Tag Archives: society

Truth or Compassion?

Posted on by

truth-or-liesThis weekend my step-mother missed a step resulting in a badly and gruesomely broken leg. As she lay there writhing in agony she said, “I think I my have broken my leg”.

I responded, “No, you broke your leg.”

Not exactly Mr. Compassion and Kindness. The incident is a window into me to some degree but it brought to my mind a question. Is it better to be brutally honest or skirt around honesty with compassion? I recall another incident while visiting the great state of Alaska where my young niece, perhaps ten or eleven at the time, and me were staying in a cabin and she asked me what would happen if a bear came in the windows. The Denali guides had given us a lesson on what to do if a bear attacks earlier in the day. I responded, “It would kill us.”

Tess was not particularly happy with my response, as might be expected.

Are we better off hearing the awful truth at all times or is it better to soften the blow occasionally?

In the case of my step-mother it was quite clear her leg was broken, she knew it as well as did I. One couldn’t come to any other conclusion. It was going to require an ambulance, a stay in the hospital, and likely surgery. There was nothing to do about it so perhaps I could have said something a little softer, perhaps, “It does look that way but you never know”. Would that have been a better answer at the time? I think it’s the answer a lot of people who actually have a heart might give, but my black and little used blood pumping organ doesn’t seem capable of such.

Likewise with my niece I could have easily said something like, “I’ll protect you.” It would have been true to some degree as I would have tried to protect her but the reality makes almost no difference as a bear was not going to break into the cabin in any case. Giving a softer answer would have reassured her and probably allowed her a more restful evening.

I’m not really asking if my answers were wrong or right in both cases but examining a more philosophic question. When the truth is unhelpful and won’t change anything is it better to lie a little bit?

I seem to find it almost impossible to lie in situations like that. I’m sure it has to do with my social awkwardness and likely autistic spectrum nature but it makes me wonder if I might have more friends if I was a little less direct, a bit less literal.

Oh well, as Popeye was want to say, “I ams what I ams.”

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

Corporal Punishment and Black America

Posted on by

baltimore-mom-slaps-rioting-sonI’ve been thinking about the many troubles black people have had successfully integrating with society in the United States. It occurs to me that perhaps one of the primary causes for this problem is the rampant use of corporal punishment by black parents.

I am certainly aware that there are other issues. The legacy of slavery. Racism still exists. Driving while Black. This is not a one issue problem nor do I claim that I offer a comprehensive solution.

I wrote a blog a while back about how the corporal punishment of children turns them into violent adults. The more punishment that is mete out, the less chance the child has of integrating peacefully into society. The less chance they have of becoming educated. The less chance they have of getting a good job. The less chance they have of maintaining stable relationships. Those who suffer severe and repeated corporal punishment have a much greater chance of struggling with society. They will more likely lash out violently against authority figures or just about anyone.

Does any of that sound like the story of black people in the United States?

There have been a number of cases in the news about using a switch or other implements to punish a child but the one that has been percolating in my mind for quite a while is the image of a woman repeatedly hitting her son as he joined protests in the street during the recent Baltimore riots. She was largely applauded for her efforts to raise her son right although more than a few people pointed out that she was merely teaching violence to violent rioters in order for them to be less violent. Yeah, not going to work.

When young black men are stopped and questioned by the police the argument is that they shouldn’t react violently because that just escalates the situation. Those who read my blog should be well aware that I have no sympathy for violent law enforcement officers who target young black men and escalate the violence. I certainly do not deny that police often profile young black men. Driving while black is no myth. The criminal justice system treats black inherently unfairly as can be seen in any study of punishment dolled out for similar offenses to whites and black. As can be seen in any study of the racial predominance of pullovers which are based on minor traffic infringements.

That being said, there is absolute truth to the argument that if you are polite to an officer who is doing his or her job the odds of it escalating into something terrible decrease dramatically. The majority of officers are out there doing a difficult job as best they can and should be treated with respect. Unfortunately, those raised in a violent home all too quickly resort to violence themselves.

So I say to all parents, stop hitting your kids but I say it especially to black parents. It’s my opinion this sort of violence is one of the major contributors to the difficulties black have faced in successfully integrating with society.

A new generation of young black men and women who learned to resolve conflict without violence will go a long way to establishing the fully integrated society that most of us strongly desire. I myself am a Libertarian and am convinced the merit of a person is in their actions; not the color of their skin, their race, their sexual identity, their religion, or any of the other ways people are pigeonholed.

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

What’s in an Oath? A Trump Tale

Posted on by

Donald-Trump-pledges-allegience-to-GOPPresidential candidate Donald Trump made a pledge today affirming that he will support whatever Republican candidate wins the primary election.

Blah. I’m no fan of pledges and oaths. It seems to me anyone who asks you to swear an oath is basically doing one thing:

Trying to get you to do what they want you to do. You can’t play with us until you swear your oath.

It generally involves an organization that wants you to be loyal to them. The oath has no binding influence on your decision to remain loyal to that organization. They are merely words to that effect. There are certainly no legal remedies should the pledge be broken.

Here’s what I find quite interesting about oaths. They are taken extremely seriously by the honorable and used to gain advantages by the dishonorable.

The person who swears an oath with all honesty and integrity is not going to break that oath easily, but they would never do something against their principles in any case. The honorable swear an oath to something they believe in. They are going to keep that oath regardless of whether they swore it or not. The words merely reinforce their own beliefs. The honorable person who swears to defend their country, or to protect and serve, or whatever else, wants to fulfill that pledge. The words have meaning to that person but not beyond what is in their own heart.

A dishonorable person who swears an oath is simply doing it to give the illusion they are something which they actually are not. They make the pledge with no intention of keeping it should circumstances warrant them breaking it. They are taking advantage of honorable people who assume the words have meaning. To the dishonorable such promises have no meaning.

I have little sympathy for an organization that wants me to swear an oath. I don’t Pledge Allegiance to the Flag, not because I’m planning on being a traitor to my nation, but because I’m confident in my patriotism, I do not need to put it on display for anyone else, nor do I need to prove my loyalty to myself. Nor is my loyalty unconditional.

I have respect for those who make pledges and oaths fully intending to keep them. These are the honorable among us. I say to you, don’t worry about the oath. Know your mind. Remain loyal to that which you believe. Your actions make all oaths unnecessary.

To those who make pledges with no intention of keeping them. You don’t have me fooled.

As to this ridiculous pledge Republicans are making to support any members of their party regardless of any other circumstance. Well, I’d never vote for a person who swears to support an as yet unknown candidate. It’s closing your eyes and signing a blank check. It’s a foolish decision and I, for one, don’t want a president willing to do such.

I do not see Libertarians pledging to support a phantom nor is anyone asking them to do so. Most Libertarians I know support Rand Paul. Certainly not because he has made the misguided decision to run as a Republican, but simply for the policies he espouses and has enacted in his time in office. We Libertarians like to make decisions on the facts before us, not the ghostly phantoms of possibility.

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

 

Infidelity Exposed by Strangers at Baseball Game

Posted on by

busybodyI just read a story about a pair of women who noted that the woman in front of them at an Atlanta Braves baseball game was sexting with a man all the while sitting with her husband. They took pictures of the texts, wrote a note to the man with their phone number, and sent him the incriminating photos when he replied.

It’s a story that is both of the modern age and one that is ages old. If you know someone is cheating on their spouse, or see some other perceived ethical failing, should you inform the presumed aggrieved party?

I may get a lot of heat for this but I think the women who wrote the note were in the wrong. It’s just not their business to inform the husband of the cheating.

One reason is there is some chance the couple has an open relationship wherein they have sex with others. It’s also possible that the man is having many affairs and the woman is having her revenge. It’s possible the man is abusive. Anything is possible but those aren’t really the reasons that I’m against exposing such things.

I’m just of the opinion that it’s not our business, even more so when the effected parties are complete strangers. People who meddle in the affairs of others claiming they are doing good generally cause far more harm than the ills the claim to be solving.

I know that people will ask me if I would want to know if my girlfriend or spouse was cheating on me. The answer is that I wouldn’t want someone else telling me. I wouldn’t be particularly grateful to the tattletale.

If I had witnessed the exchange I’m pretty sure I would have said nothing.

What would you have done?

Would you have Exposed the Cheating Spouse?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

 

 

 

Is Shaving Your Legs a Double Standard?

Posted on by

Suzannah WeissThanks to my Facebook friends I’ve been made aware of a story about women shaving their legs in the news. It’s really about one woman not shaving her legs and she uses the argument that women shaving their legs is a double standard.

Suzannah Weiss wrote the piece for Yahoo! Beauty and seems to think a couple of things. That women shaving their legs when men don’t is a double standard. Also that women largely shave their legs to please men. She mentions that some women shave their legs because they like the look and they should be able to make that choice without judgement.

I suppose Weiss is simply trying to be encouraging to other women out there who don’t want to shave their legs. Perhaps she is trying to shame men who prefer smooth legs on women. I can’t speak to her motivation but the idea that it is somehow a double standard seems wrong to me. If a woman shaving her legs is a double standard then so too must be a man wearing a tie, a woman in high heels, a man who shaves his face, either sex who shaves their genitalia.

Weiss then goes on to explain that a great barometer of a man’s respect for a woman is if he thinks a woman is obligated to look pleasing to him. If a man expects a woman to look nice for him, apparently he is a bad fellow. Likewise it seems that it’s at least a negative thing for a woman to want to look pleasing for a man. If she wants to do it for herself, that’s fine. But wanting to look nice for a man? No good.

I’m a Libertarian. I believe we should always do what’s in our best self-interest. But this doesn’t mean we should be isolated. What is often in our self-interest is doing things that are pleasing to those around us. This is how we form friendships, relationships, and manage to exist in society.

One thing I noticed in the picture to the article Weiss is wearing a flower in her hair. Did she do that to please herself? Could not someone argue using her exact same points that wearing a flower in her hair is misguided attempt to be pretty to those around her? That men don’t wear flowers in their hair. Are flowers in the hair a double standard? Are men who like women with flowers in their hair somehow worse men? Are women who put flowers in their hair to please men wrong to do so?

If a woman wants to shave her legs to please a man, to please herself, or because she’s a competitive swimmer, more power to her. If she doesn’t want to, for whatever reason, fine again. If men like shaved legs on a woman, good for them. If they don’t, fine and dandy.

For purposes of full disclosure, I love smooth legs on a woman.

Tom Liberman

Is a Boy with Long Hair a Bad Thing?

Posted on by

English Boy 1871I just read an interesting article written by a mother whose son prefers long hair and is often mistaken for a girl. My own opinion is that young boys and girls haven’t begun hormonal changes and are largely the same from a physical standpoint anyway, so who cares? I expected the comments to be along the same lines and I was sorely surprised.

It appears that a healthy percentage of people think it’s wrong for a boy to look like a girl when young. That long hair on a boy is a bad thing. I wonder what they would make of the fact that until modern times it was pretty common to put boys in dresses until they were older. I suppose nowadays we’d be criticizing mothers who did such a thing as turning their children gay. At least that’s what seemed to be a fairly widespread point of view among those commenting. That and the poor boy would be traumatized for life.

I think the problem largely rests with a sexualized society in which people apparently judge a young child by the length of their hair. It’s ridiculous because they are merely children. As I mentioned earlier, hormones have yet to kick in. Except for a boy’s penis and a girl’s vagina there’s hardly an outwardly observable difference between the two. You’d pretty much have to do a blood test to see the difference. They are interested in things that interest children. Sexual roles aren’t part of the equation and when we try to force them on these children I don’t think we’re doing them a service.

Be a man? Girl’s are supposed to be pretty? How about be a child! Enjoy it. Play with your friends. I can’t believe that forcing a young male child to look like an adult man is good for his long-term mental health. It’s society that is somehow embarrassed by a boy who looks like  girl or a girl who looks like a boy. The reality is they pretty much look the same until hormones begin to turn them into adults.

I’m reminded of the recent incidents where a man smacked a two year old boy for wearing a pink headband that belonged to his mother and then verbally abused the woman and the airport brawl where a drunken traveler attacked a man for wearing a pink shirt.

The problem is not with the child, it’s with the person who has an issue with long hair or a ribbon. How many boys with older sisters didn’t play dress-up or wear their mother’s heels and clomp around the house? It’s not a matter of gay or straight, boy or girl, man or woman. It’s a matter of pre-pubescent child.

We are far too interested in other people’s business in this country and the politicians we elect reflect that misguided ideology. Back when men were men, as we like to say, no one gave two rats asses about a boy wearing a dress and having long hair. No one! It doesn’t make us more manly to care about it now, it reveals our own insecurities as a society. Our own paranoia and fear.

It seems the more we care about things that just don’t matter the less we care about important things. That can’t be good.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Edge
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
The Black Sphere Coming Soon!

 

How you Appear Changes how People Treat You

Posted on by

professional and unprofessionalI recently wrote a blog about catcalling and it elicited a reaction from reader that I found interesting.

… I just don’t think it should be a woman’s job to pick her outfits to avoid being catcalled …

The main gist of the argument against me was that women shouldn’t be judged by their appearance but for their intelligence and personality. I suppose this is a fine sentiment but it is completely unrealistic. We are all judged by our appearance and even within that there are nuances. While we certainly don’t have much control over the size of our nose we do have control over the clothes we wear and the way we present ourselves.

If a woman wears a low-cut blouse and a push-up bra she is choosing to present herself in a certain way and men are going to react in a certain way. There is no denying this fact. It’s like saying someone who goes to a funeral in ripped jeans and a t-shirt shouldn’t be considered rude and treated as such. The same goes if a bridesmaid arrives not in the dress the bride chose but in something completely different.

I’m certainly not suggesting that a woman is asking to be harassed by men yelling out crude comments but the reality is that men are encouraged to approach women and engage them in dialog. It’s not an easy line to define to be certain. The original article I wrote concerned a woman who found herself continually shouted out on her way to work while wearing a business outfit. There are plenty of men who catcall in an unwanted fashion and the woman did nothing to provoke such behavior. My point is that it’s unreasonable to expect all men to avoid saying something to a woman because it’s possible that woman might consider such an advance unwanted. If a woman attends a party and a fellow she isn’t interested in approaches her, she rebuffs him, but at the same event encourages a man she does find intriguing. How is the man supposed to know ahead of time whether he will be found acceptable or not?

Even that’s not really my point in this blog. We are judged by our appearance and to do so is completely human. We judge people by their appearance every day. It’s in our nature. A woman who wears certain types of clothes will be judged for wearing them. A man who wears certain types of clothes will also be judged for it. It’s certainly not the most accurate way to judge a person but it has value. Someone who dresses in a certain way is consciously presenting themselves in that fashion. It is fundamentally different from a large nose or big breasts. These are things we cannot easily control. Our dress speaks directly to conscious decisions we have made and it is therefore reasonable for people to judge us based on our clothes.

Don’t get me wrong. I think aggressive catcalling when it is apparent the woman isn’t interested in inexcusable. However, if a woman is looking particularly nice it’s not unreasonable for a man to offer a compliment or two.

It is a woman’s job to dress appropriately and be aware that her clothes will illicit certain responses. To pretend otherwise is to simply live in a fantasy world. It’s also the man’s job to be aware of signals when a woman is receptive and when she is not. It is certainly all of our jobs to communicate effectively when people around us are behaving in ways we don’t like. Even then we can’t control their reactions completely.

When I’m at the football game and a fan is behaving boorishly I can sit there and take it or I can say something. Once I’ve said something the situation is largely out of my hands. If the fan continues to act horribly I can escalate by bringing in authority figures or I can simply accept their behavior and attempt to ignore it. Life is rather messy in this way. If a man is catcalling a woman she can ask him to stop, tell him to stop, but she largely can’t make him stop. If he wants to continue he can, it’s rude, nasty, boorish, and just plain mean, but that’s life.

Dress how you will, but don’t pretend it will not illicit certain reactions, whether or not those reactions meet with your approval. Fair? No. Life? Yes.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

 

Jahi McMath – What is Compassionate and Caring?

Posted on by

jahi mcmathI wrote about the Jahi McMath case just a short time ago and, sadly, events are following the lines that I predicted. I’ve talked to a number of people about the case and I read many comments. My plan today isn’t to reiterate my original position, it hasn’t changed, but to examine the nature of who is compassionate and caring in this battle and who is a heartless monster.

A quick recap. McMath went in for a tonsillectomy to relieve sleep apnea and in post-operation began to bleed. The bleeding proved uncontrollable and she died. She was connected to a respirator and continues on in that condition despite that fact that she has been ruled brain-dead by a number of physicians.

The hospital told the family they would be removing life-support about a week after McMath was declared dead. The family fought this and got a stay from a judge. The family has since been searching for a facility that will provide long-term care for the corpse. This is what I suspected would happen.

Now to the point of my blog. When I wrote a post that the hospital should discontinue life-support I got a number of negative replies. The hospital is receiving venomous attacks for the death and for their policy of stopping life-support. In comment sections in general I’ve seen one nasty attack after the next against people who suggest that life-support be halted. The hospital is now refusing to put feeding tubes into the corpse which is complicating the transfer of the corpse to a long-term facility. People don’t much like that either, they think the hospital should pay for everything and do everything.

Whenever I talk about this situation I feel like I have to be clear that I’m not a heartless, uncaring wretch. I always preface my arguments with the comments like “it’s a horrible tragedy but ….”

Well, I’ve had enough. The hospital is the good guy here. I’m the good guy. The people who are suggesting the family acknowledge events and move on are the good guys!

The bad guys are the ones who are encouraging the family to visit a corpse every day for the rest of their lives. The bad guys are the ones who write supportive comments to the family. McMath is dead. If the family cannot accept that they will spend the rest of their lives in a horrible lie. They will spend every dollar they make at the “caring” facility that takes the girl. The facility knows the girl is dead, they just want to steal the family money. That’s evil.

I realize I’m coming across as heartless here but I don’t care. Me, the hospital, and those like us are the ones who offer the family a real future. We’re the ones who actually care. The truth may hurt; but lies cause far more damage.

If someone is close to the McMath family and really, truly cares about them; tell them the truth. Encourage them to move on. Life is for the living.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

The Plus Size Barbie – Truth in Advertising

Posted on by
plus size barbie

Not too long ago my friend shared an article on Facebook about Truth in Advertising. A professional photographer took images of fast food in advertising and compared them to pictures he staged with items recently purchased from the same vendor.

I just read about the controversy over plus-size Barbie dolls which erupted after a plus-size modeling website posted an image of a rather large Barbie. The controversy is that the picture in question has not an average size Barbie but an obese Barbie. This has outraged some people who now demand average Barbie.

After I read the first article posted by my friend, I went to Wikipedia and looked up the legal definition of False Advertising and found it to be slippery. The Barbie situation isn’t false advertising so much as it is giving young women unrealistic body expectations or, in the recent case, telling young women that being morbidly obese is just fine and dandy. Both of which are bad things.

While the two examples I’ve cited are certainly not completely comparable; I do think there is an interesting correlation between them. Both the fast food hamburger and the super-slim Barbie are unrealistic. No one expects to get fast food that looks like the image in the ad and no woman (except her) looks like Barbie.

The question that has been percolating in my mind since that first Facebook share is what should the government’s role in all of this be? I’m convinced that there should be legal ramifications for False Advertising. This is something that should be a crime and is potential dangerous. Medicine sold under false pretenses comes immediately to mind but any safety device that doesn’t work as advertised is clearly a danger.

That being noted, I’m sure that a taco that looks nothing like the picture on the menu isn’t particularly dangerous and the consumer can easily avoid the store after one such experience. The damages amount to a minor financial loss. I don’t think the government needs to be involved here, people can figure it out for themselves without facing serious hazards.

Likewise, I’m not convinced that the government should be in the business of promoting what the ideal woman, or man, should look like.

Yes, that taco is nothing like the picture. Yes, that Barbie does give girls an unrealistic body image. No, it’s not the government’s job to protect us when we are perfectly capable of protecting ourselves.

The Libertarian ideal is often counter-intuitive. If we force people to look at the food and make their own decisions on its appeal, if we educate young people about eating healthy, if we make people aware of realistic body expectations and how to eat and exercise to attain such a look, if we teach people to beware in a dangerous world; then we make the world a safer place, far safer than when we try to legislate such outcomes.

An oversimplification would be the example of keeping a child in a cave to protect them from the world outside. We suppose that we are doing good but we are doing real harm. The child will be overwhelmed once they leave that safe environment.

The government has an important role in society. But it isn’t to protect from all ills that might befall us.

Tom Liberman

Manners – Education that Matters

Posted on by

good mannersI just read an interesting article about how private industry has entered the education business with what some people would call Manners Classes.

The classes teach children as young as five things like making eye contact and smiling when they meet people and also which fork to use at the table. They try to teach skills that are necessary for people to get along socially. I didn’t know what to make of the story to begin with. These are the sorts of things that were generally taught to children by their parents and that they need to have these classes outside the home is at first off-putting.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that people are less polite than they used to be. The article suggests that social media bears part of the responsibility in that people communicate without physically being near one another far more than in the past.

Certainly the anonymity of the internet comment section allows people to display the worst kind of vicious and boorish behavior without any consequences. Even the comments below the article in question were often nasty and ill-mannered with the person making the comment not grasping the ironic nature of their missive.

Read a blog, watch a news broadcast, listen to a politician, listen to your neighbor at Christmas dinner tonight and tell me where you see decency. Where do you see people listening to the ideas of those who don’t agree with them? Where do you see people politely discussing their differences and finding reasonable compromises?

If you see what I see, it won’t come as a surprise to you that children lack manners, lack common decency in dealing with others, lack civility, lack the ability to compromise, lack the qualities that will carry the United States through the difficult times ahead.

I’m not opposed to classes that teach politeness and manners, I’m for them. However, I recognize that you can take as many classes on a topic as you want but if you are surrounded by mean-spirited nastiness, with inability to work with those that don’t completely agree with you, with people spewing angry rants who think their words are the only ones that count; well, children are going to follow those examples.

If we want children to learn to work together and accomplish things, if we want children to engage in real discussions and compromises that benefit the United States, if we want children to make the most of their lives; then the best way we can accomplish it is to lead by example.

The next time someone expresses an idea different from what you are advocating, take a moment to examine it for its real value. Look at the idea and forget your preconceived notions. Take a moment to research the facts. Speak politely with the person and express your ideas on why they are wrong. Understand that the world is rarely black and white, that most ideas have at least some merit. Consider that others are looking to you as a leader, as an example.

When you are watching the news or reading a story take the time to examine both sides of the issue with an unbiased perspective. Take a little time to do some research and read up on both ideas. Consider that there might be a compromise that allows for the good ideas from both sides of an argument to best achieve the goal. Consider that the ideas you promulgate might have drawbacks.

In other words, set a good example. That is, if you think being polite and mannered is a benefit to society. If you think people having the ability to work together rather than shouting each other down is a good idea. If you are for implementing your will completely once you have enough power to do so, then perhaps you like the way things are going in this country.

If you think the next generation is impolite, ill-mannered, and unwilling to compromise, then it’s because they learned it from the previous generation (you).

As simply as I can distill it, show some class.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Zero-Tolerance means Zero Responsibility

Posted on by

zero toleranceWe haven’t had many of these zero-tolerance stories in the news lately but there is a big one out now.

In this case teenager Erin Cox went to pick up a friend from a party. The friend was too intoxicated to drive herself. When Cox arrived the police showed up as well and gave a summons to every underage person at the party. Cox violated the schools zero-tolerance policy for students attending parties in which alcohol is served. She was suspended for a few games from her volleyball team and removed as captain.

There’s a lot of outrage about the ruling because Cox was there not to party but to help a friend. That Cox is being punished for helping  her friend avoid driving drunk. I totally agree with the idea that Cox is blameless in this but I want to look at the idea of a zero-tolerance policy and what it really means: Zero responsibility.

The stated idea behind a zero-tolerance policy is to ensure the safety of people, generally students. The danger of drugs is so terrible that we cannot allow any drugs in the school; including aspirin. The horrors of teenage drinking and driving with its attendant accidental deaths is so great we must protect our students by punishing anyone going to a party where alcohol is available.

The reality behind zero-tolerance policies is that adults are afraid to make decisions. Zero-tolerances gives them the opportunity to mete out punishment without taking any responsibility.

Why are they afraid? Because if they give different punishments for the same crime based on circumstances they will be sued by the other parents, accused of favoritism, racism, nepotism, and just about anything else. They could lose their livelihoods in the storm of lawsuits that will follow.

Why are lawmakers afraid to make legislation? They will lose their job. That’s why we have a dozens of Propositions on the ballots when in a Representative Republic our elected officials should make decisions. It is why there is gridlock in Washington D.C.

Why does our legal system rely on mandated sentencing guidelines?

I’ll tell you why. Our society is filled with people more than happy to blame everyone else for what is wrong with their lives. Listen to a politician talk and if lips are moving, someone else is being blamed. It’s not just politicians. It’s everywhere and it’s rampant. Read the comments on any news story about anything. It’s always someone else’s fault.

Anyone who stands up and takes a position is bulldozed in the ensuing blame Olympics. I’m not surprised that schools enact zero-tolerance policies out of fear. I’m not surprised that Cox is being punished for her actions. Zero-tolerance means no one has to make a decision. That all decisions are mandated and that means that the person making the decision can utter the most useful phrase in the United States, “Blame Canada!”

So, in this latest case who are we blaming? The administrators who created this policy out of absolute fear that they’d be punished no matter what decision they made about student drinking. Whose fault is that? Look in the mirror. It’s your fault. It’s my fault. Our willingness to blame everyone but ourselves is to blame.

You don’t like zero-tolerance policies? Then stop blaming everyone else when something goes wrong.

You don’t like our useless government? Blame yourself and start voting better.

You don’t like your job? Go out and get a better one. Educate yourself. Work hard.

Your kid got the raw end of a deal? Tell them that’s life. Watch out in the future.

You don’t like this blog? Stop reading.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eBook)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (Out very soon!)

Too Much Help – Helicopter Parenting

Posted on by

Helicopter ParentingThere was an interesting article in the news this morning that struck a chord with my Libertarian philosophies. The basic idea is that parents who are overly involved in their children’s lives do them no favors.

The article cites one specific study and indicates that others show the same trend but also admits that when it comes to parenting there are a number of styles that offer success. I don’t have any children myself and I’m probably not the best person in the world to analyze the data but I can, at least, speak from having worked with juniors in several golf programs over the years.

Let’s first talk about the concepts of helicopter parenting. The idea is that for children to succeed in the super-competitive modern world parents need to be involved in every aspect of their lives. This hovering is especially noteworthy around school where every grade is argued for the student, specialized tutoring is offered to help write college entrance essays, and other things of this nature.

The argument against this kind of parenting is that children who are not allowed to fend for themselves become anxiety ridden and unable to cope with the problems that arise in their lives. It’s fairly self-evident to me that if you do not allow a person to solve their own problems they will never learn that skill for themselves. It’s analogous the nanny state that America is becoming and I’ve talked about that in other posts.

One of the things I find discouraging about this country is how many people complain about the government without the realization that they are complaining about themselves. We are the government. We have the government we want. We chose them. I’ve talked about that topic before. My point in mentioning it here is that the nanny state isn’t responsible for helicopter parenting, it is our helicopter parenting that causes us to become a nanny state. Our representatives are us.

One of the ideas that I found most interesting about this sort of behavior was that parents who engage in it are actually less emotionally available to their children. They use modern technology to keep tabs on their children, fight with teachers, and defend their kids as a way to show their love without actually having to spend time loving. It’s like someone who clicks the “Like” button to support a cause. Look at me! I care! I hate cancer! Look at me, look at me. I’m better than you because you don’t hate cancer. I’m the greatest parent ever.

I’m certainly not suggesting that parents shouldn’t be involved in their children’s lives and their education. It just seems to me that a person who grows up not having to solve their own problems is not going to be a successful adult.

I’m reminded of my time at Spring Lake Golf Course in Quincy, IL under the direction of head pro Les Holcombe. We were teaching juniors when one little fellow came over to me and stated that “Jimmy took my club.” I was ready to offer my help when Les jumped in and said, “Then go take it back”. I immediately understood that Les was absolutely correct.

There are certainly circumstances of bullying, poor-teaching, and general life incidents that do require a parents intervention. I’m just suggesting that the first response to a  difficulty that arises should not be to solve the problem for the child. A person who grows up solving their own problems is a person who has a better chance to succeed in life. Isn’t that what any parent wants?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (watch Silenia grow from frightened lamb to an empowered young lady)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

The Double Play that Wasn’t

Posted on by

Bad CallWe want to get the call right and we want people to play with integrity. We say these things but do we mean them? In a Major League Baseball game between Seattle and Texas on Friday night, getting the call right and sportsmanship became an issue. You can watch the video of the missed call here but I’ll cover the basics.

On a ground ball with a runner on first the lead runner was forced out but on the return throw the pitcher intercepted the ball before it reached the first baseman. The umpire missed this, more on that later, and called the runner out.

Columnist Mark Townsend of Big League Stew calls it the worst call of the season. While I agree that the call was a mistake I actually don’t think it was a bad call from the umpire. On ground balls the umpire is generally listening for the sound of the ball hitting the glove as he watches the feet of both the base runner and the first basemen. It’s completely understandable how the umpire missed the call. If you read further down in the article you’ll find that the Seattle manager actually missed it as well and was arguing that the first basemen left the bag early, not that he didn’t catch the ball at all.

Now a missed call in a baseball game is not really worthy of an entire blog, unless we’re talking about the 1985 World Series and Don Denkinger, and what I want to discuss today is the culpability of the players in this mistake. I can’t stress this enough, we don’t want mistakes. We want the right call every time which results in the proper team winning the game. That is justice.

I’m of the opinion that one important thing happened that should not have occurred. I lay a great deal of the blame on our win-at-all-cost society. We teach these sorts of values rather than sportsmanship. There were two players on the field at the time of the incident who could have easily told the umpire that the first baseman did not catch the ball and that the runner was safe. First baseman Mitch Moreland and pitcher Justin Grimm. They chose not to do so. They chose to walk to the pitcher’s mound concealing the fact that the first baseman did not have the ball.

One can argue that it’s not their fault that the umpire made a mistake and it’s not their responsibility to point it out. I argue differently. The reason I do so is because  the direction our society is heading based on the win-first mentality. I’ve got nothing against winning. The goal is to give your best performance every time out. I’m not even going to call Moreland and Grimm cheaters for concealing the reality of the event from the umpire but I don’t like what they did. I don’t think it’s an example they want to set for their children, if they have any.

I’m not even going to pretend this is anything other than an unimportant indicator of the modern world. But it bothers me. Is getting an out more important than integrity? Is winning a game more important? Is winning the championship more important? Is winning the third grade spelling bee more important? What rises to the level where we teach kids that integrity, honesty, and sportsmanship need to be sublimated to winning, to getting money?

If we laugh off dishonesty in a May baseball game what sort of society will we have in twenty years? What sort of society do we have today?

I’m probably over-reacting but it really seemed like if Grimm turned to the umpire, smiled, and showed him the ball we’d all be a little better. Our lives are built, our world is made one decision at a time. I vote for integrity and honesty. That’s the world I want to live in.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+ pages of ripping good fun)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

A Lesson in Sharing – Gym Style

Posted on by

Gym RulesJust the other day I realized that there is an interesting societal dynamic at the gym involving shared property. I’m going to examine that idea and how it applies to the modern world.

The gym is a classic example of a group of strangers sharing property. They share floor space, benches, and equipment. There are certain rules of etiquette at the gym and as long as everyone is playing by these regulations it works quite well. When there are those who do not play by the rules, particularly if they do so knowingly and selfishly, then the entire system is in peril.

Let me begin by explaining how things work at the gym. Generally speaking a person should only use a particular piece of equipment for a short period of time. The length of time depends on the piece of equipment in question and the number of people at the gym. A stationary bike or treadmill might occupy someone for sixty minutes while the bench press machine should only be used for perhaps a minute at a time. Another rule involves blocking off walking lanes or equipment. Certain exercises are done where there is available space on the floor. When partaking in these exercises it’s considered bad form to position yourself in a way that blocks access to such equipment. Another rule involves sitting at equipment when you are not using it. Generally it is polite to get up between what is called “sets” and allow another person to “work in” for one of their own. Wiping your sweat off equipment is considered good form as well.

I don’t want to get too deeply into a discussion of how life at the gym should proceed, but instead I will focus on the quality of the experience when etiquette is followed and when it is not. When I’m working a piece of equipment and step away and another fellow works in, then steps away allowing me to return; there is a sense of community that borders on euphoria. Everyone is playing by the rules and everyone wins. Likewise when someone is talking on the phone while sitting idly on a bench there is a malaise that descends upon the place. Everyone glances at the offender and grimaces. Even if someone eventually steps in and takes the bench the mood is somewhat ruined. There is some satisfaction in seeing a selfish person put in their place but being forced to do it is unpleasant.

Another example might be the highway entrance ramp when a series of drivers manuever their cars in every other vehicle fashion perfectly as opposed to someone rushing ahead to gain an advantage.

Therein lies the problem of course. People maneuvering to gain an advantage don’t play by the rules. They subtly or overtly diminish the experience for everyone else. Is it possible to get everyone to play by the rules or even desirable? Aren’t the rule breakers, the women who are not well-behaved, the ones who drive progress? Is there some middle ground where we follow the rules of polite public behavior and still push the edges of possibility? I’m not sure if there is a definitive answer but I would like to see people follow the simple rules of life.

I think angry and selfish people will always diminish the experience for the rest of us. I also think it’s a shame. It’s not a matter of teaching manners at school. It depends completely upon a person’s upbringing. I also think it’s possible to be aggressive, to try to win, to get ahead, and still be fair and polite. Maybe I’m wrong.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (or: How to overcome your dysfunctional upbringing and become a hero)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt