Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Government Money Well Spent for the SS United States?

Posted on by
SS United States

Back in 1952 U.S. taxpayers footed a $50 million dollar bill to build the SS United States and it gives me an opportunity to examine the value of government spending. Was it worth it to taxpayers to get the SS United States or was it a giant boondoggle with no value?

At the time of construction there was a competition called the Blue Riband for the fastest passenger liner to regularly cross the Atlantic Ocean and the SS United States was built with this award at least partially in mind. Aluminium was used extensively in the design lightening the weight and it was equipped with extremely powerful engines, making it almost certain to receive the award. Upon completion it did so, as expected, in both the eastbound and westbound directions.

However, with the advent of air travel, the financial feasibility of luxury liners diminished to almost nothing and the SS United States was soon unprofitable and eventually pulled from duty in 1969. Since then, the ship has cost various owners enormous sums of money; thankfully not tax-payers although such money was requested on multiple occasions.

For $50 million dollars the United States got a couple of awards that soon drifted into obscurity and seventeen years of presumably moderately profitable service for the owners, who provided the remaining $28 million in financing.

Was it worth it? That’s my question today. The only reason the United States government got involved in the project was for the prestige. Yes, they made noise about it being able to be converted into a troop ship but I’m interested in reality, not government gibberish designed to fabricate a reason for the way they do business.

Was a couple of awards worth $50 million? This question goes to the heart of a great deal of expenditures made by the U.S. government. The entirety of the manned space program as it currently exists is justified by the same logic.

It’s quite clear to me this money was wasted on a project that had little value to the tax-payers who footed the bill. Was it a source of pride? Sure. Did it help the ship workers at Newport News understand how to work with aluminium? Yes. These are not reasons enough, in my opinion; although I’d like to hear what you think as well.

Did tax-payers get value for their $50 in building the SS United States?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Oh contraire Alan Dershowitz you can Count on the Courts

Posted on by
Alan Dershowitz

Esteemed lawyer Alan Dershowitz seems to be of the opinion the Supreme Court sent a message to Donald Trump that he cannot count on the court. The full quote is: The three justices that President Trump appointed, his three justices, voted not to hear the case. I think it’s a message to him and his team that you can’t count on the judiciary, you can’t count on the courts.

I cannot begin to tell you how this quote by Alan Dershowitz displays his utter disregard for the law and for the courts, a sentiment he mouths in ever-growing examples. Sorry, Alan Dershowitz, President Trump can count on the courts. The courts uphold the law not your personal vendetta, that’s the entire point of the legal system. A fact that Alan Dershowitz seems to have either forgotten or completely abandoned in his towering arrogance.

The courts are not here to do favors for those who appoint judges and, sadly, the entire political spectrum of the United States seems to have forgotten that vitally important fact along with Alan Dershowitz. It is has led to what I consider a Supreme Court that is wholly invalid and without legal standing.

Now, I’ve had my troubles with decisions of the Supreme Court all the way down to defining a tomato as a vegetable but my understanding of the court differs wildly from that of Alan Dershowitz. In rejecting the case in question, they were not sending a message, they were upholding the law, their job.

I’m reminded of my novel, yes fair readers, self-promotion time, The Sword of Water. In it, Jon Gray is explaining the nature of trust to Tenebrous the Shade. Jon trusts Tenebrous to do what is in his self-interest even if that is not in Jon’s interest. That is the point of the courts. They are not there to do the bidding of one party, one president, one befuddled and aging jurist. The entire court system can be counted on to uphold the law. That’s what this entire episode proves.

Jon relies on knowing how Tenebrous will react to a situation, and this allows Jon to further his own goals, even if they are diametrically opposed to that of the shade. We must have that same opinion of the Supreme Court and the courts in general. That is trust, that is counting on something, that is reliability.

No, Alan Dershowitz, the Trump administration and lawmakers can count on the courts, that’s the lesson to be learned from this sorry episode of United States history.

Tom Liberman

Johnny Manziel Misleading Headline

Posted on by
Johnny Manziel

I admit it, I clicked on the Johnny Manziel Misleading Headline. It’s one of those Misleading Headlines that isn’t overtly deceitful but is designed to lure the unsuspecting news junky. The Football World reacts to the Johnny Manziel News is the wording and, if you know anything about the mercurial life of Manziel, you might make the assumption I did.

The news about Manziel is rather pedestrian if you read the article. He’s signed to play in a potentially new football league but he’s been bouncing around from one league to another for a while now so it’s not really worthy of a major story. However, because of Manziel’s history of mental difficulties it’s entirely possible a foolish fellow clicked on the link based on the thought that perhaps Manziel had finally managed to kill himself.

Now, I hope this new football opportunity works out for Manziel although I’m skeptical, as is I’m sure everyone else. I hardly think the football world, whatever that might be, is spending much time reacting to anything Manziel does.

So, the Misleading Headline of the Week award is given to The Spun. Well earned!

Tom Liberman

Haim Eshed says Aliens waiting for Sane and Understanding

Posted on by
Sane and Understanding

There’s a story making the rounds about a fellow named Haim Eshed who says aliens are waiting to disclose themselves to the people of earth until we are sane and understanding. He makes a number of other claims and his credentials are being touted as the former head of the Israeli Space Security program although I’m not sure what that means.

Some research indicates he was the first director of the Challenge Program, a division of the Department of Defense’s Office of Weapons Research, Development, and Technology Infrastructure, although again, I’m not really certain how that makes him knowledgeable in this field.

In any case, the qualifications of Eshed are not what I’m here to debate today. He makes quite a few outlandish claims but even that is not the focus of today’s talk. I want to discuss one claim in particular, the aliens are waiting for the people of this planet to be “sane and understanding.”

Eshed claims there is a Galactic Federation and they contacted the United States some time ago but don’t want their presence revealed until we reach the sane and understanding phase of our civilization. That if we are not sane and understanding, panic and chaos might result. As many problems as I can find with all of his claims, that’s the one that I couldn’t manage to swallow.

I mean, really, sane and understanding? This is the old science fiction trope dating back all the way to H. G. Wells, that people aren’t ready to know about aliens and therefore they must be kept a secret. Was there ever a time when people would descend into chaos because aliens appeared?

It’s my opinion people are not any saner or more understanding today than they were in ancient Egypt. That being said, we are quite capable of dealing with the idea of alien races, as were the ancients. What are people doing to do? Run out in the streets and riot? My guess is a pretty healthy majority of people would jump for joy at the news.

We are not going to have an epiphany of sane and understanding sweep over the world. The claim we can’t handle the news is just a feeble excuse for why Eshed offers no proof, as is often the case with people pushing nonsensical claims with no evidence. I could show you but you just aren’t ready to hear it. Ha!

If the aliens are waiting for sane and understanding they’ve already waited too long. Our level of sane and understanding hasn’t changed at all and isn’t likely to change in the future. We are what we are.

Tom Liberman

Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act Insanity

Posted on by
Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act Insanity

President Trump just signed into law something called the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act which passed through Congress without so much as a whimper of disapproval. The law allows our government to arrest any athlete, for up to ten years, who uses a prohibited substance or method in any competition in which a U.S. athlete takes part.

The bill passed the house by a voice vote and senate with unanimous consent. That means no one particularly objected to the idea of the United States government arresting and imprisoning athletes from other countries, participating in events in other countries, for such violations. To paraphrase the Sopranos; Where do we get the balls?

For those of you who think this is perfectly acceptable; would you agree to another country passing such a law and arresting U.S. athletes, imprisoning them for up to ten years, seizing their property and forfeiting it to that country? No? I thought not.

Any athletic organization can make any rule it wants as far as I’m concerned but why is the government of the United States getting involved? If some Somali runner tests positive for a steroid while running in a race in France, law enforcement from the United States can swoop in and arrest her or him? Imagine if the United States now had Femke Van den Driessche in prison for her actions in cycling.

The idea we can police the citizens of other countries in this manner is insane. When a U.S. citizen is murdered by a foreign national in a foreign country, it is up to that country to prosecute the criminal, not the United States. The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act overtly gives law-enforcement from foreign nations the right to operate in the United States.

In Afghanistan the limit for blood alcohol in a driving accident is a big 0.00%. Can law enforcement in that country come to the United States and arrest anyone who had an accident involving an Afghani? Would you support that? No! Obviously.

By passing the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act we give every law, in every foreign nation, the right to be enforced in the United States regarding the citizens of the original country. No one in Congress managed to think about this? None of our esteemed Representatives and Senators?

Where do we get the balls? Where?

Tom Liberman

Aerosmith was Better on Drugs but for Whom?

Posted on by
Aerosmith was Better on Drugs

A social media friend of mine posited with unequivocal certainty that Aerosmith was better on drugs. By this he means their music was more enjoyable to him. The main point being, when taking mind-altering drugs, the band created better music. He might well be right but I think the important factor in that statement is my friend is viewing what is better through the lens of his betterment, not the members of the band.

I think this willingness to view the state of another person’s life and decision by how you are affected is a common human condition. I don’t blame my friend for saying what he said, and there are probably some reasonably objective standards we could apply to the question but that is not my point today.

Yes, it’s entirely possible Aerosmith was better on drugs then when they gave the lifestyle up. Perhaps their music was stronger, edgier, and better by all objective standards but that doesn’t change the underlying selfishness of the statement. I enjoyed the music more when the members of Aerosmith were blitzed out of their mind on mind-altering drugs. That they might have been shortening their lives, creating significant medical issues, courting death by overdose, hurting those around them with their behavior, is unimportant. Or at least less important than my enjoyment of their music.

Artists, by and large, suggests my friend, are better when they are whacked out of their gourd. Again, I’m not trying to insult my friend with this observation. I think we all look at life through our own eyes and what is good for us. I see nothing wrong with this philosophy, to at least some degree, but I think it’s important to recognize it.

Was Aerosmith better on drugs? For me, yes. For them, arguable. This is one of the fundamental ideas of objectivism and libertarianism, both philosophies my friend ridicules and perhaps why I’m writing this blog. It turns out my friend is an objectivist Libertarian of the first order when it comes to bands producing the kind of music he likes.

Take that, Harris.

Tom Liberman

What to do about China cornering Cobalt Market

Posted on by
Cobalt Market

The Cobalt Market is in the news these days and this fact brings an opportunity for me to make a comparison between political philosophies of China and the United States. China is in the process of gathering an enormous share of the Cobalt Market and this presents a problem in that the element is a key component in the production of lithium-ion batteries. These batteries will drive the future of energy storage.

The fact that China now has control of a large share of the cobalt market is largely because that nation implemented a strategic, long-range plan called Belt and Road which I wrote about a few years back. Belt and Road encouraged economic ties between China and so-called third-world countries for the development of raw material. Almost fifty percent of all cobalt in the world is mined by the Democratic Republic of the Congo and this is because China invested money to build both mines and economic ties with Congo.

Belatedly, the United States realized this is a problem. Companies around the world need cobalt to produce lithium batteries and China, for the foreseeable future, has most of the mineral rights. Now comes the pertinent part of this blog. What can the United States do? There are two competing philosophies on the subject; essentially America First and Globalism.

The America First philosophy is largely promoted by the Trump Administration and its nationalistic backers. They want to encourage cobalt mining in the United States to ensure a supply of the vital element. By encourage, I mean give government money, taxpayer money, to companies to build mines and refining facilities. To ease environment restrictions and pass tax breaks along to companies who do so.

The globalist policy is pushed by a variety of backers and largely suggests investing in soft power, good foreign relations with countries like Australia with proven reserves of cobalt. This policy relies on strong economic ties with allies throughout the world. This is largely the policy that China pursued with Belt and Road and which has secured them enormous mineral rights with allied nations across the globe.

It’s important to understand one of these philosophies is largely socialistic. It relies on government rewarding businesses that behave in a way it desires. It is not direct socialism but crony capitalism which in the end is probably worse than socialism. The government wants cobalt. It bribes companies to mine the element.

The other method relies on capitalism and strong ties with foreign countries. This is a policy that has driven in the United States almost since its founding. We cannot, and should not, try to be self-reliant for all things, for the simple reason that such a policy is doomed to failure.

If we have strong alliances with countries that have natural resources, we will always have a supply chain. If we rely on our government to use our tax dollars to setup a financially unsustainable source here, we are doomed to both supply problems and a forever drain on our economy.

China’s Belt and Road is the proper strategy and its one the United States pursued for over two-hundred years, with great success. Our freedom was exported throughout the world and our alliances were strong.

We can certainly attempt an America First policy and this will, eventually, produce a home built cobalt market but it will never be enough. It is an endeavor doomed to failure and socialistic to boot. I know the America First people don’t like to hear it, but you are socialist, far more dangerous, in many ways, than those who actively promote socialism.

Tom Liberman

A Fall Football Game to Remember

Posted on by
Fall Football Game

Many years back I was invited to play in a fall football game by a couple of friends. Two hand touch. Hard touch. I was a stranger to all the participants except the brothers Burlis who invited me. There was a quite a crowd, perhaps sixteen of us, enough for a little eight on eight.

We played on a big grassy field and the endzones were marked by nebulously noted shrubbery and trees. Sides were chosen not by a captain but a sort of mutual moving to one side of the field or the other until all was arranged. It turned out we had an even number, a harbinger of things to come. A good omen for a fall football game.

In the first series it quickly became apparent my side was not quite as athletic as the other team but perhaps our average player was better than theirs. The leaders of my team were somewhat sports savvy and we arranged a zone style defense to combat their better stars, something even our worst players understood and could carry out with some skill.

Play in that fall football game proceeded apace. The going was tough. Our zone proved nettlesome for their stars and even I managed a juggling pick six to tie the game at one point. The game went on but every time one side managed to push the ball past the aforementioned tree line, the other team would respond in kind.

No more than a single score separated the two sides and the hard touches sent me, and a few others tumbling to the ground in grassy delight more than once. Spirits were high, the competition was equal and while not fierce, friendly and unforgiving.

The hours passed quickly and people began to glance at their watches, this was before smart phones. A next touchdown rule was implemented and both sides failed several times before the ball was pushed across the line in a hard-fought finale.

Nobody on the losing side, mine, was particularly upset and the winners were not overly celebrative, it was a moment of joyous fall football for all, it was all winners and no losers. As we walked off the field one of the brothers who invited me, mentioned that it was a good game. He was not a particularly sport savvy fellow but still recognized the moment for what it was.

I smiled and shook my head. “You have no idea how rare that is,” I told him.

Here’s to wishing everyone a fall football game like that, even if it’s not football.

Tom Liberman

General Relativity Misleading Headline

Posted on by
General Relativity

The Hill clocks in its second Misleading Headline of the Week in a row with a real doozy about General Relativity and research into Einstein’s groundbreaking theory. I’m a science geek, fully admitted, and I find the theory of General Relativity to be a fascinating contradiction of common sense. Therefore I was hoping for some interesting reading. Spoiler: Didn’t get it.

The headline promises a discussion on the subject of General Relativity but the article is all of five paragraphs long with three of them being but a single sentence. To quote a favorite YouTube food reviewer; My day is ruined and my disappointment is immeasurable. Well, not that bad but it was disappointing most certainly.

The article, what there is of it, has the scientist in question Joe Pesce discussing how time travel, which he doesn’t believe is possible, wouldn’t alter the world because the timeline would fix itself from paradoxes. Ok, well, I mean, I guess that sounds reasonable but it’s certainly not a discussion of General Relativity and it was absolutely not what I was expecting from the misleading headline.

Now, if you want to talk about gravitational lensing, the perihelion procession of Mercury, Frame-dragging tests, gravitational waves, or any other topic relating to the theory which my feeble brain tries to understand, well, bring it on! I’m game.

Tom Liberman

General Salvador Cienfuegos Charges Dropped

Posted on by
Cienfuegos

United States Attorney General William Barr dropped all charges against General Salvador Cienfuegos who, among other things, informed Mexican Drug Cartels who was an inside informant resulting in the murder of said person. Why did William Barr do this, well, he claims it’s because Mexico wants to charge Cienfuegos, but the real reason is to make sure that Mexican authorities continue to cooperate with the US in drug interdiction.

Let’s be clear, the United States has many, many Mexican nationals in our prisons related to drug crimes. What makes Cienfuegos special is that he has friends in high places and our completely corrupt government is happy to do them a favor.

In continuing to be clear, Cienfuegos is responsible for far more of the drug trafficking coming into the United States than a thousand low-level drug dealers. Our willingness to lock up a person selling drugs on the corner while ignoring the entire top of the supply chain is a damning indictment of those who bleat earnestly about the dangers of drugs in the United States.

I’m against the War on Drugs for any number of reasons. I don’t think we should be prosecuting this war and I think the interdiction effort has caused more harm to the citizens of the United States than any other policy of government in the history of the country.

However, if you are for the War on Drugs, if you believe this scourge must be stopped, then you should be calling for Barr to be hanged by his neck until dead, I won’t hold my breath. The reason you won’t is because you are not really invested in ending the War on Drugs. This war fills the pockets of not only Cienfuegos but law enforcement agencies throughout this country. We are completely corrupted by the money and Barr’s head is deeply in the trough.

The government takes your tax dollars by the billion and redistributes this wealth to law enforcement agencies across the country. This money is the primary way the Attorney General of the United States controls law enforcement. It is the way government bribes local officials into doing their bidding.

When Barr claims Cienfuegos will be tried and imprisoned in his own country, he is taking part in the grand deception. When Barr funnels money to law enforcement to war on drugs, they purchase equipment that allows them to crush freedom across the country, from Lafayette Square to Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Drugs have won, not because they are legal, but because they are illegal. We the People are losing.

Tom Liberman

Arches National Park Misleading Headline

Posted on by
Arches National Park

The family of woman’s right activist is suing Arches National park for $270 million in regards to her death. When I saw this headline, and I imagine you as well, thought the woman was climbing one of the famous rock structures at Arches National Park and fell to her death. That the family is looking for a payout in regards to the woman’s own stupidity.

Well, The Hill, you win today’s misleading headline of the week award. The reason being that she was killed when wind slammed a metal gate closed so forcefully it sliced through her car and she was decapitated.

The headline is misleading not because it is inaccurate, it misleading because it was written for the purpose of deceit knowing the assumptions that would result. The first line of the article further advances the deception by prominently mentioning she was a woman’s right activist. You won’t be surprised to find there are many people looking for reasons to eviscerate social justice proponents and the headline along with the first line of the article is a direct appeal to them.

Many of the people who click the headline or even manage to bring themselves to read the first paragraph of the article will come away with a serious misunderstanding of events and they will spread it far and wide on their social media platforms.

This is the danger of misleading headlines in general. Arches National park owes the family of the woman some money, I’m not sure if it’s $270 million or some other amount but there is not question in my mind that a settlement is in order.

Were you fooled? I was until I took the time to read the article and learn the facts of the matter.

Tom Liberman

Conservatorship of Britney Spears

Posted on by
Conservatorship of Britney Spears

The Conservatorship of Britney Spears is in the news these days because the entertainer was suing to regain control of her finances which her father has controlled for the last twelve years. The issue in regards to whether or not to revoke the conservatorship of Britney Spears is an interesting question from a Libertarian perspective.

First a little background, twelve years ago Spears went through a difficult period in her life that led to losing custody of her two children, serious financial setbacks, and out-of-control behavior fueled by various intoxicants. In order to prevent further damage, Jamie Spears, her father, petitioned the state of California for Conservatorship and was awarded such. It is now 2020 and, according to Britney Spears, times have changed. She thinks she is now capable of handling her own finances and is concerned her father is not managing the money appropriately.

The question about the conservatorship of Britney Spears is a difficult one because it seems quite clear that she was, twelve years ago, incapable of properly managing her life. The state allowed her father to step in and manage her money and life and, judging by events over those twelve years, he has done at least an adequate, if not exceptional, job.

That being said, who is Jamie Spears or the court system to say that Britney Spears is still incapable of managing her life and finances after twelve years of personal growth? The general Libertarian mantra suggests if a person wants to ruin their own life, it is their right to do so. However, if the person is not mentally or physically capable of doing so, the question is much more nuanced.

I have a mentally disabled family member and there is no question she should never be in charge of her own finances. The money would be stolen by dishonest entities and she would almost certainly be left destitute and in horrific conditions without protection.

Britney Spears is not so impaired, physically or mentally. She might well have a substance abuse predilection but we just don’t know one way or the other if she is capable of handling her own finances. It’s possible some con-artist is pulling the strings in an attempt to end the conservatorship of Britney Spears. I strongly suspect Jamie Spears is better capable of handling the finances than his daughter. That suspicion is not enough, in my opinion at least, to keep the conservatorship of Britney Spears fully in place.

In this particular case it is a father attempting to look out for the welfare of his daughter but there are parallels to government trying to look out for me and you. In some cases, the father does know best and, in some cases, so does the government. That does not mean we should allow them to take control of our lives without strong reasons.

Britney Spears has spent twelve years without control of her own money and I think that’s long enough, barring any evidence to the contrary. She should be allowed to manage her own finances. When it comes to controlling another person’s finances or life, we must err on the side of freedom or we risk tyranny.

Tom Liberman

Oregon Leads the Way on Drug Legalization

Posted on by
Drug Legalization

All praise Oregonians and their enlightened stance on drug legalization. Hail magnificent, glorious Oregon for defying an out of control federal government led by decree wielding autocrats issuing executive orders as a way to wage war on the citizens they perceive as the enemy.

Oregon just decriminalized small amounts of cocaine, heroin, and LSD, among others so-called hard drugs. This action, this glorious defiance of an overreaching federal and state governments warms the cockles of my heart, wherever they might be found.

The War on Drugs is a war on the citizens of the United States, there is no question this war has caused more misery than any other federal program in the history of the country. I’ve written numerous times on why this war destroys families, communities, law enforcement, the legal profession, and everything it touches so I will not wax poetic today. Today I shower praise on Oregon for charging forward.

The entirety of whether or not marijuana, or any other drug, is something federal or state governments can regulate is wrapped up in a cased called Gonzales v. Raich and it is interesting reading. Drug legalization is freedom for people.

The point here is fairly straight-forward from my perspective. Those in power like telling you what to do and drug legalization is something they don’t want. The pecking order is Federal, State, Local. The party in power at each level enjoys forcing their view of right and wrong on everyone they control. It is my opinion the Constitution of the United States was written with a full understanding of the nature of humans to want to force others. The powers of the Federal Branch are barely limited anymore, what the Federal Government wants, it gets. What the State wants, it gets.

There are few solutions left to freedom lovers who have no desire to dictate to anyone else how she or he leads life. We are overwhelmed by do-gooders who know what gun I should own, what weed I should smoke, what medical procedure I should have, what religion I should pursue. We the People must pass laws, in our municipalities and states, contrary to the authoritarian decrees of out of control federal and state governments.

This is the power of the people. Well done, Oregon.

Tom Liberman

The Generational Misogyny of Sean Connery

Posted on by
Sean Connery

Sean Connery died earlier this week and while tributes poured in from many sources one of my social media friends brought my attention to his opinion on striking women. Connery felt it perfectly acceptable to hit a woman if she was being annoying. Sean Connery was 90 years old when he died and that means he grew up in the 1930s and 1940s. The general misogyny of the United States during this period is something people seem to have forgotten.

During that era the first women voted in the United States. Women didn’t serve on juries in many states and Mississippi was the last to allow them to do so starting in 1968. The first woman elected as a judge in the United States didn’t happen until 1920. I could go on but I won’t. When Sean Connery was a boy, women were largely second-class citizens, beholden to their husbands, commanded by religion to obey, with fewer legal rights than men.

This is the era of Sean Connery and when he said it was perfectly acceptable to hit a woman if she was being annoying, he was speaking for the majority. I don’t write this to absolve him of blame for this misogynistic opinion, I write it to showcase how little removed we are from such a world. It seems to me women in the United States largely forget their gender was, until relatively recently, not considered legally competent to make their own decisions in life. They were barred from everyday practices men enjoy.

This casual and systemic misogyny has a number of sources, not least of which are religious texts regarding adultery, rape, and other such decrees. I’m an Atheist because I am convinced there is no creator deity but I despise religious doctrine in no small part in regards to its views about women. I don’t want to go too far in that tangent so I’ll get back to my point.

The normal, systemic, acceptable view of women being nothing more than chattel for men is not as far removed as you might delude yourself into thinking. Search through your social media with due diligence and you will find plenty of people who imagine women must be subservient to men, they must be modest, they must follow religious laws, they must bow, they must whimper, they must beg, they must trust men to make decisions for them. Sean Connery is dead but his world is not gone, it lurks, waiting, hoping for a return.

Stand on guard, my friends, do not forget. An individual must decide the path of her life. Those that wish to control, to degrade, to inflict violence and enforce their will, they are the enemy.

Tom Liberman

No One Elected Jack Dorsey and that is the Point

Posted on by
No One Elected Jack Dorsey

No one elected Jack Dorsey who is the co-founder of twitter and, Senator Ted Cruz, that’s the entire point why he’s free to allow whatever sort of speech he wants on his platform. The very fact Senator Cruz is completely wrong about the meaning of Freedom of Speech as defined in the First Amendment to the Constitution is disheartening although expected.

The point of the First Amendment is that an elected official, you Senator Cruz, cannot so infringe upon our freedom of speech. The fact no one elected Jack Dorsey is absolute proof that he can do so however he sees fit.

If the publishers of Jewish website refuse to post inflammatory neo-Nazi and Ku-Klux-Klan messages that is their right to do so. If Breitbart News or some other conservative outlet doesn’t want to let Nancy Pelosi speak on their platform, that is absolutely their right. Why? Because no one elected Jack Dorsey and no one elected the owners of those organization.

It is you, Senator Cruz, you who are restricted by the Constitution of the United States from arresting me for printing this blog. That’s what Freedom of Speech means. It applies to you and your political colleagues in Washington D.C., in the governor’s mansions around this nation, in the municipal courthouses. You cannot infringe what I say or, more importantly, choose not to say. That’s the entire point!

By telling Twitter, or any other media outlet, what they must print under threat of punishment, you are violating the First Amendment. This is the arrogance of government today. Politicians like Cruz tell us; not only can we tell you what to say under threats but we’re happy to do so and cite the very document that explicitly prevents us from doing it as justification.

Madness! Insanity!

The answer to your question, Senator Cruz, is no one elected Jack Dorsey. Now, get about trying to do something to help this country rather than turn it into everything the Constitution is designed to prevent.

Tom Liberman

Jared Kushner and Black People wanting Success

Posted on by
Jared Kushner

Jared Kushner recently implied one of the reasons black people have struggled in the United States is they don’t want to be successful. His exact words were … but he (Trump) can’t want them to be successful more than they want to be successful. The question this Libertarian asks is: how do we define success?

I’m sure Jared Kushner and others will be spinning his comments one way or the other and that’s fine. However, there is no doubt in my mind Jared Kushner was simply repeating a line I’ve oft heard before. Black people have only themselves to blame for their lack of success in the United States. It’s a refrain that ignores a great deal of reality and, conveniently, absolves white people from any blame in the matter.

Now, I’m a white guy. Let’s get that out of the way. I don’t know what it’s like to be a black person nor can I speak for them on this subject. I’m merely giving my thoughts on it and I have at least the background of a racially mixed primary and secondary education to support me.

When Jared Kushner talks about black people having to want to succeed, he’s talking about himself, not black people. How he defines success, how his wealthy New Jersey father defines success, how his culturally Jewish heritage defines success. This is not the same as many other people and cultures.

The inherent problem with this attitude is it makes huge assumptions about the personal desires of other people and the cultural mores they value.

I think it’s safe to say black people have compelling reasons for not wanting to seek success the way a largely white America and Jared Kushner define such. We don’t even need to bring up the subject of slavery. Black people today are oppressed by white people overtly and covertly. One of the hidden oppressions is on full demonstration when Jared Kushner speaks on the subject. You must succeed the way I define it, otherwise it isn’t success. That’s his inference and black people have been hearing that for a long, long time. Many of them aren’t buying it and who can blame them?

Recently a person whose own background and culture strongly resemble that of Jared Kushner, Ben Shapiro, wrote that rap isn’t music. Presumably people who make great rap songs that others enjoy are not successful in his imagination. That’s the problem with trying to define how other people should view success.

For some people having a country house with a big yard to mow and some chickens is success. For others going billions of dollars into debt to purchase real-estate holdings and not paying any taxes is their version of success. For me success is defined by writing books that few people purchase. There is no one path to success and when we try to force our version of it on others, we are being presumptuous.

The fact Jared Kushner thinks he knows how black people should view success is part and parcel of the entire problem. People resent such a patronizing attitude.

It is impossible for irony to be more on display when Kushner goes on to blame black people for protesting the murder of George Floyd by crying on Instagram but not offering solutions. Kushner says you solve problems with solutions. Jared Kushner, instead of telling black people they just need to want to have success, maybe you should offer a practical and pragmatic solution, instead of crying to Fox News.

Tom Liberman

Debates about Government Oil Policy

Posted on by
Government Oil Policy

What should be done about government oil policy? That’s the question President Trump and former Vice-President Biden spoke about at the Presidential Debate on October 22 but it’s not really the question at all. We don’t have a Libertarian Candidate in the debates and therefore we only get to hear answers that amount to the same thing. Both Democrats and Republicans are making the same argument.

The problem is Trump and Biden want the same thing; they want a government oil policy that interferes in the natural capitalistic processes. I know, I know, you think your side is completely opposite of the other side but you’re badly mistaken.

Once you admit you want Trump to use the government to support the oil industry or you want Biden to give government aid to renewable energy; you’ve tacitly admitted the government gets a say in the matter at all. If Libertarian Jo Jorgensen had been included in the debate she would, I feel confident, say the only good government oil policy is to stay out of it.

The government; state, federal, and local, should not be giving subsidies to oil or renewables. Imagine if, back in the day, government officials felt the need to protect horses and the industries that support them by suppressing motor vehicles. What if the government poured millions of dollars into candle productions and put up road blocks to electric lights? Where would the United States be as a world power if it had acted in the interests of either?

I wrote a blog about why renewable energy is quickly overtaking coal and oil as the main source of power in the United States but that’s not what I’m writing about today. The message I’d like to convey is when you agree the government has the power to support a particular industry for the good of the nation, you are agreeing with both Trump and Biden. You are, for all practical purposes, making the same argument.

Once you say there can be a government oil policy to influence one of the base structures of modern society, energy, you give it the right to control everything. If you don’t like Trump then you must tell Biden to stop promoting renewable energy. If you fear Biden then you must tell Trump to stop supporting big oil and coal. If you support one, you support both, though you almost certainly imagine you do not.

The more power government has in our lives the more control someone you don’t like will have when they ascend to the highest offices. Do you fear Biden? Vote Libertarian. Do you fear Trump? Vote Libertarian. It’s the only way to be sure.

Tom Liberman

Troy Aikman and the Flyover

Posted on by
Flyover

The fact Troy Aikman and Joe Buck have their patriotism put in doubt when they question the need for a flyover during an NFL game with low attendance starkly tells us about something called Ego Defense. It’s not about disagreeing; it’s about feeling devalued. It’s not about Aikman, Buck, and the flyover, it’s about your own fragile ego.

I wrote about taxpayer money going to sports teams for various military tributes and a flyover is essentially the same thing, the money being paid for advertisements comes out of taxpayer money. With the country in suffocating debt, exacerbated by the failed Covid-19 response to the tune of $3.1 trillion this year alone, it’s more than a legitimate criticism from Aikman and Buck, it’s a simple fact. Why is the military spending tens of thousands of dollars to perform a flyover for a largely empty stadium?

Why is your self-worth wrapped up in criticizing Aikman and Buck? How is it that you somehow fool yourself into thinking you’re patriotic when you accuse others of not being so? It’s simply an Ego Defense.

In the words of a Psychology Today Article: … criticism is an easy form of ego defense. We don’t criticize because we disagree with a behavior or an attitude. We criticize because we somehow feel devalued by the behavior or attitude. Critical people tend to be easily insulted and especially in need of ego defense.

The article goes on to explain those who feel the need to criticize do so out of feelings of unworthiness. My own anecdotal experience confirms this quite thoroughly. Those who feel the need to criticize others are doing so out of their own feelings of self-loathing. They must convince themselves they are better than others and that’s exactly what is happening with Aikman, Buck, and the flyover.

Taking a knee during the National Anthem, wearing a BLM shirt, an Antifa shirt, waving a Confederate Flag, waving a Rainbow Flag, none of these things hurts you in any way, it’s all about you and your own problems. Your ego is fragile and needs defense. The more fragile your ego, the more you need to criticize everyone who does thing differently than you, the stronger your ego, the less you need to do so.

Aikman did nothing wrong, it’s pretty clear his opinion has merit, something we can discuss at length but is not the point I’m making today. If you think Aikman is less of a patriot because he chose to criticize the flyover, then it’s you with the problem, not him. Get over it.

Tom Liberman

Watching People Argue in a Chess Chat

Posted on by
Chess Chat

Chess Chat is as filled with acrimonious debate as any political forum and, while watching the first round of the Norway Chess Tournament an instructive moment occurred which I will wax on about today. Don’t be too distressed, the topic isn’t primarily chess, or chess chat, it’s how to have a productive debate.

In this case the chess chat included a hearty exchange, including nasty insults as per usual, between two interlocuters debating as to which chess format, blitz or classical was more interesting, or more to the point whether or not classical chess is boring. Of some note but not important to the point is that one of the debaters is essentially the chief sponsor of chess in the United States. He took the side that classical chess was more interesting while an unknown but equally belligerent opponent took the opposite view.

Don’t worry, the chess talk is finished. What is important to understand is the nature of the question being debated and how to arrive at an objective answer. One side of the debate posited that a particular thing was more boring than another thing of largely the same nature.

What is the first thing to understand in order to arrive at a conclusion to this debate? What is boring, how do we define boring in this context, it must be determined. We cannot have any meaningful answer until we do so. Now, there are a number of ways to do this, but what is vitally important to understand is that neither of the two challengers made any attempt to do so.

They simply wrote facts back and forth at one another. This many people watched that tournament, so many people watched the other tournament. The quality of play in this style is better than the other style. It was endless, pointless, and much to the dismay of most of the people in chat, hideously boring. No one got anywhere except to clog up the chess chat with their ranting and most certainly, no one’s opinions were changed. Meanwhile, there was some quite interesting chess being played that the two debaters completely ignored.

The lesson is simple enough, you can’t arrive at an objective answer without defining what it is you are debating. A lesson neither of the two debaters understood or, frankly, are ever likely to understand.

Thus ends the lesson, young Ionians. Go outside to practice your Phalanx maneuvers and we shall return to the problem on the morrow.

Tom Liberman

Why Does Coreg Cost so much?

Posted on by
Coreg

A company called Teva Pharmaceuticals just got hit with a $235 million penalty for selling a generic version of Coreg which can help with congestive heart failure. Teva sells it for 4 cents a pill while the brand name manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline sells it for $1.50 a pill. And you wonder why medical costs are high in the United States?

If you suffer from congestive heart failure then you are forced to purchase your pills at an enormous premium, just to try and stay alive. The entire legal case is fairly instructive in understanding why drug prices are so high in the United States as compared to most of the rest of the world.

Glaxo has the rights to Coreg but the original patent expired. During its use, Glaxo determined that Coreg is also effective against hypertension. They got a new patent on Coreg for that disease which is still in effect. Teva markets their drug with a label that excludes hypertension to avoid patent infringement. Doctors, however, are well aware the generic Teva version of Coreg works well against hypertension as well as congestive heart failure, and, wanting to save their patients a lot of money, prescribe it.

It’s all fascinating from a legal perspective but it is the actual impact that interests me the most. It’s clear if Teva can make a generic version of Coreg for four cents a pill, that Glaxo could certainly drop the price on their version dramatically. Particularly to be noted; Coreg is already out of its original patent and any profit taking should have already occurred, that’s the whole point of a patent.

Sure, Glaxo figured out Coreg had another purpose but that didn’t cost them anything more in research and development. It’s exactly the same drug they originally patented. They’ve had the legally required amount of time to make a profit off exclusive sales. Yet, they are still gouging patients at a rate of $1.46 per pill because they found a new use for it and can suppress competition.

This is part and parcel why healthcare costs in the United States are an enormous problem. I’m not against patents, I think Glaxo has every right to exclusively offer their product in order to recoup development costs. That time frame has expired.

The major drug companies use the FDA and the United States court system as weapons against anyone trying to produce cheaper version of medication. You pay. This case will cost you and those you love.

This is part of the reason insurance costs are so high, this is why tens of millions of U.S. citizens can’t afford insurance, go without drugs, suffer terribly, and often die. The entire reason we have the Affordable Care Act, which is so polarizing, is because of this weaponization of the FDA and the court systems against capitalism in the form of generic drugs.

If companies were allowed to reasonably create generic drugs then we most likely wouldn’t need the ACA, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Tom Liberman