Race, Religion, Geography and Chris Soules

chris soulesNot long ago a fellow by the name of Chris Soules smashed his truck into the rear end of a tractor and killed the driver. He then fled the scene and was arrested later that evening after refusing to come in voluntarily. Soules is a minor celebrity having participated in the television show, The Bachelor. He was a man of strong Christian faith. He is a Caucasian. He lived in a rural community in Iowa.

While reading the comments from a relative of the victim, it struck me how willing people were to find an excuse for Soules. He didn’t flee the scene, was merely driving away to go get help. That sort of thing. It’s clear to me people would not have been fooling themselves with irrational explanations if Soules had been of a darker skin color, from a city rather than rural environment, and if he didn’t express belief in Jesus as his savior.

I’m not pulling the racism card, the religion card, or the geography card. I’m just stating what I think is obvious fact. If Soules was black, a city dweller, and a Muslim; most people would not be looking to exonerate him. They would be laying down the blame, insisting on putting him in jail, throwing away the key.

We have perceptions of people in our minds because of these external things that, while not valid, drive our reaction to their deeds.

Let’s imagine we are going to a movie that received rave review. We’re excited, we think it’s going to be great, and our expectations are high. The movie is merely good. We come away disappointed. On the other hand, if the movie got awful reviews and we expected it to be bad; we come away elated. That wasn’t bad at all. I enjoyed it. That’s the affect expectations have upon us and there is nothing wrong with that. That’s reality.

However, this is where critical thinking, pragmatism, and being a decent human being come into play. Yes, we have expectations but it’s important to overcome those expectations and treat each situation as the facts dictate. If the movie was fairly entertaining but not great, then that’s what it was. That’s how you should describe it to friends when they ask you about it.

It’s not looking great for Soules. He wasn’t seeking help when he drove away from the crime. The police had to seek him out and execute a warrant on him. One of the main reasons people flee a vehicular accident is to cleanse their system of alcohol or other capacity diminishing drugs. Some five hours passed after the accident before Soules was arrested.

The accident was almost certainly just that. However, if he was driving under the influence when it happened and fled to avoid testing, then he is guilty of a terrible crime, regardless of race, religion, and geography.

Check your expectations at the door.

Tom Liberman

Clown Ban in Kemper County Mississippi

creepy-clown-sightingsSometimes it’s just too much and a Libertarian wants to throw his arms up in the air and scream, “Take it. Take this country and do what you will. You’ll be begging for help not long after I get out of your way and let you have what you want. Take it! Take it all.

Clowns. Clowns! For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Clowns!!

I suppose not everyone has heard about the rash of clown sightings sweeping the western world. People dressed in clown costumes have apparently committed a few crimes and sightings of many more scary clowns have been reported although not substantiated.

Salem Witch Trials?

Mindless fear?

Legislation that prevents people from wearing a costume?

Sheer idiocy replacing any sense of rational thought, reason, the Constitution of the United States.

Freedom. Anyone heard of it?

Target has the right to stop selling clown suits, it’s their business, it’s stupid but they can do as they want. When there are actual laws against dressing in a clown suit then something is seriously wrong with this world.

Rant, rant, rant, rant, rant. Who cares. No one is listening. Safety has surpassed freedom. People will give up big freedoms and little ones for the illusion of safety. We’ll see how safe you are when you get what you want. Don’t come crying to me.

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

 

Schlitterbahn Waterslides are Dangerous but will Federal Regulation Help?

the-verruckt-schlitterbahn

The terrible news from Kansas City about Caleb Schwab dying while riding one of the waterslides at the Schlitterbahn water park has hit a nerve with the public. The story is at the top of news feeds across the country and spurred calls for more regulations at such parks.

Currently there are no federal inspections of amusement parks at fixed locations. Carnivals and the like are subject to such rules. It is up to each state to inspect as often or as little as they think pertinent. Kansas has pretty lax regulations and the park in question hasn’t been inspected by anyone other than the owners in about four years which is before the slide in question went into service.

A Personal Interlude

First a personal story. I’ve got a friend in Austin and go to visit him pretty regularly. On one of those trips we headed to New Braunfels and spent an afternoon at the Schlitterbahn water park. We hung out and eventually climbed a large tower and went plummeting down the water slide. As we sloshed from side to side and I held on it became obvious to me the slide was quite dangerous; that if I wasn’t paying attention or was being a bit rambunctious I could easily cause myself serious injury or death. When we got to the bottom we just sort of looked at each other and neither of us suggested riding again.

I’ve had no desire to visit a water park or ride on a slide since then. I grew up going to Six Flags over Mid-America and in all that time I never felt anywhere near as concerned on any ride as I did on that water slide.

Unenforceable Rules at Waterslides

The ride that resulted in the death of Caleb has difficult if not impossible to enforce requirements. There must be two or three people in the raft with a total weight of between 400 and 550 pounds. The shortest anyone can be is 54 inches (4′ 6″) tall.

Now to the point of my blog. The terrible tragedy has a lot of people calling for Federal oversight at amusement parks and waterslides. Even with all that I’ve mentioned above, I’m of the opinion such regulations will do nothing to make rides safer.

Schlitterbahn has the most vested interest in keeping the park safe. This tragedy is costing them huge sums of money and I’m certain much personal grief as well.

Carnivals Are Not Safe Despite Federal Regulations

I’ve been to carnivals where the rides were filthy and likely unsafe. Many people are injured and killed each year on such rides despite supposed Federal inspections. Frankly, I’m highly skeptical such inspections take place regularly in any case. There isn’t enough time or personnel to make it happen.

Conclusion

So what’s the solution? While I oppose federal regulation on such rides as being both unworkable and ineffective; I’m completely for a national database to document all accidents, injuries, and deaths. The government should publish the results on an easily accessible website paid for with my tax dollars. Then it is up to the consumer to decide if they want to go or not. Vendors who operate unsafe rides will surely feel the pinch quickly.

This obviously doesn’t help those already injured or killed but the reality is nothing does.

What do you think?

What do think is the best solution to unsafe amusement park rides?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Allowing Yourself to Be Bullied?

bullying-and-harassment-minThe presidential election in the United States this year has plenty of “scandals” rearing their head seemingly more than once a day but the one swirling around Eric Trump and his statement that his sister, Ivanka, would not allow herself to be harassed interests me.

The basic premise is that a person should not allow themselves to be bullied, harassed, sexually abused, physically abused, mentally abused, taken advantage of, or otherwise treated poorly by another person.

I think there is a small amount of merit to that idea on a basic level. If a person is subject to any of those things they should immediately stand up for themselves. However, the reality is standing up for yourself can have serious negative consequences. Often times the bully is physically stronger or in a superior position within the organization. People want jobs, a marriage, an education, they are not in a position to just leave as Trump suggests.

Saying no can mean losing your job. It can mean putting yourself in danger of serious physical damage. It can mean losing your friends. It can mean losing your family.

To suggest anyone who is willing to put up with some sort of bullying is complicit in the bullying is largely mistaken.

I’m going to tell you a personal story on this subject. In my high school I worked for the yearbook staff. We had a teacher supervisor but it was mostly us putting together the yearbook. The last quarter of the semester was largely sitting around doing very little because the yearbook was mostly complete and there wasn’t much to do. The supervisor was one of those teachers who hates students. She was a bully. She would make up stuff to do and intimidate the straight A students with threats of a bad grade. I was a straight C student so I didn’t much care. One day she gave us a test. It was an incredibly stupid test with dumb questions about the yearbook. Who knows where she got it. We all seethed but the other students, top honor students who needed a good grade for the most part, sat down and took the test. So did I. But, in a fit of independence I wrote some choice words on the test. “This test is bullshit”.

I got suspended for three days. Barely a blip to what others risk and yet it took some courage to make the stand I made.

For a rising young journalist who is sexually harassed the choice might have been between accepting it or ending his or her career. For a spouse being physically abused the choice might be to accept it or lose her or his marriage, children, or even life. For a young student it might mean the loss of a degree and years from his or her life starting fresh in a new place. For an athlete it might mean losing her or his position on the team.

Yes, you can stand up to the bully but there can be terrible consequences for doing it. The idea that people allow themselves to be bullied has a ring of truth to it but doesn’t stand up to examination. We all put up with things in order to get along with our lives. We do it everyday, anyone who says otherwise is living in an ideological fantasy realm. The more we want something, the more power the bully has over us because we are willing to accept more abuse.

The real problem, it goes without saying, is the sicko who takes advantage of a superior position and gets their jollies harassing those beneath them.

When you grow up rich, with every advantage, with many options; it’s easy to think you can’t be bullied, it’s just not true.

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

Pokemon Go Shaming and Fear

pokemon-go-memeAs if you didn’t already know, a game called Pokemon Go has become hugely popular in the last week.

Along with its popularity I’ve seen a huge spike of news stories and comments in social media attacking the game and its players. The question I want to try and examine today is why is there all this hate and fear?

The object of Pokemon Go is to physically wander around in public places and collect virtual Pokemon. These are little creatures that do battle with one another. A player who has stronger Pokemon can defeat players with weaker Pokemon. Thus it becomes necessary to collect ever stronger Pokemon to win battles. Players can join teams where groups battle one another. What makes Pokemon Go different is that you have to venture out into the physical world to find and collect your combatants. And people are doing it by the millions.

People are getting out of their houses and wandering the world at strange hours and visiting places they might not have visited before. They are getting exercise they would not normally get. They are meeting strangers whom they would not normally meet. Social boundaries are crumbling as people who would never so much as give each other the time of day because of their jobs, race, religion, sexual orientation, or physical locations are now meeting and finding common ground.

That, my devoted readers, is causing abject fear in the establishment. I know it sounds like I’m making way too much out of this but the plethora of news stories about the dangers of playing Pokemon and the social shaming I’m seeing everywhere must have an explanation. People of all religions, colors, nationalities, ages, sexes, and sexual orientations are finding out they have something in common besides our traditional way of separating ourselves. They enjoy playing the same game.

And, by golly, that’s with whom we should be associating! We should hang out with the people who love the same things we love regardless of all those other factors. Factors which are often merely the circumstances of our birth.

Look at that forty year old, white computer programmer sitting on the bench with those two young black men in baggy trousers teaching the police officer how to play. (That’s one of the few positive stories on Pokemon Go I’ve seen). You’re fooling yourself if you think images like that don’t frighten the authorities. What would the world be like if people with the same interests hung out with each other and didn’t worry about what everyone else was doing?

What would happen to nations? To boundaries? To government?

I know, I know, I’m making way too much out of this. Still, my friends, go play Pokemon Go and make some friends you otherwise would never have met.

Be afraid, authority. Change is coming and it comes from unexpected sources.

Is Pokemon Go just a game or something more?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Topless Photos of Little Girls a Problem or not?

kids-play

*Small Correction, the girls were his daughters, not nieces*

I just read a Dear Abby question in which a young woman was upset by a man who had a picture taken with his six and two year old daughters who were topless. He posted the photo on his Facebook page. The letter writer claimed to be concerned that pedophiles might now have access to the pictures although it seemed clear to me that she thought a man posting a photo with topless young girls was somehow wrong.

Abby replied that the writer should talk to other relatives about approaching the man and telling him what he did was inadvisable. What? What? What?

The problem here isn’t with the father. It’s with a society that thinks there is something wrong with six and two year old girls being topless. There isn’t anything wrong with it. Yes, there are pedophiles but the problem is with them, not the father and not the girls.

I am unaware of evidence that pedophiles browse the internet looking for victims. Every case I’ve ever heard about involved a pedophile exploiting a young boy or girl who they were in contact with in their daily affairs. A neighbor, a family member, a member of the church, or something of that nature.

That’s not really my point here. My point is that if we make taking a non-sexual, family, friendly, fun, picture with a couple of topless young girls a sexual thing, we are feeding the idea that girls of that age should be viewed as sexual. They shouldn’t. Girls and boys of that age running around topless is not sexual. It is simply girls and boys running around topless. Little kids used to be allowed to run around naked all the time and nobody much thought anything of it.

I’d like to find a link to prove that point but I’m afraid to do an internet search about naked little kids. That’s a problem! I’m afraid to take pictures of kids at birthday parties. That’s a problem. The problem isn’t the kids. It’s not the uncle, aunt, family friend, mother, father, brother, or sister. It’s a society that allows criminals to guide our behavior.

A criminal might buy a gun. Ban guns.

A person might abuse drugs. Ban drugs.

A person might gamble away all their money. Ban gambling.

A person might get drunk at work. No drinking at work ever.

A person might drink too much soda and get fat. Ban large drinks.

A person might be sexually attracted to a child. Ban pictures of young children.

Responsible people should do what they want and face the consequences if they are irresponsible. They shouldn’t have to modify their behavior because someone else is a criminal or an idiot.

Is an Uncle Posting Pictures on Facebook of his Nieces Topless a Problem?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Online Poker is a Life of Hard Work and Little Money – so Why do it?

jason-sommerville-pokerI’ve been watching people play poker on twitch.tv lately it’s got me thinking about some things.

I started watching a fellow named Jason Somerville and then also began to follow two other players, Lex Veldhuis and Parker Talbot. All three are extraordinarily good players and also entertaining personalities who explain their decisions in an informative way. Somerville in particular is a highly watched streamer who does an exceptional job teaching the game and also entertaining the audience.

So why the blog? Good question. After watching all three of these very strong poker players play for many hours I realized they aren’t winning much money and on many days losing money. That’s not to say they aren’t making money by the end of the year but what I saw was them playing for many, many hours in long tournaments with thousands of players (called Grinding in poker vernacular) for a small return on their hours of investment.

Then, for a change, I watched a few other plays who clearly did not possess the skill or temperament of Somerville, Veldhuis, and Talbot. Not only were they spending hours and hours playing, they were largely losing money! And quite happily I might add.

The first lesson I took from all this is that I have no business sitting at an online poker table. Even if I’m at a small stake tournament, some can be entered for as little as a dime, I’d merely be spending a lot of time and losing money. I have literally no chance to win against more skilled opponents. The more I would play, the more I would lose.

It quickly became clear to me that the vast majority of people playing poker online are either losing money or earning money at a rate far below any minimum wage job. So why are tens of thousands, if not more, people gleefully doing so?

I think it can be argued that the allure of riches plays a part but I don’t think that’s the primary reason so many people are attracted to online poker. While the riches are certainly there it is not the same as purchasing a lottery ticket. In order to get the riches hard work is required.

What I think is going on is much deeper. It taps into why I’m a Libertarian and also into very nature of what it is to be human. We want to be free. We want to work hard at something we enjoy and be rewarded for doing so. Those things bring us happiness and joy.

After watching Somerville, Veldhuis, and Talbot for many hours some things became very clear to me. All three are not simply dolts who happen to be good at poker. All three are highly intelligent and thoughtful. They spoke of subjects beyond poker with strong words and rational logic. It is clear to me that all three would be successful in whatever endeavor they chose, they just happened to have picked a field they enjoy and at which they excel. Wise choices, my friends.

And a shining example for the rest of us.

Do what you love. Work hard at it. Be pragmatic in your decisions. You’ll be happy, perhaps rich or perhaps not.

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

Wisconsin Prison Bans Dungeons and Dragons

Dungeons_and_Dragons_MiniaturesA story that hits me in my proverbial breadbasket just came across the wires. The Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin banned playing Dungeons and Dragons (no word on Pathfinder) by inmates.

I’m a role-playing game enthusiast to say the least. I love playing such games. I think it’s ridiculous that those in power think playing the game might encourage escape fantasies among the inmates. I imagine the escape fantasies are already on their mind. A fellow named Kevin T. Singer is incarcerated at that institution and had a regular Dungeons and Dragons game with fellow inmates.

Let’s cut to the chase. Prison officials do not believe that playing Dungeons and Dragons constitutes an escape or violence risk. They just wanted to make life more difficult for Singer. They found a ridiculous rational for doing so, implemented it, and laughed as they took away his books and homemade material. Ha, they said, we’re in charge and we get to tell you what to do.

The courts agreed. Even though there is no evidence that such games cause troubles in prisons (because they don’t), the court sided with the prison.

Sadly, I agree with the courts. The removal of role-playing games is something the prison can enforce. The inmates have been duly convicted of a crime. A particularly brutal murder in this case. The authorities run the prison and unless they are taking away a Constitutionally guaranteed right, they can do as they will.

My message today is for the prison officials. You are not making Wisconsin or this nation any safer. By using your power to bully and punish a prisoner, for the simple reason that you can, you actually increase the chance said prisoner will learn to hate authority figures all the more. The prison should run the damned game, if you’ll pardon my choice language. They should encourage inmates to work as a team and learn to appreciate those in authority don’t have to be jackbooted thugs. That they can actually be interested in the well-being of their charges.

Being in a position of authority is a tremendous responsibility. You can influence people in a good way and make this world a better place or you satisfy your sadistic urges to hurt and demean people.

I’m certainly not saying Singer is a wonderful person. The fact remains that he and other prisoners may someday return to society. Isn’t it in our best interest to make sure they return better than they went in, not worse?

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

Harambe the Gorilla and Lessons to be Learned

harambe-GorillaA tragic incident occurred recently in Cincinnati that is making headlines and evoking passionate debate among many people.

A young boy willfully climbed into the gorilla pen at the Cincinnati zoo and when a male gorilla named Harambe started to become more aggressive, the zoo’s Dangerous Animal Response team shot and killed the gorilla.

Passions are running high among those who think the zoo did the right thing and those who think the zoo handled the situation improperly. One of the positions I see being taken is that the zoo is responsible for the enclosure not being secure enough to prevent entry and they are to blame. That all the enclosures must be designed to prevent anyone from entering. That’s the argument I’d like to look at today.

What I want to talk about today, Memorial Day, is the commonly stated belief that Freedom isn’t Free. I disagree with that idea. I think Freedom is Free. There is nothing more free in this world than freedom. Don’t get me wrong. I well understand that other people desire to take away my freedom. Those other people include both foreign and domestic enemies and my own government. I understand that to protect my freedom people must make sacrifices. I do not disregard the sacrifices made in order to protect me and others.

That being said, Freedom is mostly certainly free. It’s just quite dangerous. It might be possible to make every zoo enclosure more difficult to penetrate but there is no way to have a zoo and also have it so that a determined visitor cannot gain access to an exhibit. It is in the nature of a zoo where wild and dangerous animals are kept that there will be danger. Certainly the zoo should make efforts to keep the enclosures and wild animals separate from the visitors but if we want to have zoos at all, we must face that fact that a determined child or adult might be able to put themselves in danger. That’s freedom.

We could make it more safe, certainly. We could make zoos illegal altogether. We could insist that zoos spend astronomical sums of money to enclose every exhibit in bullet proof glass.

We could remove all traffic signals and thus be more free to drive as we will without restrictions. Or we could pass more and more traffic laws. We could put monitors in cars to prevent any sort of dangerous driving. The choice between freedom and safety is a serious one.

Those who wish to take our freedom often guise their desires with soothing words about only doing it to protect us.

My point is that we must accept danger if we love freedom. We must understand that terrible things can happen. That the government and the zoo cannot completely prevent horrible outcomes. We must mourn the death of Harambe. We must accept the danger if we are to remain free.

The alternative is to be perfectly safe at all times … in our locked and hermetically sealed chamber.

What will you choose?

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

Life Ain’t Fair – Just ask Hikaru Nakamura

gary-kasparovI wrote a blog post about a chess player named Hikaru Nakamura who was penalized for breaking a rule in chess a few weeks back and something happened yesterday that painfully illustrates the old adage that life just ain’t fair.

In that case Nakamura moved his piece, took his hand off of it, and then tried to further move it. His opponent, Levon Aronian, immediately called this a violation and Nakamura was forced to put his piece on the original square. This cost him the game.

Tough but fair. Them’s the rules. Or are they?

Nakamura just finished playing in the United States Chess Championship where he finished in a tie for second place. After the match the tournament scheduled a special Blitz Chess match between the top three players in the tournament and legendary chess player Gary Kasparov.

Kasparov is 53 years old and has been largely retired from chess competitions for the last ten years. He is considered one of the greatest players in the history of the game and some consider him the clear best. That, of course, is debatable.

Well, why today’s blog? Because in a Blitz matchup against Nakamura; Kasparov did exactly the same thing as Nakamura did in his match against Aronian. Nakamura saw him do it and a wry expression came across his face. Why? Because he was totally screwed.

If Nakamura called the legendary Kasparov for the rules violation, everyone is going to consider Nakamura a bad guy. While there is a fairly large amount of money available to the winner of the Blitz tournament, it is largely an exhibition for fans to watch one of the all time greats take on some of the best United States players of today. If Nakamura doesn’t call Kasparov then he is throwing away an important advantage.

Well, Hikaru, I don’t have to tell you, life ain’t fair.

That is today’s lesson people. Sometimes you have to give life a wry smile and move on. I feel for you Hikaru. At least this one blogger thinks you made the right call, however, if it happens again, throw down the hammer!!

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

Is it Okay to Root for Nazi?

Nazi-Paikidze

Nazi Paikidze, that is.

The annual United States Chess Championships, both men’s and women’s divisions, are being held at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center in St. Louis for the next few days and the aforementioned woman is a leading contender for the title.

Let’s all admit it, when we see the word Nazi certain things come to mind. We cannot deny this bias against the word. It has a meaning far beyond her name. When I heard her name at last year’s championship the first thought I had was: She would be wise to change it. I’m not proud of that thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that she should use her name proudly. She has nothing to do with the definition we generally associate with that word. She is a young woman who is an excellent chess player and, by all accounts, a great role-model for young girls everywhere.

It does get me to thinking about the unconscious biases we have in our daily lives. If I was robbed by a person who wore a red shirt then when I see someone in a same colored shirt I become slightly afraid. If I was in a car accident caused by a someone driving a particular make and model of car then when I see a similar car I immediately become more alert. It’s certainly not fair to the person in the red shirt or the driver of the other car but it is unquestionably true, much as we might like to pretend it is not.

We cannot avoid such biases for we are human and we have lived. Things have happened to us. Events and people harmed us and we associate said events with what the person was wearing, the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, and any myriad of other things.

The reality is that we must judge people by their actions, not the color of their shirts, their names, or any other superficial feature. Such a world is the one we Libertarians yearn to live upon and yet I am as susceptible to such biases as anyone else.

My point? I’m not sure. I guess I’m saying that I’ll be trying to overcome such thoughts and I hope you will as well.

P.S. Go Nazi!

Tom Liberman

Without Audio who would you believe? Krzyzewski or Brooks

brooks-coachkIt’s March Madness and that means lots of hard fought basketball games. There was an incident after the Oregon v. Duke game that I think might give us all cause for reflection. We make many assumptions in life and, if we are honest with ourselves, sometimes these are completely incorrect.

Near the end of the game an Oregon player named Dillon Brooks took a very long shot as the clock was winding down even though his team had the game in hand. There were actually good reasons he did this including instructions from his coach. That’s not my topic for today though.

Coach Mike Krzyzewski approached Brooks after the game and said something to him. Afterwards people were wondering what was said in the exchange. Brooks responded that Krzyzewski told him, “You’re (Brooks) too good a player to be showing off at the end“.

Coach Krzyzewski, when asked, denied this and said that what he told Brooks was that he was a terrific player.

Brooks is a young man while Krzyzewski is a well-respected and older coach.

When I heard about the exchange I immediately and without much thought believed Krzyzewski. Why would a coach with such a distinguished record lie? Brooks was coming off an emotional win, perhaps he misunderstood, I thought charitably.

Then audio of the exchange was released.

Coach Krzyzewski has now apologized both for his original denial and for lecturing a player from another team.

My point is straight-forward. In a he-said/she-said situation how many times do we believe the person who appears to have more credibility. I think this is natural. The person who has more credibility has achieved that status for a reason. But the reality is far more nuanced. Sometimes the more credible person has more to lose. Sometimes the more credible person knows they can get away with a lie because the other party is less trustworthy. I think we see this situation far more often than we realize.

I’m of the opinion a lot of times the less credible person is not believed and suffers consequences, sometimes severe.

What I hope you take from this incident is while believing the person who appears to have more credibility might be natural, it’s often wrong. We should always dig a little deeper, if possible.

I’m curious. Without the conclusive audio evidence would you have believed Coach Krzyzewski? Would you have labeled Brooks a liar and lost respect for him?

Without Audio what would you have thought?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

CDC, Pregnancy, and Alcohol

drinking-while-pregnantI woke up this morning to headlines blaring about the danger of alcohol to pregnant women or even women who might be pregnant. The warnings say quite explicitly that a woman who is pregnant, who is trying to get pregnant, or who is having sex but is not on birth control, should never drink. That’s the recommendation.

The warning is specific and terrifying:

Alcohol use during pregnancy, even within the first few weeks and before a woman knows she is pregnant, can cause lasting physical, behavioral, and intellectual disabilities that can last for a child’s lifetime.

The danger is called Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

I’ve long heard that drinking was considered a bad idea for pregnant women but this new study seems to prove this theory beyond a doubt. Or at least that’s what the dire warning from the CDC would have you believe.

If you read the Wikipedia Article the results are much more in line with what a reasonable person might expect.

Women who drink four or more drinks a day are in serious danger of causing FAS in their child. Women who have two or more drinks a day early in the pregnancy also risk mild forms of FAS. The correlation between women who drink less than this is equivalent to the correlation between men who drink alcohol during a woman’s pregnancy being linked to FAS in the infant.

Yes, you heard that right. Husbands and boyfriends who have less than two drinks a day give an equal chance of impacting a child with FAS as do the women who are actually pregnant. That’s what the studies show.

Yet, with this evidence in hand, the CDC states unequivocally that women should not drink at any time if there is a remote chance of them being pregnant or if they are, indeed pregnant. Do not have a single drink!

I’m all for studies and I have no problem with government agencies issuing warnings and advice. The government does not have the power to make a woman stop drinking if she is pregnant nor should they. One of government’s jobs is to give us the information we need to protect ourselves. I support performing such studies with my tax dollars and informing the public of the results. After that it is up to us to decide how we wish to behave.

That being said, the shrill and dire language of this warning smacks of Big Brother. It is the government twisting results to match their desired outcome.

Present the facts as they exist and, for a moment, pretend that we citizens are adults capable of making good decisions based on those facts.

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

If Everyone was a Millionaire what would Happen?

powerball-meme-failThere’s been an interesting meme making the rounds about the Powerball Jackpot of $1.4 billion and how it could be divided up among all the people living in the United States. It’s fundamentally wrong in that the amount posted, $4.33 million, is an error. It would actually be on $4.33. That aside, I noted several of my friends on Facebook suggesting that if everyone was a millionaire economic ruin would follow.

That’s the idea I want to examine today.

What if everyone in the nation, perhaps even the world, had enough money to buy most of the things they need with the exception of luxury items.

The theory my friends on Facebook have is that these people would never work again. They’d simply invest the money and live off the interest while eating, sleeping, and otherwise occupying themselves. The problem being that if they wanted to play a round of golf all the people that work at the golf course wouldn’t be there. There would be no one to get out the carts, no one to take their payment, no one to mow the grass, no one to weed, no one to do anything. All those people would have retired as well.

What incentive is there to work if not to provide basic economic needs? If you have food, utilities, entertainment, and other things, why would you labor?

It’s a fair question and I think the answer lies within our nature. I’m of the opinion that we don’t do things simply to have enough food. There is a deeper yearning within and that is to achieve things. That is the underlying foundation of happiness. When we achieve we are happy. Certainly money allows us to purchase things that make life more comfortable and acts as an incentive but it is only a shadow of the real thing that drives us.

As modern, so-called Western, culture has made people wealthier it has not stopped that drive to achieve but in many ways fueled it. Poor people in poverty stricken nations have far less than their equivalents in wealthy nations. We’ve seen the definition of poor radically change as wealth has increased but we have not seen a drop in a desire to work.

But there is a danger and I think that it comes from our worship of money as opposed to achievement. When we place wealth on a golden pedestal we fool people into thinking that money is the goal. It is not. The goal is happiness and we get there by doing things well. We get paid because we do things well and thus can afford more luxuries, this is true, and I’m not arguing against giving achievers more money with which to buy things. I’m just arguing that the emphasis on which we often put the two is wrong.

Achievement is the goal. Happiness, money, comfort, and success are the results.

If we make achievement the first priority then wealth, for everyone, naturally follows.

As energy becomes cheap and readily available, soon enough everyone in the world will have their basic needs met without having to work. I’m of the opinion this will not lead to stagnation and ruin but to an age where humanity achieves things heretofore all but unimaginable.

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

Knowingly Sending Sexually Explicit Pictures of Yourself is a Crime Now

Cormega-Copening-and-Brianna-DensonI just learned of the case against Cormega Copening and Brianna Denson and, yet again, I shake my head in dismay.

Cormega and Brianna date. When they were both sixteen years old they sent one another sexually explicit photos. The police took Copening’s phone while investigating another incident and found the pictures. They then went to Denson and took her phone finding similar pictures on it. Denson reached a plea deal in which she was fined $200 and given a year’s probation. Copening is facing five counts of sexual exploitation each with the possibility of two years in prison and a lifetime listing as a sexual offender.

In an interesting side note, the state of North Carolina is of the opinion that Copening and Denson at sixteen were legally allowed to have sex with one another and be charged as adults, but were not old enough to send sexually explicit pictures of themselves to each other.

Let’s imagine we live in a grown up country instead of the great do-good, nanny nation the United States has become.

It shouldn’t be illegal for anyone, of any age, to willingly and without duress send a picture of themselves to someone else regardless of sexual content.

I get the moral outrage of we must protect the children! I understand that someone might well be tricked or coerced into sending a compromising photo of themselves to a second party. I don’t want to get into far ranging discussion today. We could talk about an adult tricking or manipulating a young person into sending such photos. I understand the possibility of third parties becoming involved in transferring such photos. I get the idea that demand for child pornography creates suppliers. But none of that is the case here.

The problem here is largely a horrible law. It’s illegal for a minor, under eighteen, to have sexually explicit photos on their phone. The most serious of all the charges Copening faces are third-degree felonies for having sexually explicit pictures of himself on the phone! I repeat, of himself. He took them with the intention of sending them to Denson and had them still on his phone when the police confiscated it. He is both the defendant and the victim!

If anyone under 18 does not own the right to their own images what else is left for the government to take?

I even understand the police and prosecutors who are merely applying the law as it is written in North Carolina. That’s their job. They might have decided to prosecute this case simply to point out the insanity of the legislation, hoping to get legislators to make changes.

Why do we care so much about people, even those under eighteen years of age, willingly sending sexual photos to each other? It’s their damned business!

Why are we so obsessed with everyone else’s private and personal business?

How on earth did we get to a place in this nation where a seventeen year old boy can be sent to prison for having naked pictures of himself on his phone?

How?

P.S. The picture I included at the top is an adorable image of the couple having fun for the camera, it was on their Facebook page but is now out and about on the internet.

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

Romancing the Apocalypse

ApocalypseHas anyone else noticed the romanticizing of an apocalypse?

Be it a Zombie Apocalypse, a Nuclear Apocalypse, a Government Meltdown Apocalypse, or any other sort of disaster, there are those who romanticize this state affairs.

Why is this? I say with absolute confidence that modern society with all its amenities is far better than any apocalyptic scenario. The modern world is amazing. Modern medicine. Modern dentistry. Modern plumbing. Modern communication. I play chess with people from all over the world thanks to the internet and computers. I talk with friends and family at will. I know almost immediately when things happen. We have a virtually endless supply of clean water, hot water, food, comfortable lodgings, transportation, comforts.

After the apocalypse all these things go away. Even if I was somehow lucky enough to survive I’d be living without hot water every day. I’d be hungry and sober most of the time. I wouldn’t get to play Dungeons and Dragons and board games with my friends. I wouldn’t get to travel. The world would be much less beautiful. It would be, in a word, awful. And that’s at best.

So what is this romanticizing all about?

I think it’s about two different things although they overlap.

One group of people is those who are dissatisfied with life but also relatively comfortable. They have plenty. In comparison with people throughout the history of the world they are more comfortable, wealthier, have better access to food and water, shelter, live longer and with less pain; and yet they yearn to have not these material things but instead control of their life. That’s what an apocalyptic fantasy yields. I am the controller of my destiny. I find my food. I kill my enemies. I lead my family and friends to freedom and survival.

The modern world gives us many nice things but we are increasingly dependent on others for these luxuries. My food delivery service is late on Tuesday night thus inconveniencing me. A driver cuts me off on the way to work thus frustrating me. We largely do not control our destiny in a modern world and this births discontent and yearning for more control, the control a apocalypse seems to promise.

The other group of people are those who use fear of such a catastrophe to fleece us of our money. They promise safety when the world collapses … for a fee. They are often also part of the first group in they think they will have control once disaster strikes.

The first group is understandable but incorrect. An apocalypse will not give them more control, but less. There is more immediate control of things like gathering food but much less control of life in general. Is there food to be found? Water? Is it safe to leave the house? Will I be able to communicate with my loved ones? The answer is mostly no. Life is more dangerous, more capricious, and less controllable despite the promise of such power. It is certainly without the amenities.

The second group is largely despicable. They hope for terrible tragedy and the countless loss of lives in order to inflate their massive egos in regards to their own capability and also to steal your money. They are not to be trusted.

My point in all of this? Life is very good for more people now than it has ever been in the history of the world. Work not to destroy this world but to make it better. Yearn not for an apocalypse but incremental improvements to a system that is already pretty amazing. Look not at the driver who cut you off but at your ability to safely get to the grocery store and purchase all you need. Do not be angry when an ambulance momentarily blocks your path but understand that such a vehicle will one day take you or a loved one to a hospital for medical care that far surpasses any in the history of the world.

Sure, life isn’t perfect. Life isn’t fair. The government isn’t without flaw. My advice, don’t destroy, instead build. This is the path to controlling your life and the path to happiness.

Tom Liberman

Pro Uncovered Breastfeeding, Strong Women, and Twitter Rage

Twitter-hateI made a post the other day about a woman who was proudly, without any covering, breastfeeding her child and angered by the woman at the next table who was glaring at her.

A self-declared feminist on Twitter retweeted my original post and attracted the attention of a group of people who strongly, and I do mean strongly, advocate breastfeeding in public without any covering.

I’ve gotten a large amount, well, a large amount for me, of Twitter hate. I’m being called misogynistic, ill-informed, perverted, male-privileged, and various other names. In the midst of it all a woman grabbed a screen capture of my Twitter image which shows the three main protagonists from my latest novel, The Girl in Glass I: Apparition. She asked if I liked the way the woman was dressed. It was Rhia the powerful swordswoman of the group.

I do like strong and powerful woman. I find them attractive and interesting in real life and I enjoy writing about them in my fictional universe. My mom and all of my sisters (five for those of you counting) certainly fall into that category and the women I date tend to as well.

A thought occurred to me as I was looking at this Tweet.

Are not the women who are so dedicatedly defending the act of uncovered breastfeeding also strong and passionate women? By golly, they are!

I personally don’t think we’re that far apart in our opinions of breastfeeding uncovered in public. I think a woman should make an effort to cover herself out of consideration to the other diners. My Twitter friends think otherwise.

I certainly agree women should be allowed to go without covering themselves and not fear arrest of indecency. I think if a woman wants to do so she has every right to do that. I would fight vigorously against making such illegal. I also think accommodations for breastfeeding women should be made much more readily available.

That being said, it is not me who thinks our opinions are widely divergent. It is the strong and vocal women. They are mad at me, not vice versa.

To that I say: Good for you. I admire your passion. Keep up the fight! We disagree but that’s not a reason to hate, at least not for me.

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

 

Nasty Glares for Breastfeeding in Restaurant

Ashley-KaidelThere’s apparently a big story making the rounds about a woman named Ashley Kaidel who posted a picture of herself breastfeeding in a restaurant.

Apparently a nearby woman was glaring at Kaidel for her display. Kaidel took exception and glared back which is when the picture was taken. Kaidel writes in her Facebook post: If a mother is more comfortable covering herself because SHE feels better doing so, then I totally support that.

She has accumulated almost 400,000 likes to the post as the image has gone viral.

She’s angry because the other woman in the restaurant is making an attempt to shame me and indirectly tell me without words that I am wrong and need to cover myself.

I’m a man. I’m not married. I’ve never had a child. Yell at me all you want, but Kaidel is in the wrong here. I’d be uncomfortable if a man pulled off his shirt and exposed himself this way, let alone a woman.

I’m upset when people a few tables over start yelling at each other. I think it’s rude when a man wears inappropriate clothes to a fine dining establishment. Why? Because it’s disrespectful to everyone else in that restaurant. It’s a ME-ME-ME attitude on display for the world to see.

Like it or not a female breast has a sexual aspect to it. It’s fine at a nudist beach, in the changing room, at home, or any other place where it won’t be intruding on the lives of others. Not to mention that it’s not that difficult to cover up. Yes, it’s a uniquely female problem but does that mean someone is sexist to suggest that perhaps you shouldn’t pull out your breast in public? Is it sexist to say a man shouldn’t expose his penis in public? Is it sexist to say a woman shouldn’t show her vagina in public? I think not.

Kaidel’s long rant makes it clear she has an agenda. Everyone should breastfeed everywhere so little girls learn to love it. You have to read the whole self-centered thing yourself to truly get her narcissism. She’s a crusader, make no doubt about that. Most laughable is her claim at the end that she didn’t make the Facebook post to get attention.

All that aside, it’s not a matter of disgust, intolerance, hatred, or shaming. It’s a matter of respecting the other diners at that restaurant. Kaidel is the guilty party in that regard.

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

Thanksgiving Shopping Backward Thinking

no-shopping-thursdayOn this Thanksgiving Day I see on my Facebook scroll many posts about how the evil, awful retailers have destroyed the day of family and made it all about consumerism and shopping.

The image I’ve posted it but one of many similarly themed posts. It’s not a big deal but it still rubs me the wrong way. Why you ask? I’ll tell you why!

It’s my opinion that the campaign to shame or even abolish Thanksgiving Day shopping is in reality a shameless attempt to capitalize on Thanksgiving Day shopping. Upworthy, the advertiser in this case, and yes it is an advertisement my deluded friends, is simply trying to get you to click on their site. They want you to share their post, watch their videos and the advertisements played during those videos, which makes them money … on Thanksgiving Day!

That hypocrisy is only the first thing that bothers me about this entire anti-shopping Thanksgiving trend.

The general theme of the movement is that the evil, awful retailers are destroying families by forcing them out of the house on this holiday. Well, golly, maybe people want to get out of the house and do some shopping. Maybe retailers are simply supplying a demand. Maybe if no one actually wanted to shop on Thanksgiving, retailers wouldn’t open their doors which in turn causes employees to work.

I’m not saying that people should shop on Thanksgiving or that workers should have to work on Thanksgiving. I worked Thanksgiving morning and early afternoon at the golf course every year. We generally closed around 2:00. My gym is open this morning. Thanksgiving is a day off and people generally like to get things done on that day off. That means people employed in service industries have to work. It’s the reality.

I get that you think it’s supposed to be for families. That’s great. Spend it with you family. But don’t try to shame other people for doing what they want to do. Shop. Play golf. Browse online. It’s not the retailers fault for giving people what they want.

It is, however, Upworthy and their ilk’s fault for trying to fool you with deceptive advertisements. Trust me, Upworthy’s marketing team doesn’t care about making sure Thanksgiving is a family holiday, they care about those clicks. Don’t be fooled.

Have a great Thanksgiving!

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

Syrian Refugees and the Threat they Pose

Syrian-refugeesThe Syrian Refugee crisis is in the news for a number of reasons but the one I am going to talk about today is the question of whether or not to allow them into various countries.

One of the main reasons this has become such an issue is that one of the murderous scum in the recent attacks in Paris was a refugee. This fact has caused a number of governors and other people in the United States and Europe to advocate refusing said refugees, send them back from whence they came. The fear being that more terrorists under the guise of being refugees will sneak into the country.

The danger of this is real. We cannot discount the fear espoused by those who do not want the refugees for this reason. Any terrorist who wanted to gain access to another country might well use the refugee crisis as a method to sneak in. Not only might they, at least one has.

So we admit there is a danger. By allowing refugees into the country we might allow a terrorist in. It’s also possible that the refugee might sometime in the future commit other crimes. Perhaps they will rob a store ten years from now. Again, this is not an idle fear. This is real. There is no doubt that some of the people who are allowed into the country will commit crimes at some point in their lives. By allowing such people into our country we certainly increase the danger we face. One cannot deny this is true.

The question I ask myself is what is the result of not allowing refugees into various countries? It’s important to understand the answer to that question before we can decide if we want to allow them in at all.

Up to four million people have fled the ongoing conflict in Syria into neighboring countries. What would happen to those people if they stayed in Syria?

Many would die, of that there is no question. The warring factions in Syria have little regard for human life. Those that survived would join one of the various warring factions. Some would join the Syrian government forces. Some would join ISIL. Some would form their own factions. Many of them would become radicalized. The children growing up in such an environment would learn death. They would grow up filled with hate. They would become the next generation of terrorists. We will create tens or even hundreds of thousands of hardened terrorists who hate the countries that refused them and caused the deaths of their families.

There is also the ethical point of view. By refusing refugees we condemn many of them to death, maiming, or miserable existences in order to procure a modicum of safety for ourselves.

One must remember that there is an upside to allowing in refugees. Here in my home town of St. Louis we embraced many Muslims from Bosnia during the civil disorder in that country. They have formed an amazing community here. Did some of them turn out to be criminals, certainly. Did some of their children grow up to be criminals, no doubt. But the vast majority are excellent citizens who not only contribute to the community but are grateful for our generosity. Who tell their family and friends who remained behind what a wonderful country they live in. A country where people of different religions, ethnic backgrounds, races, and skin color get along without murdering one another. A country where a more divisive question is if you root for the Cardinals or Cubs.

There are no simple answers to difficult questions. You must examine the reality of the situation. You must determine how much safety you are willing to give up to help those in need. You must ask yourself how many terrorists you wish to spawn upon future generations for your safety today.

I know what my decision would be but your life is your own to lead.

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