Category Archives: Communication

You are Destroying America by Linking too Much (Share this Post Now or Your Family will Die)

Posted on by

Spreading LiesA friend of mine just went on a Facebook rant about how blog posts are often Liked, Shared, Linked, and otherwise disseminated to the public with no one actually bothering to check if what was written has any validity. Apparently he saw one too many miracle cancer cures roll by on his feed.

I’ve sort of spoken on this topic before. Here I talked about our culpability in spreading fake cancer cures on Facebook, and here I spoke about the idea of how the news story you click on drives it up the page. I have a weekly Stupid/Misleading Headline feature on this blog.

My friend included a link to this beautifully written and researched blog post on how to spot lies and distortions on the internet. After reading and admiring the post I didn’t want to simply reiterate the points so accurately made by David Wong.

The ways to spot fake articles listed by Wong are not particularly earth shattering. Whenever we read such a headline or story we generally realize it probably isn’t true. What harm could there be in putting in a Link? A Share? A Like? It’s just one click. Wong eloquently explains how these links, shares, and likes drive a story to more and more viewers, generating more and more hits, causing the information to gain credibility.

So, why am I writing this post? I hope to get people to spend some time thinking about their own responsibility for the plethora of false information out there. There is so much false information that it’s very easy to believe what you read and then spread the lies. When we pass along lies of this nature we are doing no one any favors. It is likely that a friend will believe us and tell someone else who will then laugh at them and correctly call them stupid. When you believe something, particularly something that seems unlikely, without bothering to do any checking of facts; you are stupid.

This problem has become so prevalent that many dishonest people are taking advantage of your clicks. They are using you for their own ends. Wong’s blog goes into great detail. As an example; magazines like Forbes now post the blogs of anyone who signs up. This is designed to drive their click rates up. Anyone can write anything and the blog link appears to go to a Forbes article. By having the Forbes name on it, the link seems legitimate, it is not.

The same goes for completely made up science articles, polls, news stories, and just about anything else you see. People simply make up something attention grabbing and sensational and then count on you to link to it.

The very nature of this fraud goes to my Libertarian philosophies of personal responsibility. Do you really want to link horoscope information? The article that proclaims your least favorite politician is DOOMED? Do you want to spread lies? Most of us would feel extremely guilty if we spread a lie about a friend but every time we Share an article we are spreading that information, if the article is a lie, we are liars.

Each time we do something like this we increase the amount of false information on the internet. This sort of thing cannot be stamped out through legislation. It is up to each of us to examine the information and Share it only if we have spent at least a few seconds confirming its veracity.

My advice is that you should avoid being stupid. Spend some time looking into that article before you share it with friends. And, of course, SHARE THIS NOW!!!

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

Wright v. Penn – More Signs I’m Getting Old

Posted on by

Robin Wright and Dylan PennI’ve been blogging about some pretty serious topics of late so I thought I’d lighten it up with one about how a recent celebrity photo brought home the stark reality that I’m getting pretty old (I’ll be 50 in June).

I’ve pretty much been in love with Buttercup, er, I mean Robin Wright, since I saw The Princess Bride for the first time. A quick Bing Image search revealed that the passage of time has not lessened my ardor in any way.

So I see what appears to be a familiar face in the headlines but it’s not my pretend girlfriend. It’s Buttercup’s twenty-two year old daughter, Dylan.

Really? My celebrity crush has a daughter old enough to legally drink? It was bad enough when I realized a few years back that not a single player on my beloved St. Louis Cardinal’s was older than me, but this is getting ridiculous.

The good news, for those of you worried about me becoming a dirty old man, is that I think Buttercup is way hotter than her daughter!

What do you think? Buttercup or Dylan?

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

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

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

Offended by a License Plate

Posted on by

Offensive License PlateI just read a story that isn’t that big of a deal except that it happens to have taken place here in my beloved Show Me state of Missouri. A woman was offended by her state issued license plate.

Take a look at the image and see if you can figure it out and then read on.

According to the offended Missourian it reads – Whore Eight Times.

I thought it read Who Rate X?

I’m on record as saying words have power and I will not deny that there are combinations of randomly generated letters and numbers that could and should cause offense. Not many people want a license plate that has truly offensive words on it. The state attempts to avoid this and even refuses to allow relatively innocuous license plates because they might be misconstrued.

In this case the woman could have paid $17 to get a replacement plate but instead, over the principle of the matter, took it to the local news station. The bad publicity eventually got the state to waive the fee and issue a new plate.

The woman claims that people were yelling offensive terms at her when they saw the plate and therefore it was up to the state to replace it. Again, I don’t think this is that big a deal but why should I have to pay for the cost of replacement over something that isn’t blatantly offensive? Someone’s $17 in taxes for the state of Missouri went to cover that replacement.

In addition I’d like to address people who make fun of other people over a license plate. It’s like when you’re a kid and someone makes fun of your name. It’s a state issued license plate. It’s the name you have. When I was ten years old a fellow who happened to have the name Lipschitz provided short-lived amusement. By the time I got to High School it was pretty clear to me and everyone I knew that making fun of a person’s name was juvenile.

So what can we take from all this? People who make fun of random letters on a license plate aren’t worth worrying about. People who tease you because of your name aren’t worth thinking about. They’ve got their own problems. In addition, people who worry about non-offensive things in their life have bigger problems.

Don’t sweat the small stuff.

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

Are you Still Paying for TV? Why?

Posted on by

Cable TV SubscribersI just read an absolutely fascinating article from the financial world about how the television business is having a dismal year and the future looks bad.

The reason I found the article fascinating is that it completely agrees with everything I’ve been saying about those who make content and those who deliver it to the consumers. Here’s a hint for anyone that wants to be my friend, just tell me I’m amazingly smart and always right!

Massive ego aside, I did want to take a quick look at what the metrics from this article mean about our future consumption of content. What I think is happening is that there is a growing separation between those who create content and the companies that distribute it to us. In the past these two industries were often combined. The networks, studios, publishers, and labels created the content and delivered it to us.

With wireless internet becoming more universally available and with devices that can take advantage of that medium becoming almost ubiquitous we are seeing a trend where people consume content when they want and where the want. That content is no longer tied to a provider.

I’ve been hammering away for years that the major content creators should simply give up on delivering content. They should give their content away for free to the providers and get revenue each time someone consumes content.

Naturally there has been reluctance to accept this business model. The content creators had huge revenue streams through their delivery arms.

What is happening now is that people don’t want to pay for access and subscribers are falling. They want to pay for individual items they purchase. We don’t pay to have access to the grocery store, we pay for the items we buy. As times goes on fewer and fewer people will have dedicated television or internet devices. All media will be delivered electronically to whatever device we are viewing at that moment. We will pay for this by watching advertisements and possibly some monthly fee. Advertisers will pay the content providers a certain amount per view. The content providers will then pass along a share to the content creators.

As it stands, when I see my favorite shows being pulled from Hulu, my favorite sporting events being pulled from ESPN3 I get angry. However, I see a bright future for me and others who enjoy content. No longer will we be tied to a service. I will watch what I want, when I want. Those that provide popular content to the largest audience will get the lion’s share of the revenue.

The content creators will open their vast libraries to Hulu, Netflix, ESPN3, and other providers that will arise in the future.

New content creators will arise, regular people who write their own amazing Sword and Sorcery fantasy novels for example! People will consume what we want at a reasonable price.

There will be more success stories like Felicia Day. Regular people will be able to showcase their talents directly. More content, more creativity, more variety, more goodness!

Children will dance in the streets. Dogs and cats will live in harmony. The Cardinals will win the World Series every year (darn you and your beards; evil Red Sox).

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

What’s in a Name? The Redskin Controvery

Posted on by

Redskin NicknameThere’s been a lot of talk in recent years about the use of Native American nicknames for sports teams. Many people think some of these names are derogatory in nature and would like to see changes.

The most prominent case is the Washington Redskins who are under moderate pressure to change the team nickname. Meanwhile throughout the country there are many schools and teams that use the word Redskins to reference their mascot. The origin of Redskin is somewhat in dispute but it is generally recognized as a pejorative term. Not everyone feels this way though. The name Redskin is almost always used with pride when in reference to the school mascot or team.

There are certainly any number of Native American names used within the English language with fully 26 states having such names. Professional sports teams include the Chicago Blackhawks named after Sauk leader Black Hawk.

We also see the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Hawks, the Golden State Warriors, and countless colleges and high schools with such monikers. My own high school, University City, changed their nickname from Indians to Lions in response to such pressure. The Stanford Cardinals were once the Stanford Indians.

The question is if teams with such names should change them to be less offensive.

There is a lot of passion on the subject. People who have cheered for their teams for many years certainly do not consider the names to be derogatory or negative. They take great pride in the names. Likewise there will always be those who consider certain words to be negative in meaning; Redskin, in general use, is a far more derogatory term than Chief, Seminole, or Brave.

What’s my opinion?

I’m going to take the middle-ground on this controversy. If a team, writer, college, or person wants to use the term, particular when they use it in a positive way, then they absolutely can do so. Likewise, if the owner or college or whatever decides to change the name because they feel it is a net negative then they can do that as well. It’s up to them and it’s their decision to make, not mine.

If Dan Snyder and the Washington Redskin’s organization says they won’t change the name then I support that decision. If the Neshaminy high school Redskin’s editorial staff chooses not to allow the use of the word then that’s their business. Students that feel differently can get on the editorial staff next year and reverse the ban.

There is no doubt that words carry power and I’ve written on that subject a number of times. If I say something offensive then I might suffer consequences but it’s my decision to say it, not yours.

Go Rams! Let’s Go Blues! Cardinals! M-I-Z ….

Tom Liberman

I Hate the NFL Blackout Rule – But I hate the FCC More

Posted on by

NFL Blackout RulesI just read an interesting story about how the Federal Communication Commission thinks they need to be involved in deciding when the National Football League broadcasts its games.

The NFL has a series of rules in which if the home team does not sell a certain number of tickets then the game cannot be broadcast in the home team’s market. This blackout includes fans who paid for the NFL Season Package either through their cable provider or internet provider.

I’m of the opinion that the NFL policy is misguided because they should desire to expand their audience, not decrease it. Even when most games were not televised on multiple outlets I think the rule was a mistake. The idea of the blackouts are to promote ticket sales by forcing people to attend the game. In the modern age the NFL is essentially shutting out a large segment of potential viewers when they do this.

The NFL is coming around to my way of thinking and has reduced the sellout rule down to 85% sales of what are called non-premium seats. They also now allow the selling of blocks of tickets at discounted rates to avoid the blackout. These new rules have meant that not a single game in the NFL has been blacked out this season. This is capitalism at work.

So now the government is getting involved. A year ago Senator John McCain of the Grand Canyon state of Arizona originally proposed a bill to force the NFL to televise all games and now the FCC is getting involved. The FCC’s argument is that those who cannot afford tickets should not be punished. What, what, what?

Those who cannot afford tickets don’t attend games, that’s the law of economics. If the NFL wants to prevent people from watching the game on television then that’s their own, misguided, business decision to make.

If a person can’t afford to see a first run movie should the studio be forced to televise it? If I can’t afford to get HBO should the network be forced to show the program over the airwaves? This is government nonsense at its worst.

Don’t mistake me, I think the NFL is better off showcasing its game on as many outlets as possible. I think content providers should release their media as broadly as possible so as to have more people watch it. This builds a loyal fan base who will watch content, buy merchandise, and see advertisements. The only reason I know about Australian Rules Football, Archer, and 20/20 Cricket is because they were released on Hulu and ESPN3.

When content providers practice to limit their audience they hurt only themselves. That being said, it’s not the government’s job to prevent a company from making stupid business decisions. When the AFL pulled their games from ESPN3 they lost me as viewer. Likewise when FX pulled Archer from Hulu. That’s their decision to make.

We Libertarians often get criticized for hating government meanwhile happily enjoying roads, appreciating teachers, police officers, firemen, parks department employees, electricity, plumbing, and many of the other things governments provides.

We don’t hate government, we just want to see it limited to the areas of its purview. When it gets involved in things like this the end result is usually bad for everyone. This NFL Blackout/FCC story isn’t the most egregious of violations but it is typical of an overreaching government that tries to right all wrongs.

Maybe they’ve got better things to do?

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

The Myth of Brainstorming

Posted on by

Brainstorming DilbertA Dilbert cartoon that I spotted reminded of why I’ve always hated the concept of brainstorming. I went out and did some research and I’m happy to report that I am not alone in my disdain for this sort of problem solving.

There are a number of scientific studies out that show it actually produces worse results than do individuals working to solve a problem.

The concept of brainstorming got its start in the 1953 book Applied Imagination. The idea is that a group of people throwing out various ideas eventually creates better solutions than individuals working alone to try to solve issues. Brainstorming has evolved into meaning any sort of meeting in which people try to solve an issue working together, generally by suggesting various solutions to one another.

My hatred, and I’m not using the term lightly, of brainstorming sessions is not a result of any scientific study but simply my own experience. This means that it is completely invalid. Just because I’ve had bad luck with brainstorming sessions doesn’t mean the concept is a failure. It is easy to fall victim to our own personal experiences and assume that because something happened to us, it is the norm.

That’s why I was pleased to read the Dilbert comment and then to find there is research based and empirical evidence to back up my anecdotal evidence.

The arguments against brainstorming that resonated with me include: Blocking wherein one member of the session essentially dominates preventing anyone else from making suggestions, Social Matching in which the members of the group gravitate towards matching the productivity across the group limiting the higher producers, and Illusion of Productivity in which people think they’ve accomplished far more than they actually have.

Almost every brainstorming session in which I’ve taken part essentially devolved into a lot of back-patting generally around ideas that had almost no chance of being implemented because of logistical and financial limitations and the reality of people’s ability to perform.

That being said, I am curious about other people’s anecdotal experiences with brainstorming.

I’m not talking about the euphoric feeling immediately after the brainstorming in which everyone feels like they’ve solved problems but the reality of the solutions derived from those sessions. Were said solutions actually implemented or was it more likely an individual working alone who came up with the best plan?

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

Can You Apologize for Someone Else’s Mistake?

Posted on by

ApologyThere was an interesting article in the news which was put, mistakenly in my opinion, in the science section and thus I stumbled across it.

The nation of Cameroon issued an apology for their ancestor’s involvement in trading slaves to Europeans thus beginning the long chain that brought those slaves to plantations in the southern United States. The apology was issued specifically to genetically identified relatives of those still living in Cameroon but was extended to include anyone affected by the policies.

The genetic tracing part of the story is why it ended up in the science section I suspect. In any case, as I was perusing the comments I noted that there was a fairly heavy leaning towards the idea that it was wrong to apologize for something for which you are not responsible.

Clearly the people in power in Cameroon today had nothing to do with the slave trade of past centuries. The argument suggested that it was ridiculous to make the apology. That it was meaningless. That a the best remedy was to act with ethics and morality in the future.

I’m not unsympathetic to this point of view. I do think the apology is being made by people who did nothing wrong in the first place. That it doesn’t help those directly or indirectly effected by those misdeeds. It can even be said that such apologies can be used to excuse bad behavior.

On the other hand I do think an apology has the ability to heal hurt feelings. While apologies are just words that do not affect any physical change they can set the path towards a better future. It is probably true that an apology, even when for something you personally did, doesn’t really do anything to redress the original harm. It is merely an indication of your acknowledgement of wrong-doing. Of your intention to do better in the future.

Slavery was wrong. My ancestors weren’t even in the United States during slavery so should I apologize for it? What’s my responsibility?

Slavery wasn’t my fault. I didn’t do anything to promote its cause. If I don’t want to apologize for the actions of people who died long before I was born then I have no obligation to do so. However, I am more than willing to denounce slavery. To admit that the United States, my country, engaged in this despicable practice for generations. I’m sorry that it happened. I’m sorry my country did such a thing.

Let’s dial it down a notch. Let’s say I’m at an event and one of my friends does something boorish. Gets drunk and makes inappropriate comments.

I can handle it by talking to my friend and trying to get him to restrain himself. I can handle it by watching it happen and then apologizing to people later. I can do neither or I can do both.

In the end, I guess I’m a proponent of both. It doesn’t hurt to apologize for my friend’s behavior. It’s better that I try to stop it before anything else happens. That I take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again. But, why not all of the above? Everyone knows I didn’t do it but they appreciate my apology nonetheless.

Must you apologize for someone else’s behavior? No.

Should you? It’s up to you.

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

When is a Naughty Leopard neither Naughty nor a Leopard?

Posted on by
Naughty Leopard

I’m just now reading about the Walmart Naughty Leopard controversy although the story has been out for over a week.

Walmart made the costume, which is designed for toddler girls, available for Halloween and there was an immediate uproar about the sexualization of young girls. People simply heard the name of the costume and immediately began to send in furious letters of outrage. Stories sprang up on all the media outlets about the horror of this awful, dangerous, evil costume that was turning little girls into wild sexual animals.

Enough outraged people inundated Walmart with complaints that the company pulled the costume from the shelves and issued an apology.

What is wrong with the Naughty Leopard Costume?

Do you want to know my opinion on this nonsense? Of course you do!

The costume has a major problem but being too sexy isn’t one of them. It’s a cute little costume that is not sexy, is less revealing that outfits I see little girls wearing out and about all the time, and in no way turns little girls in sexual objects.

So, what’s do I find wrong with the costume? Leopards are yellow/gold with black spots. The costume is black with purple trim. Seriously? Naughty Leopard? I’d call it the Purple Crab costume except the cute little ears don’t quite work.

Naughty in this case is meant to convey a mischievous little girl. Anyone who actually bothered to examine the costume before expressing their horrified outrage would have immediately noted all of this.

Cancel Culture at Work

Walmart is a big-boy company and can make their own decisions but I find this absolutely ridiculous. Clearly someone at the company felt an apology was a cheaper and better solution than simply telling the outraged parents the truth. That the adults obviously jumped to an erroneous conclusions and that if they simply examined the costume in question they would find nothing objectionable about it. Walmart should be getting an apology from everyone who wrote in a complaint, not handing one out.

I haven’t even started talking about the free market yet. By golly, if people want to buy a costume then Walmart should sell it. It’s economics, it’s capitalism, it’s the free market that this country supposedly believes in. People need to mind their own business.

I guess it seems like a little thing but little things add up. Walmart wanted to avoid bad publicity and acquiesced to a popular but ridiculous and unfounded fear. When a business gives into fear, when a politician gives into to fear, when you give into fear, when I give into fear, we all lose a little.

Conclusion

I’m not afraid. I demand Walmart put the Naughty Leopard costume back on the shelf.

Who’s with me?

Tom Liberman

The Tough Teacher is the Best Teacher

Posted on by

Tough Teaching MethodsThere’s a great article in the Wall Street Journal about why it’s better to have a tough teacher than an easy teacher. It goes into a number of reasons why this is the case and I largely agree with one important side-note.

The author recalls a tough music teacher who berated both her and fellow students by calling them idiots, who prodded their hands and arms into the proper physical position with pokes from a pencil. The article then goes on to say that a teacher would be fired for such behavior in the modern classroom.

The article continues by citing a number of excellent studies suggesting that teachers who tell us we are wrong when we make a mistake, that make us memorize fundamental ideas, that don’t mind assigning us exercises which we are likely to fail, and who put us under stress, are almost assuredly helping us.

All this is clearly true. I’ve spoken out a number of times on this subject even suggesting that it was a mistake to allow a wrestler with cerebral palsy win a match. That we did neither the winner or loser of that match any favors.

I’m in almost total agreement with the author and the article. Almost.

The one thing the writer conveniently forgets is that for every well-meaning Mr. K out there who called people idiots not because he thought they were idiots but to encourage them to try harder. For every Mr. K out there who gently prodded with a pencil; our past education system also spawned generations of sadistic, bullying, power-mad teachers who enjoyed mentally tearing down students, played “favorites” to birth sycophantic slaves, and who got sick gratification from doling out corporal punishment. I had  a couple of teachers that fit this mold and I’ll bet most of my readers did as well.

That much of the coddling of students we see today stems from reforms designed by former students who were abused in this fashion.

So, what’s the middle line? How do we get the tough, but loving, teachers who see our potential and drive us to our highest level of achievement while avoiding the sadistic psychopaths who enjoy torturing children?

There are no easy answers here at the Blog of Tom Liberman. I’m not going to stand up and call everyone else an idiot and claim there’s a simple path.

We must churn out people with education degrees who have learned these principles. In other words, we teach people to teach properly. Administrators must carefully interview potential teachers and weed out those with tendencies towards sadism. We must monitor a teacher’s progress in the classroom and, with tough love, help them improve their teaching skills.

We must listen to student and parent complaints and fairly adjudicate them. We must support teachers who practice tough love even if it hurts our feelings. We must fire, after fair warning, those who cross the line.

We must spend time and effort doing what is right, because it’s worth it in the end.

What would be the state of our educational system, our nation, and our world be if we had nothing but great teachers?

What I just wrote seems straight-forward I’m sure. Gosh, Tom, that sounds easy. Let’s get to work. Well, it’s the getting to work that’s the hard part and I like to think Mr. K. would agree. We can’t just espouse what are clearly good ideas and pat ourselves on the back.

No one can instantly make every teacher better. The Cardinals didn’t win the 2013 National League Central Division Crown with one victory (Go Birds!). It starts with one person and one action. The next action you take. The next action I take.

Each action, each decision, each moment of our lives is an opportunity to be better. That’s what being a Libertarian, what being a Objectivist means. Will I make mistakes? Was my Access 2010 class the other day not my best effort? You bet.

Will I try to do better next time? Will I realize the errors I made and correct them? How I answer is the real test.

It’s hard to pay attention to detail, to work at your craft constantly, to accept failure graciously, to change patterned behavior, to improve, to improve some more, to truly listen to ideas outside your ideology, to get better.

No easy solutions here.

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

It’s How You Teach, Not Learning Styles

Posted on by
Teaching Methods

One of my jobs at Acumen Consulting is being a technical trainer. It’s the thing that until recently has made up the backbone of my work for the last fifteen plus years.

There’s a very interesting article in Scientific American about something called Learning Styles. I’ve always been skeptical of learning styles in general but this article confirmed my doubts. The article attempts to be even-handed, so much so that I think it bends over backwards to soothe those who believe in Learning Styles.

I imagine this post of mine will generate some anger from those who believe in Learning Styles, we’ll see.

The idea behind Learning Styles is that students best learn in different ways and that educators need to take advantage of this. That some students learn by listening, some by watching, and some by doing. That those who learn in particular ways should be taught in that way.

There is no empirical evidence that this is true. It sounds true and that is what makes it attractive to people. We like things that have the ring-of-truth to them. Often times those sort of things are in actuality true. However, just because something sounds like it is true doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be experimentation to prove it.

In this case they’ve finally done some studies and no one has found any connection between a Learning Style and learning faster.

What they’ve found, and what my own experience tells me, is that good teaching methods yield more learning. Period.

I was taught what is called the three-step method. Tell people what you’re going to do, do it, ask them what you’ve just done. It works.

The more senses you get involved in learning the better you are. If you show them that’s a start. If they do it, that’s even better, if they talk about what they just did that’s best. If you are studying don’t use the highlighter. Get a notepad and write down what you would have highlighted, say it out loud as you are writing it.

In the article they mention the type of learner makes no difference when teaching geography. A learner who does best by listening? Bunk. Show them a map and they’ll learn more than if you describe the shape and size of the great state of Missouri. It’s how we teach, not how we learn, if there is even a real “learning style” which I doubt.

Some people are smarter than other people and there are those with severe mental disabilities but if we eliminate those at the ends of the Bell Curve I think it’s more than possible to teach almost everyone critical thinking and analysis. Teach them useful skills so that they can enter adulthood with the ability to work and earn a living. With a population schooled in these tools we can build a better society.

There are good teachers, great teachers, and those less talented. Hopefully you had a great one somewhere along the line. The odds are whatever that great teacher taught is what you are now doing as a career. That’s how important teachers are in the world and our lives. Great teacher inspire us and change us.

So, don’t fall back on the excuse that you’re a visual learner and that’s why you failed to understand something. Ask your teacher to explain it better. You can learn it, you can do it.

Tom Liberman

Django Unchained and Samuel L. Jackson

Posted on by

Samuel L. JacksonI haven’t done a movie review in a long time so I thought I’d break the drought, sort of. My good friend Jeff invited me over watch the Rams game (darn you, Falcons) and we put on Django Unchained afterward.

Let me warn you that this isn’t really going to be a movie review. It’s going be about the actor Samuel L. Jackson. He played a role in the movie that showed what I thought displayed a tremendous amount of courage. It’s not a role a man lacking self-confidence can play and Jackson played it fantastically.

Jackson is, as I’m sure most of you know, a black man. The role he played was essentially a House Negro. This is a black person who worked with white owners to help keep the field, or working, blacks oppressed in exchange for a better position. In the movie there are a lot of unpalatable characters but Stephen, Jackson’s character, seems to me to be the most despicable.

The movie itself engendered a large amount of anger in the black community from Spike Lee and many others. Jackson had to know that his character would be perceived as vile, particularly among blacks. That’s why I think Jackson was both incredibly confident and quite brave to take on the role.

He didn’t just take on the role, he owned it. He gave us a look at what a house negro was. History gives us example after example of people willing to help those in power oppress their own kind. Collaborationism is one name for it and the term was used extensively during World War II to indicate someone willing to betray their country for favoritism from the new regime. It is not a new idea. In ancient Greece helping the Persians was  considered Medism.

Jackson’s character in the movie is vile. Jackson read the script and accepted the role knowing what he was going to have to do and then went out and did it with incredible skill. He is absolutely convincing as Stephen the collaborator. He gives us insight into the times and into the type of person who behaves in this fashion.

I’m not really going anywhere political with this blog post. I’m just here to say that I admire Jackson tremendously for his courage in taking on this role and his acting skill in bringing it to life. He’s an actor and it’s his job, but not everyone does their job so well, particularly when doing so might have long-term repercussions. It’s not far-fetched to imagine him being “punished” by those upset with his portrayal. Future roles might be denied. Who knows?

A tip of the hat to Samuel L. Jackson, a man of courage.

As for the entire movie? Typical Quentin Tarantino, entertaining, over-the-top, ridiculous at times, plot holes galore, but stylish and made with passion. I’d recommend it.

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

Foul Language Ejections

Posted on by

Justin UptonThere was an incident in the baseball game between the Atlanta Braves and my beloved St. Louis Cardinals last night that got me thinking. A player for the Braves, Justin Upton, was ejected, supposedly for arguing. Upton says he was merely mad at himself for grounding out and cursed.

This sort of incident happened earlier in the season to Yadier Molina when he was called out on a close play at first base and slammed his helmet into the ground. He was frustrated that he didn’t run harder out of the batter’s box, he is a catcher and nursing sore knees, but the umpire saw it differently and ejected Molina.

When I sat down to write this blog post I was going to call out overly sensitive officials for ejecting players and altering the course of the game unnecessarily. The more I thought about it, the more I thought about the rules I played under as a young boy. I began to realize there is a better solution. Stop throwing your equipment, cursing, and being disrespectful in general.

When I played sports as a kid, if you abused a piece of equipment the coach would put you on the bench. If you said anything argumentative to an official you’d be ejected from the game. Those days are sadly over.

I’m not saying that official don’t make mistakes and I’m certainly on record saying that I think some outright cheat. I’m not saying that those who make mistakes, those who cheat, those who lie, shouldn’t be called out. I’m just saying let’s try to do it with some decency.

I am saying it would be great if players acted like gentlemen and ladies. This screaming and yelling at every perceived slight, this flopping to gain an advantage, this boorish behavior is something that pervades sports, media, comment sections, essentially society itself.

This rudeness is everywhere, not just sports, and certainly characterizes  political debate. Everyone thinks its okay to call someone they don’t like an “idiot!” A “moron!” A “Repukelican!” A “Libtard!” This lack of decency, of simple manners, hurts cooperation, hurts society, hurts our (yes, our) nation.

We have become a rude, nasty lot. We will say horrible things about other people and words hurt. When our actions show a complete disregard for civility, for kindness, for tolerance, then we simply encourage the worst sort of people to take things even further. When the best of us, the role-models, cannot restrain ourselves the worst are emboldened.

Back to the topic at hand, a ballplayer thrown out for cursing at himself. It wouldn’t have happened if all baseball players were ejected at the first curse word, at the first disrespectful action towards an umpire. I’m not just haranguing ball players here. Fire the umpire that shows disrespect to a player.

I don’t think what I’m suggesting will happen because of money. If John McEnroe yells something at an umpire during the finals of Wimbledon and the match is declared over that will cost people a lot of money. If Tiger Woods curses after a bad shot and is escorted from the course that will cost sponsors a lot of money.

That being said, if there are strictly enforced rules, the athletes and  officials will eventually learn to follow them. It might be a little painful at the start but I think we’d all be better off.

And before you like this post and tell me how right I am, examine your own life, your own actions. You’re a role-model for someone out there. Act like it.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a very good read)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Misspelled Jeopardy Question – Thomas Hurley III

Posted on by

Jeopary Alex TrebekThere’s an interesting story in the news about a young teenager who misspelled the Final Jeopardy question which was ruled incorrect.

The young man told a media outlet in his home town that he was “cheated” out of being given credit for answering the final question correctly.

Money is not at stake but something far more important, accuracy. Thomas Hurley III was not going to win the game in any case. He was far behind the teen who won that particular episode and even if his answer had been ruled correct he would have finished in second place and taken home the exact same amount of money.

What happened is fairly straight forward. In Jeopardy, for those of my readers who don’t know the game, the contestants are supplied with an answer and then must formulate the question. In this case the question should have been, “What is the emancipation proclamation?” In Final Jeopardy contestants must write down their answer as opposed to simply saying it as they do the rest of the game. In this case Hurley wrote, “What is the emanciptation proclamation?” Essentially inserting one extra letter.

The host of the show ruled that answer incorrect. The show’s judges later confirmed this decision. Incorrect decisions by Alex Trebek have been overruled in the past.

His feeling about being cheated is, in my opinion, quite interesting. I could not find any official rules about spelling but the show is notoriously strict about these sorts of things. If the answer was “The First President of the United States” a question of “Who was Washington” would be correct as would “Who was G. Washington” but “Who was J. Washington” would be incorrect. The idea being that you must know the answer generally but also fully. Clearly, anyone who put “Who was J. Washington” meant George Washington. They had the essence of the answer correct but not its detail.

The show does accept phonetic spelling of a word, spelling the word the way it sounds. That was not the case here. I don’t watch the show regularly but reading the comments on the story it seems spelling is a judgment call. Some misspelling are accepted and others not, this might not be true, as again, I couldn’t find any official rule about misspellings.

The comments were generally hostile to Hurley calling him entitled and worse.

I see Hurley’s point here but also see the show’s. Hurley knew the right answer and he misspelled the word by inserting a single extra letter. Trebek felt the extra letter was enough to declare the answer incorrect.

But, as always, I cannot simply comment. I must give my opinion as to who is in the right and who is in the wrong even when the difference is relatively narrow. In this case I side with the show. It is their show, their rules, and Trebek is the initial arbiter. If the answer was wrong, in even the most minor way, they have the right to rule it incorrect. However, I do think they should apply that rule across the board. If one spelling mistake is wrong then all spelling mistakes, except intentional phonetic spellings, are wrong.

As for Hurley, I don’t have as much hate and derision as the internet seems to have for him. He knew the answer, misspelled the word very slightly, and certainly wasn’t complaining about money, simply about what was right. In this case I think he misses the point but not by much. It was a minor technicality and in life getting the answer correct is often the most important thing.

If you feel you were cheated then you should speak up. If the situation is investigated by the proper authorities and it is determined you were not cheated, then it’s time to move on with life. I’m sure that’s exactly what Hurley will do.

No harm, no foul. Jeopardy gets some publicity and Hurley gets a lesson about complete accuracy. Not a bad outcome in the end.

Tom Liberman

Shea Allen and the Confession that got her Fired

Posted on by

Shea AllenThe last time I talked about a social media post getting someone in trouble it involved a seventeen year girl wearing a bikini. I broke records for number of blog hits! I say, why not try again? Although this time it’s an adult woman and other than apparently going sans-bra now and again there are no racy images.

A young reporter in the great state of Alabama wrote a blog post confessing a few fairly innocuous things and was fired from her job as a reporter at WAAY-TV in Huntsville, Alabama.

The station first asked her to take down the blog and she complied but upon having second thoughts she put it back up defiantly. In the blog she admits to turning off her microphone during interviews if she feels the subject is blithering on too much. She also apparently has failed to wear a bra during a newscast or two. She is disturbed by the elderly and is good at sitting in such a way as to conceal her weight from the camera.

 

** EDIT **

The updated stories indicate Shea was not asked to take down the blog before she was fired. This certainly puts a different light on her actions. I still support her honesty in talking about her real flaws but she seems to be complaining now about the firing. If she posted the blog knowing she was going to be fired that is, in my opinion, admirable and was largely my point in this blog. If that’s not the case, and it appears not to be, then my admiration for her actions is diminished. I still think people should be allowed to express their true opinions without being subject to discipline. That we get a society of people who live in fear of being themselves, of admitting mistakes, and that hurts us in the long run.

** CLOSE EDIT **

I’m not sure what the law is in Alabama but it’s likely the station had the right to fire her. I don’t want to discuss if what she did was a something for which she should be fired, nor do I care to discuss her right to say such things. What I would like to delve into is what sort of society we are creating when we fire people like Shea.

Shea is a product of the modern world. She is not afraid. She posted a few things that people might find offensive and got fired because of it. She didn’t do anything accidentally or without understanding the consequences of her actions. She knew what could happen, what would likely happen, and did it anyway.

If that station doesn’t want me, she seems to say, then I don’t want them.

How can I put this delicately in a way that won’t offend … Hell ya!

Dissent is not a good thing, it’s a great thing. Welcoming opinions that are not your own makes you strong, not weak. Being brave enough to state your mind when you know others won’t like it is an admirable quality. We need brave people standing next to us everywhere, at work, in the line-of-fire, and everywhere in-between.

I’m tired of newscasters getting their talking points from the administrators and having to hear the exact same words on every broadcast.

Somebody hire Shea! FOX, NBC, CNN, ABC, grab this girl and grab her quick. She’s going places. She won’t do what you tell her to do and this country is starving for people like that. Libertarians like me are dying of thirst when we watch the talking heads repeat the mantra doled out by their masters.

Give us water! Give us Shea and people like her.

If you don’t, if you fire everyone strong enough to state an opinion different from the company line, then this nation is doomed. Those who lap up the drivel, who ask you to lie to them and whimper in ecstasy when you do it, they won’t make this country strong again. Right now people like that are winning. This country wasn’t built by yes-men but it sure can be destroyed by them.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 and no sensibilities are spared)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Rolling Stone Cover Controversy

Posted on by

Rolling Stone CoverRolling Stone magazine is coming out with a story that is causing a huge amount of tumult and distress. The cover of the magazine has a picture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. For those of you who don’t know, he is one of two brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon resulting in the deaths of three people and the horrific wounding of 264 others. These bombs were placed directly next to small children. The ensuing chase and capture caused more injuries and damage.

The reason this is causing trouble is that many see it as glorifying Tsarnaev. That it will encourage others to commit such acts so that they too can gain the cover of such a prestigious magazine. The people who were wounded or who lost loved ones are extremely angry at the magazine for putting him on the cover. People who were not hurt by the bombs are also angry.

A number of Rolling Stone outlets are not going to put the magazine on display. People are organizing boycotts and making threats to the magazine.

Rolling Stone editors explain that they are merely reporting a story. That they examine what turned Tsarnaev into the sort of person that can plant a bomb in the middle of a crowd that includes many children. That they often report on important stories. That the picture of Tsarnaev is the same picture that media news outlets of all sorts have been using since he became a prime suspect in the attack.

I’m of two minds on this one.

The media, Rolling Stone, or any other outlet puts up stories that people are interested in seeing. The reason they do this is because we are interested. If we weren’t, these stories would make their way to the back pages of trade journals. All that is good in the world is not interesting. Rolling Stone is catering to demand.

Every news outlet in the United States has put pictures of murderous scum on their cover. By publishing a story about Tsarnaev, Rolling Stone is doing nothing that every other media outlet in the United States hasn’t done repeatedly.

On the other hand, what they are doing is causing pain and giving Tsarnaev some sort of celebrity status. Rolling Stone generally puts musicians and movie stars on their cover and there is an expectation of such that does not come with other news outlets. There is a possibility the cover will encourage someone else to commit horrific acts so they get their own fame. I think people often commit these sorts of crimes as a way to get attention but one cover here or there doesn’t really add to the whole of the infamy desired. The news is reported everywhere, not just Rolling Stone. However, this cover being on a celebrity heavy publication at least contributes to the perception of fame.

People who do this sort of thing will likely always be with us and our fascination for disaster, horror, self-imploding celebrities, and general mayhem will probably not ever go away. If people want to see it, someone will provide it for them. That is the law of supply and demand and that is, to a large degree, capitalism.

If Rolling Stone wants to put monstrous scum like Tsarnaev on their cover I suppose it is their right to do so. If they sell more magazines, and I suspect they will, then it was the right move from profit orientated point of view. If people refuse to buy the magazine, if outlets don’t want to sell it, then they can act accordingly, that is certainly their right as well.

But all that rationalization is simply a way for me to pretend that I don’t have to take a position on this Rolling Stone cover.

I absolutely believe Rolling Stone has the right to put whoever they want on the cover their magazine. Also that a company has every right not to sell it. That an individual doesn’t have to buy it, doesn’t have to walk into the store where it is on sale and have to look at it.

That being said here’s my position. Rolling Stone is wrong to do it.

While they are occasionally a news outlet they are primarily a music and celebrity orientated magazine. Tsarnaev and others like him should not be on their cover. I do think it is important to understand why a person could do these things so we can take actions to prevent it in the future. I just don’t think Rolling Stone is the place for this examination. It’s not my magazine, I’m a lowly blogger who gets a few dozen reads a day. They are a huge magazine that sells millions of copies. Still, I’ll stand by my principles. I chose to put an old cover of the magazine on the front of this blog, not the cover of Tsarnaev. That was my choice and only I have to live with it.

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

A Blogger's Friends

Posted on by

best friendsI’ve been blogging pretty seriously now for well over a year and I state my opinions forcefully. Unlike my fiction novels, what I write here on WordPress is largely based on events in my life and the world. Frequently I recount an incident that happened with a friend and expound upon why I think they were wrong.

I’m not going to partake of false modesty here; I’m a good writer. My words are chosen with care and I’m trying to make bold statements. What I write is intended to make people think. It attacks those with whom I disagree. It’s a particularly unfair attack at that. My opponents do not have their own blog, they cannot easily strike back.

In a conversation there is a back-and-forth exchange of ideas. At least in a good conversation. In a blog the victim of my attack can only sit, read, and fume. If my wrath is directed towards the position of a friend then they can, at a later time, engage me in conversation and try to dissuade me from my opinion. Even with that recourse they still must read my words in silence without chance to rebut publicly. This is clearly frustrating. Maddening even.

You will not be surprised to learn that some of my friends don’t like me as much after a particularly stinging blog. I’m not surprised. I don’t blame them for a moment. I know how frustrated I get listening to the talking heads of the news when I cannot point out the flaws in their logic. I know how angry I get when reading an article or blog that is clearly filled with errors.

I have recourse. I take to my blog and write. People I attack in my blog, both friends and strangers, do not have that option.

I’m not writing this blog post as an apology. If I wrote it in an earlier post, then I meant it. If I make a mistake, and I have, then I’ll try to rectify it in this blog. I’ll apologize in person and in public.

What I’d like to say to my friends here is that if you were my friend before I made a blog post, I still consider you the same friend. If I write my disagreement forcefully in a blog post it is nothing more than I was thinking when you expressed your opinion to me originally. Just because I disagree with you, just because I find one of your positions to be wrong, doesn’t mean that I don’t like you. That I don’t value your friendship, your ideas, our conversations, our time together.

If my blog post forces you to reevaluate our friendship for the worse, I’m sorry. Not for the blog post, but for the loss of a friend.

If I wanted to avoid offending anyone, keep all my friends, say nothing but inanities designed to make people like me, well, I’d get into politics.

Frankly, people don’t like me that much anyway, I’m a bit of an ass. I’m certain that does not come as a surprise to my readers. I’m abrupt, caustic, intolerant of what I deem to be stupid, and just not a good people person. Just ask anyone my mom pays to be my friend!

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

Paula Deen and the word Nigger

Posted on by

paula deenYes, you see correctly. I don’t use the euphemism “n-word” when I mean to say nigger. Am I worse than every newscaster, magazine writer, blogger, and general person who says “n-word” when they mean nigger? Read this blog and then tell me what you think.

Paula Deen admits to using the word nigger when referencing black men. Nigger is a vile word with a vile meaning. Because she has used the word in conversation she is paying a significant price. Today I want to examine her use and understanding of the word, the public reaction to said use, and the lawsuit that brought it all to the public’s attention.

Paula runs a very successful restaurant that grew into a Food Network television show which spawned a number of food related books, magazines, and other endeavors. She has made a lot of money because of her hard work and apparently tasty food. I’m not sure I’ve ever eaten any of her recipes. We can be certain that people like it.

I’m sure you know the story by now but to recap for those of you who, like me, were largely ignoring it up to now, she is being sued by a woman who was offended by the fact that Paula used the word nigger in her restaurant. This employee has bi-racial nieces and nephews and is filing suit against Paula and the restaurant because the employee was personally offended. During the trial it was brought up that Paula planned a “plantation themed” wedding for her brother that would include black servers.

Because of these revelations Paula has lost her television show, her book deals, and many of her sponsors.

I think the word nigger is horrible. When Paula used it in front of the employee the person should have told Paula that it was offensive. Maybe she did, I don’t know the details of the case. Paula says the word was used commonly as she was growing up and I don’t doubt her for a moment. I’ve heard the word used in all its ugly connotations a number of times over the years and I always tell people I don’t like it, please don’t use it in my presence. If they continue, they continue, I can’t control them. I can stop being around them, an employee doesn’t have this luxury.

Is Paula an evil person for saying nigger? It certainly doesn’t reflect well on her. Does she discriminate against black people? Apparently not. Does she hate black people, the evidence seems to be no. Does the idea of a plantation themed wedding including all black servers seem in poor taste, you bet.

What bothers me most about the entire story is the prevalence of the “n-word”. If people didn’t say the “n-word” when they mean nigger then maybe Paula, and a lot of other people would have gotten the message.

Nigger is a nasty term meant to convey laziness, lack of trustworthiness, thieving character, and a no good lay about. It’s applied to black people because that is the stereotype associated with them, used to explain why they could be kept as slaves against all human decency. Paula, when you say nigger, that’s what you are saying. If someone had told Paula that twenty years ago I bet she would have stopped using it right at that moment. She seems like a pretty decent sort who just didn’t know the ugliness of the word she was using.

I know it seems strange to suggest that she didn’t understand the meaning but I think that’s often the case. When we say the “f-word” and the “c-word” and the “n-word” instead of “fuck”, “cunt”, and “nigger” we hide the ugliness of the word. We hide its true meaning. People say nigger who don’t mean nigger. Not to excuse Paula, she said it, she should have known what it meant.

If people want to remove themselves from Paula’s life; be they advertisers, networks, publishers, or just an average person, that’s their right. I don’t begrudge them for a moment.

However, from what I can make of this entire episode, Paula just didn’t understand how awful the word nigger truly is, and she’s not alone. If we in society would stop saying the “n-word” and start saying nigger, I think people like Paula would understand. When we say the “n-word” we are hiding behind semantics. We are saying nigger without saying it and it truly causes confusion.

What I would respect the most from Paula was if she stood up in her next interview and said nigger. Tell us she said nigger. Tell us she knows the meaning of the word nigger. Tell us she’s sorry for using the word nigger not only for the word itself but the meaning behind it. That she knows nigger is an awful word. That she understands why it’s a terrible thing to say.

And I would respect her advertisers, sponsors, and friends if they then all forgave her.

I don’t think it will happen. I think everyone will continue to say the “n-word” and I think that’s too bad. No one knows more than me that words have power. Do we not tell German children about the holocaust because it’s so awful? Just the opposite. Here is what happened. This is what a word means. We, as a nation, enslaved another group of people. We made them seem sub-human. We applied words like nigger to them. It was awful and terrible. We should be ashamed.

When you call someone a nigger you are saying you don’t think slavery and everything associated with it was a terrible thing. If you mean that, then go ahead and call a black person a nigger. If you know what it means and hate everything associated with it, then explain to other people what the word really means. Don’t hide the word. Bring it out into the bright sunshine. Expose it to the world for what it truly is.

Evil grows in hidden corners, away from plain sight. It shrinks when exposed, when ridiculed, when attacked by good people who are not afraid. Other people are encouraged to be good themselves, to not use vile words with terrible meanings. The world becomes a better place. I’m all for that.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (it’s honestly a fun and easy read, just ask my mother! $2.99)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt