before the full effects of the nuclear attack could be achieved.

Obviously, we’d be killing the vast majority of the population in North Korea; man, woman, child, and unborn infant. For me that’s an issue of simple ethics, morality.

In addition, we would be establishing a pattern of behavior where we are willing to completely destroy an enemy. This has a two-fold effect. Proponents argue it would frighten our enemies, who would immediately come into line with our desires. There might be some truth to that but the reality is our enemies would simply plan to completely destroy us before we could do the same to them.

I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t want to flatten North Korea. I’m just suggesting you consider the consequences of such actions before you advocate them. What doing so would infer about your own humanity and decency, the effects your spoken and written sentiments have on those around you.

Tom Liberman

Flu Shots Save Lives but Not All of Them

Posted on by

Flu-ShotThe CDC just released a study on 358 children who died from influenza in the years 2010 through 2014. What I’d like to discuss today is the disconnect between hard metrics of statistics and the reality of personal experience. I think this study gives a good chance to fully examine the issue.

Despite hard statistical evidence in favor of one thing or another, people will reject it. They will eschew them even in a case like this where the lives of their children might be impacted.

Here’s the idea. Basically about half of all children in the United States received the flu vaccine in the time frame of the study. That means in a random world about 179 children who got the vaccine should have died and an equal amount of those who did not should have suffered the same awful fate. The study shows in actuality about 268 children who were not vaccinated died while only 90 who were vaccinated died.

The implication are fairly obvious. The chance of your child dying from influenza is reduced if they get a flu shot.

Here’s the problem. Ninety children who did get the vaccine died. Meanwhile millions who did not get the vaccine did not get sick at all and certainly did not perish. Only a small percentage of children in the United States died from complications of influenza. There are ninety sets of parents out there who will swear that the vaccine is useless because their child died. There are millions of parents whose children did not get the vaccine and are alive today.

Statistically speaking there are about 189 children alive today because they got their flu shot. But there is no way to identify those 189 children. It is difficult to argue against the parents of the children who died after they received the vaccine. It is difficult to argue with the personal experience of millions of parents whose children were not vaccinated and are alive and healthy.

Personal experience often flies in the face of numbers and it’s not easy for anyone to overcome such anecdotal bias.

People tend to believe what they want to believe and in this case I’m certain quite a few people will continue to eschew the vaccine. They will not suffer because of this. Only a tiny percentage of people will suffer the horrible loss of a child.

This is why I think it’s important to teach Critical Thinking from an early age. We all tend to give credence to our experiences over a statistical study. It’s human nature. I understand it. That being said, the lives of 189 children depend on convincing people empirical studies are more important than personal experience.

Do you get your flu shot?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
April 2017 Release: For the Gray

Extraordinary Claims and Sherri Papini

Posted on by
sherri-papini

I don’t know how many of you remember the Sherri Papini story from November of 2016 but there is an interesting update to the supposed events that transpired.

What I want to talk about today is the old adage that skeptics embrace: An extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof.

Skepticism

I can say, as do the commenters on the updated story, that I was pretty skeptical of Papini’s story from the start. It was filled with extraordinary claims and there appeared to be little evidence to support it. Nevertheless, she received quite a bit of sympathy.

We certainly don’t know that her story was false, she might well have been telling the truth, but I think it’s fairly likely she made the entire thing up to cover up some other failing; infidelity, drugs, something.

I don’t want to spend time trying to figure out why so many supported her while relatively few questioned her story from the beginning. I just want to offer the same advice as Marcello Truzzi. When someone tells a story that is rather extraordinary take a moment to embrace skepticism. It’s not easy. When someone like Papini tells a horrific story we want to offer sympathy and help. It’s in general human nature to be kind to those who have suffered misfortune. Sadly, that natural instinct allows con-artists to make a living.

Kindness is not Always Helpful

We want to help and the more terrible the story the more we feel empathy and pain for the victim. The more we want to help.

That’s the lesson of the Papini situation. Don’t be quick to believe extraordinary claims. When you are told something that seems unlikely, take a moment and pause. Don’t set your mind to an opinion because it becomes difficult at that point to turn back. Once we’ve committed to a “truth” we find it painful to admit a mistake. If you can just hold off on a snap judgment for a little while, I think it will be to your benefit in many ways.

Conclusion

In your business, in your education, in your daily life; try to be skeptical. It doesn’t hurt to stop and look for evidence.

Tom Liberman

Before you Laugh at Kyrie Irving and Flat Earth Examine What you Believe without Evidence

Posted on by

kyrie-irvingWho was it that said something about casting stones?

There’s an article all over the news today about a basketball player named Kyrie Irving who believes the earth is flat. The comment section is filled with scorn. The same commenters who generally flood stories with absolute belief in many things without any supporting evidence.

President Obama banned the pledge of allegiance.

President Trump vacationed with Vladimir Putin before the election.

90% of the Ninth Circuit Court Decisions are Overturned by the Supreme Court.

Richard Gere and the Gerbil.

All these things are nonsense and yet the very people calling Kyrie Irving all sorts of names believe stories exactly like those I listed above. Do you? I’d guess the answer is probably yes. You believe something that is completely false. There are reasons for this.

Perhaps the story matches up with your political or personal beliefs and you’d like it to be true so you don’t investigate or willfully ignore any evidence suggesting the story is false.

Perhaps the story was told to you by someone you trust, so you didn’t bother to investigate because of that trust.

Perhaps you are stupid.

Perhaps you’re not stupid but you never learned Critical Thinking skills.

All these things are possible and I would venture to say there is no one who has not fallen into the trap at one point or another. Kyrie Irving believes the Earth is flat. He’s wrong but I’m not going to convince him, you’re not going to convince him, no amount of evidence is going to convince him. He’s going to have to decide for himself to investigate the topic, look at the all the evidence, and come to a conclusion that ignores his preconceived notions. Easy, you say? Then you do it. Do it in every aspect of your life. Do it for every political story you read.

In my Libertarian Group of supposed Free Thinkers there are scam artists everywhere. Some make promises about freedom and life in South America while stealing money from members, and yet they are supported almost endlessly. Some rave and rant about problems that simply don’t exist. There is no shortage of those who believe in defiance of evidence. I would say anyone who denies Evolution is such a person and that includes a healthy percentage of my friends.

Before you start throwing stones at Irving, take a look in the mirror.

And, of course, try to apply Critical Thinking skills to all aspects of your life.

Tom Liberman

Pre-Industrial to Industrial to Information

Posted on by

Industrial-revolutionI’ve seen quite a bit of debate both in person and online about the idea of Protectionism and why we either need to avoid it or embrace it. I find that people who believe one side of the argument seem to be largely immune to attempts to convince them otherwise. As you might imagine much of this debate is fueled by the current political climate in the United States.

President Trump is a strong protectionist. He believes that we must protect our workers from foreign depredation. On the other hand we have Libertarians like myself who believe in Free Trade. What I’d like to do today is not argue with you but ask you to argue my point. Perhaps no one will take me up on it, my blog viewership is somewhat short of the millions. However, perhaps a few people who believe in the Protectionist mantra will be willing to step forward.

So here we go.

Imagine that is not 2017 but in fact it is 1760. Before even the United States existed as a free nation.

Our economy is based almost completely on Pre-Industrial economics. Agriculture is the primary form of employment and wealth generation, as it has been for tens of thousands of years. People are born, live, and die all within fifty miles of a single location. On the horizon is a frightening thing. The Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution will destroy virtually every single job that exists today. I am a precursor of the Luddites. I believe this new way of doing things will destroy my family and my life. I will no longer be able to work, to make money. Tell me why I should embrace textile manufacturing, metallurgy, steam power, machine tools, chemicals, cement (my job is a brick layer), gas lighting, glass making, paper machines, automated agriculture, mining, canals, roads, railways.

These things will destroy my family. My children will work in a factory instead of providing subsistence farming at home. I don’t know the skills required to live in this coming world.

I will suffer. I will not have a job. You, the government, must protect me and my job from this new way of doing things. I don’t know how to write code, I mean fix a steam engine. Explain to me how it could possible be to my benefit, to my nation’s benefit, to the world’s benefit to move from pre-industrial to industrial. Why should we not fight this?

Go!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Pizzagate, Media Accountability, Personal Responsibility

Posted on by

facebook-fake-newsTwitter, Fake News, Facebook, Mainstream Media, Conspiracy Theory, Alt-Right, BLM, Obama, Trump, and on and on. What is real news? What is fake news? What is partially real news? What is mostly real news with a few fake facts. What is a mistake? What is mostly fake news with a few real facts?

Crazy people do violent things based on false news.

What can be done about all this fake news? I’ll tell you what can be done about it but you’re not going to like the answer.

Nothing.

There is nothing to be done about people who spread false information, people who lie. There has never been anything to do about them. Because of enormous advances in the ability of people to communicate with one another using social media; the limitations to disseminating information are largely gone. Anyone can say anything and broadcast the message anywhere instantly. That cat is out of the proverbially bag, if there ever was a bag.

So are we doomed to an endless series of people acting on false information to hurt and even kill innocents? Probably but not necessarily.

There is a solution. It doesn’t involve jailing people who lie or controlling the media. It’s actually relatively simple. Teach children to think critically. Make people understand that facts are important. Teach everyone that you cannot just believe whatever theory you come across because it matches your political ideology.

If you are a critical thinker that is not enough. When one of your friends or relatives puts out false information call them on it. I’ve done so and I’ve been unfriended on Facebook for it. I’ve been attacked. Vilified. I’ve been called all sorts of names, mostly involving my intellectual abilities or lack thereof. So be it.

I give out this warning to all my friends. All my family. All my social media acquaintances. If you say something stupid I’m going to point out the stupidity of your post with arguments. If you post false news stories I’m going to reply with facts. If you don’t like it … well … don’t get mad at me. Get mad at yourself. Or, get mad at me, I don’t care. The only person I can control is myself. I will do so zealously. You’ve been warned.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

What the word Fart has to Say about Your Integrity

Posted on by

rempel-may-fartThere’s a silly news story making the rounds that gives me an opportunity to ask you a question, so I’m going to do it.

Politician Michelle Rempel said the word “fart” in regards to how the province of Alberta was being treated by the Canadian Parliament. The leader of the opposition party, Elizabeth May, thought the word lacked decorum and called out Rempel. A war of words ensued.

What I want to examine is the idea that the word itself has no meaning at all to most people. It is the person who says it. Let’s pretend you have no idea what political parties Rempel and May represent. You simply know Rempel said the word fart in a place where normally one uses decorum.

I want you to think introspectively about yourself and your past behavior when answering this poll. Don’t immediately answer. Think about it. Then give me an answer.

Would your Comment about this Story Change based on Political Party?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

It’s my opinion that the vast majority of people are totally influenced by party affiliation. Which side they take on this issue has nothing to do with the word itself but the party affiliation of the person who said it. I’m also of the opinion that most people who answer this poll will deny that. They will answer that party affiliation has nothing to do with their answer.

Thus, I guess I’m saying most people I know will lie in order to support their political agenda. And they will do it with little awareness they are lying. They will tell their lie and believe they are telling the truth. Worse even than the means justify the ends. Lying supports the party I like and therefore it is the truth.

It’s my opinion this is where we are as a country, not just in Canada.

Finally I will discuss my opinion on the controversy although I hope you answer the poll before reading.

Rempel was in violation of simple decorum but not enormously, it was an impassioned speech. May was out of line in publically attacking Rempel. She should have simply pulled her aside quietly and suggested that such language is probably not best in parliament. Perhaps Rempel might have stood up the next day and explained that her passion carried her away and that she is sorry for her choice of words if not for the message. Maybe even have thanked May for pointing it out. Then May might have reciprocated explaining that she understood and heard Rempel’s message. That they might try to work together to solve the problem.

But then again, I’m just a silly dreamer who thinks we are headed toward Utopia.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Binary or not Binary

Posted on by

binary-problemsThis world is made up of two kinds of people.

  1. Morons who think things are binary
  2. The enlightened who understand things are not binary.

And, to be clear, morons, I’m one of the enlightened non-binaries. You, fool reading this, are a binary cave dweller.

See!

Do you see!!

There’s just two kinds of people. The enlightened people who realize everything is not binary, like me. Because we’re better than you (just in case you weren’t following). And then there’s the rest of you idiots. There is no middle ground. I want to be very clear on this.

It’s us intelligent, kind, thinking, non-binaries who understand the world isn’t a zero or a one and the rest of you, who we hate (to be clear). You are stupid and wrong about everything!!!!!! And we’re smart and right about everything!!!!!!

I hope I’ve cleared things up for you, binary idiots. Now, I’m going to go have some overpriced coffee with my non-binary friends where we will make fun of you and call you stupid.

Have a nice day, because, you see, I’m a good person who is just making the world a better place.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

It’s not a Full Moon on Friday

Posted on by
lunar-phases

This isn’t going to be a long blog but I’m annoyed, therefore I rant. All over my Facebook wall are people posting memes about tomorrow, Friday the Thirteenth coinciding with a full moon.

Let me count the problems I have with this.

First: Friday the Thirteenth is just another day. There is nothing lucky or unlucky about the numeric day and weekday of one day over another. I wrote a longer blog on this subject here. We happen to have a twelve month calendar with varying length months between twenty eight and thirty one days. The conjunction of days and days of the week is merely random happenstance with no meaning. What if we had a six month calendar with sixty days per month? Or an eighteen month calendar with twenty or so day months? It’s just an arbitrary assignment of names and numbers to the length of time the earth takes to orbit the sun.

Ok, enough of that.

Two: The full moon is something that happens every 29.53 days based on the time it takes the satellite to orbit the earth. Once again it is a cyclical event that has no effect on humanity. Don’t believe me? Trust Wiki.

III: This is a biggie everyone. A huge one. An enormous one. Keep this one in mind the next time you see something on the internet. I’m going to whisper it because it’s a crazy, revolutionary idea that may not have occurred to many people. It’s not a full moon on Friday. The internet may have lied to you. Remember that fact. Remember. Remember. Remember. Remember.

Stay skeptical my friends.

Tom Liberman

I’m Smarter than Them

Posted on by

smarter-than-you-minI just added a blog to my Stupid Comment of the Week collection and, while discussing it with my co-worker Joe, found his observation to be extraordinarily intriguing. His thought essential involved the idea of perceived intelligence. Let me explain.

The original stupid comment involved a mathematical equation involving prime numbers but it is the implications of that comment that intrigue me.

The commenter got themselves involved in a complex mathematical discussion in which they felt their ideas would easily trump that of the established mathematic community. Their idea was nonsensical and well-worthy of inclusion in my Stupid Comment of the Week blog but it was the idea behind it, that Joe so ably pointed out, that I find so interesting.

Why would someone, without much thought or hesitation, enter into a complex mathematical discussion? I think there was a time when the sciences, as a whole, were respected and admired by the population. But in the last few years we’ve seen a stark politicization of science. When the science agrees with my political philosophy I respect it but when it does not I ridicule it. This attitude has filtered down to the average person so much so that they think they know better than scientists.

That is clearly what drove the comment in question. Anyone who had respect for the all but unfathomable nature of higher mathematics, which I do, would never so much as dare enter into an opinion that countered the established thought. At least not without considerable research. Yet the fellow in question, one assumes without hesitation, had the absolute arrogance to assume a greater knowledge than those who spent countless hours in study. The fellow in question did not hesitate to assume that their ten seconds of thought, if that, could simply and easily dispose of astonishing intelligence and hard work.

What does this tell us? That the average citizen believes they are smarter than those who work, who study, who spend hours in deep discussions with colleagues, who are clearly of superior intelligence? That the average, or below average, person thinks they know more than she or he who has spent a lifetime studying and learning?

It is a disturbing thought. If the average person believes they are smarter than the intellectual giants; what does it tell us about where the United States of America is heading?

I think this is a question well worth examining and I find I do not like the answer.

If the average person does not respect, does not admire, does not even so much as admit that the intellectual elite are in fact, elite, where is our nation headed?

The only answer I can come up with is that we are headed for obscurity. The United States will become an afterthought in the world. A has-been. A once great fallen into laughable disrepair.

I hope this is not the case but evidence is growing.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn