Category Archives: Law

Your Sheriff’s Devotion to Duty is Important

Posted on by

Weyker Damaged CarEarlier this week I ran a story about good guy Sheriff Jimmy “J.J” Jones of the Knoxville, TN. Footage came out that exposed one of his officer as a sadistic bully and Sheriff Jones immediately fired the offending man.

I just read this story where an officer in Milwaukee, WI ran a stop-sign and hit another woman’s car so hard it spun into a tree. She suffered a broken neck from the accident. At the scene the officer claimed he did not run the stop-sign and the woman’s lights were not on therefore he could not see her.

While awaiting the ambulance, officers questioned Tanya Weyker about alcohol or drug use and eventually charged her with five crimes including driving drunk and causing an accident. There is no happy ending to the story but Weyker was exonerated when surveillance video showed that Deputy Joseph Quiles ran the stop-sign and Weyker’s lights were on.

Charges were dropped, Quiles was given a whopping nine-day suspension, and the county is thus-far refusing to pay her hospital bills and actually sent her a bill for the damage to the deputy’s car.

That’s all just a prelude to what I really want to talk about.

I want to talk about the kind of community that will arise under the stewardship of Sheriff Jones and that of his counterpart in Milwaukee.

There are so many great police officers out there who are dedicated to their jobs and to protecting and serving the people of this nation. What happens to men and women like that when they see people like Quiles getting a nine-day suspension for lying in a report and nearly killing a woman in an accident?

Contrast that to what will happen to dedicated officers under the command of a man like Sheriff Jones.

There are also men and women attracted to law-enforcement because it gives them the opportunity to bully and torment people. What happens to this sort of officer in the department led by Sheriff Jones? And their counterparts in Milwaukee?

The entire department follows the lead of their commanders and when leaders allow men like Quiles to escape all but unpunished after heinous crimes, for which you and I would face prison, there is only one direction the entire department is heading. If you happen to live in a county where men like Quiles are welcomed into the force; you or someone you know will eventually pay the price.

Likewise, if you happen to live in the county led by Sheriff Jones you will be far more secure. Not only because of Sheriff Jones, but because of the men and women who follow in his footsteps, who become officers in your neighborhood. It is hard to estimate the good that men like Sheriff Jones do for all of us.

I imagine anyone who has a young son or daughter thinking about joining a law-enforcement agency hopes that a man like Sheriff Jones is charge of their child.

I totally understand and applaud the concept of loyalty. But it can be taken too far. You cannot be endlessly loyal to someone who does not earn it. In order for society to function people must eventually do what is right. When you do, everyone except the evildoers win. That’s a good thing.

When good men are discouraged and evil men excused it is a recipe for disaster.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

Georgia and the 4th Amendment Vs the 2nd Amendment

Posted on by

Constitution of United StatesAs a Libertarian I’m a supporter of the Constitution of the United States. That’s a period at the end of that sentence.

I find it extremely discouraging that people seem to increasingly care very little about that document, regardless if whether a Democrat or a Republican. In elections Libertarians generally get about 1% or less of the vote; this means that 99% of voters in this country vote for Democrats or Republicans.

If people only care about the parts of the Constitution that are expedient to their cause of the moment it means the document doesn’t have any real meaning at all. We live in a Representative Republic wherein the people choose their elected officials. If the people don’t care about the Constitution then the duly elected representatives will not either.

Georgia is a case in point that strikes home so powerful, so undeniably that I’m using it as an example. This doesn’t mean that Georgia is alone in their cherry-picking of Constitutional Rights, it just means that it’s the example I’m using. I think the problem extends to every state and every district in this country.

Here are two news stories:

The Georgia legislature wants to drug test welfare recipients.

The Georgia legislature allows firearms to be carried just about anywhere.

Here are two Amendments:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This absolute insistence on following the Constitution when it promotes a policy you agree with and utter disregard for the Constitution when it protects someone you don’t like is extraordinarily disturbing to me. Even worse, the proponents and opponents of these two policies are inversely related to the political party to which they belong, unless they’re in the 1% with me.

This means that 99% of the people don’t care at all about Constitution, they care about political expediency.

The people who argue both sides of both situations can rationalize their position all they want. I’m not hearing it.

Here’s the deal. People are allowed to have guns. The government cannot search me without probable cause.

If you’ve got a problem with either of those things then you’re in the majority. If you love freedom then that should cause you great concern.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

Frank Phillips Fired for Choking Student

Posted on by

Officer Choking StudentI’ve posted a number of times about how important it is for people in authority to not only reward good behavior but also discipline those under their command. Too often we read about police agencies bending over backwards to protect officers to keep pure the reputation of the force.

Well, thanks to Sheriff Jimmy “J. J.” Jones of the Knoxville, Tennessee county police department I’ve got a different story for you today. Sheriff Jones doesn’t put up with rogue officers and fired Officer Frank Phillips upon reviewing photographic evidence of his abuse of a handcuffed student.

Jones made it clear his office does not tolerate excessive force and also promoted the idea of body-worn cameras on officers uniforms as a way to keep such abuses in check.

I have no doubt that many people will suggest that Jones is merely firing Phillips because there is photographic evidence and that such abuse goes on frequently. That Jones generally tolerates such use of force.

I don’t doubt that officers do abuse suspects but proving such cases is difficult because many criminals make up stories of attacks. I’m more than willing to give Jones the benefit of the doubt and I hope the people of Tennessee recognize that they’ve got one of the good guys in charge of their force.

There is no doubt in my mind that the action by Jones will attract a better class of person to his department. When leaders stand idly by or even actively protect such sadistic officers it is to the detriment of all good police officials. Every officer in Knoxville who takes seriously his or her oath to protect and serve will applaud this action. More good men and women will be attracted to a leader like Jones who expects his subordinates to behave with ethics and morality.

Law enforcement officers must be seen as a force of good in any country or they slowly become a force of evil. They stop protecting and serving and start abusing and degrading.

Every time someone like former officer Phillips is allowed to treat suspects in this manner is another nail in the coffin of our country. When we stop respecting police and the courts we start to become a lawless nation where anyone will do anything to get ahead.

A big tip of the hat to Sheriff Jones from this blogger. Well done, sir. You’ve not only improved your police force in Knoxville but you’ve set a shining example for the rest of the command officers around the United States. You’ve made our country a better, safer place.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

Privacy and the Tweeting Vending Machine

Posted on by

Tweeting Vending MachineThere’s what’s meant to be an light and amusing story making the rounds in the news these days about a hacking group in England that broke into a vending machine and programmed it to tweet messages about who purchased what. In England they have something called an RFID card which when used identifies the name of the person making the purchase.

A lot of comments on the story expressed the idea that it was no one’s business what food they ate and this was an invasion of their privacy.

It’s an interesting privacy issue. I agree that it’s no one’s business what I eat but there is no constitutional protection here in the United States to prevent anyone from watching your purchases and learning your dietary habits. Whenever you use any form of electronic payment there is a real trail of what you have purchased and when.

Even if you use cash to avoid such a trail there are cameras in the stores and the transactions were recorded. Anyone with appropriate rights could access the receipt from the time you were in the line and determine what you purchased. It’s perfectly legal and in many ways quite helpful. If the grocery store knows your purchasing habits they can offer you coupons for the products you use.

It’s a similar situation on the internet when you visit Amazon to purchase my latest novel, The Broken Throne (which I’m sure you’ll be doing right now, yes now, come back and finish the blog later).

When you arrive at Amazon, after you make the purchase, scroll to the bottom of the screen and note that there are a bunch of recommendations. This is because Amazon tracks you when you enter the website and keeps a forever record of all the purchases you’ve made. They correlate this against their database and algorithms offer suggestions.

The same is true when you visit almost any major website and sign-in. These daily conveniences are quite helpful and useful but they do bring forth the startling reality that our expectation of privacy does not equate to reality. You can choose to live “off the grid” but that means you don’t get access to many of the very nice things the grid offers.

Modern society allows us to keep track of vast amounts of information that would otherwise not have been available. This raises privacy concerns. Should the local law-enforcement division be aware of how much bourbon I purchase? Might it be used against me in some criminal case down the road? Might a person with a grudge against me simply broadcast the information far and wide in an attempt to embarrass me?

The answer is yes. Those things might happen. That’s why we have laws against slander and defamation. We have laws to restrain police agencies from harassing citizens.

That’s why Libertarians like myself worry when police and government agencies are given more authority in an effort to “make us safe”. I recently wrote that seizure laws are out of control in this country and that’s just one example of our liberties being eroded under the guise of protection.

One of the things I find most distressing is the absolute willingness, nay eagerness, to take away freedoms from those who support the opposite political party. Be it trying to hold Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for taking her Constitutionally granted right to avoid self-incrimination or animal lovers using the government to destroy legitimate business.

The people of this country leap up and applaud when the rights of their political foes are stripped and, because we live in a Representative Republic, the politicians are quick to follow suit.

As far as I’m concerned; your rights are my rights. It’s just as important now as it was two-hundred and twenty-six years ago.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

Silicon Valley Settlement

Posted on by

apple-pixar-google-lawsuitAn extremely interesting anti-trust case was just settled by Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe for about $300 million. It’s a case that will have serious repercussions throughout the industry and I’m of the opinion that the resolution is just. There are those that will argue the companies got off lightly and others that the employees got too much compensation.

Let’s examine the situation. With the advent of the information age and the coming of the automation age there was and will continue to be a huge need for a highly educated workforce. The best and brightest workers are in high demand and will be increasingly so in the future. I spoke about the need for an educated workforce in this blog.

As the need for sophisticated workers increases so does the value of the workers who meet the requirements. Employers must then pay these employees increasingly large sums for their services. This is good and natural and everything that we Libertarians expect from a capitalistic system.

In this case the major players including those who just settled but also including Pixar, Lucasfilms, and Intel, who admitted guilt earlier, agreed not to try to hire top talent away from each other. There is a trail of emails that make it clear this was happening. Steve Jobs of Apple was particularly aggressive to the point of writing threatening emails to competitors. At least two of these, Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook and Edward Colligan of Palm told Jobs to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine, or used words to those effect. Good for them!

The collusion of the companies in the lawsuit is undeniable. The question is whether or not the technical employees were allowed to sue as a group. There are a number of legal hurdles that might have derailed the case on appeals. On the other hand, the guilt of the companies in denying their employees a fair opportunity to shop their worth is undeniable and the series of emails and likely testimony from the likes of Sandberg and Colligan made a much, much larger resolution possible. The lawsuit cited a figure of $3 billion which could have tripled to $9 billion.

Therefore I think the final outcome is just. The employees were certainly not recompensed the value of their services during the years of collusion but it is likely they could have gotten nothing at all and, even worse, the companies exonerated for their vile, anti-capitalistic behavior.

This resolution makes it clear that workers are absolutely entitled to the whatever wage anyone is willing to pay them. That companies cannot collude in this fashion because it undermines the entire capitalistic system. Employees benefit greatly as do companies like Facebook and Palm who agree to honor the tenants of capitalism.

This case is an excellent example to my fundamental Libertarian friends that a completely laissez-faire attitude from government towards business is naive and dangerous to the people and to liberty as a whole.

As a Libertarian I am neither pro-business nor am I pro-worker. I want everyone and every business to succeed on their or its merits. Capitalism is an excellent system but some government regulation is required to make sure it doesn’t become corrupted by anti-trust activities.

The resolution arrived at in this case is the sort that serves capitalism, serves business, serves workers, and in the long run, serves us all.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

 

Kim Dotcom Gets his Stuff back – Two Years Later

Posted on by

Kim Dotcom Gets StuffThere’s a lot going on in the news lately with insane people murdering strangers and babies. I’m letting all that stuff sink in before I write anything. In the meantime there is a news story where I know exactly how I feel. Over two years ago at the behest of the big money in the United States the police in New Zealand set up an illegal surveillance operation on a man named Kim Dotcom. They eventually raided his house and stole, I mean seized, all his stuff.

Well, the courts have finally ruled that the police can’t keep his stuff forever. Hooray. It only took two+ years!

I’ve written about this case on several occasions but I’ll recap quickly for those not fully aware of the circumstances of the legal trouble in which Dotcom finds himself embroiled.

Dotcom was the main owner of a file sharing site called Megaupload. The site was used by many legitimate people and businesses to store various files in a secure, cloud environment. It was also used by many others to share files illegally. One person purchased a song or an eBook or a movie and then shared it with other people who had not made such a purchase.

This sort of file sharing has long been regarded by the movie and music industry as a drain on their profits. The argument over whether sharing reduces actual purchases is quite interesting in its own right but most of what I’ve read indicates it has little or no effect on overall sales. While some people download a file they would have otherwise purchased the evidence suggests this is generally not the case. The person who downloads either ends up making the purchase later or would never have made the purchase at all. This can be argued but it’s not really the point of my blog.

The point here is that people with a lot of money, the recording and movie industry, decided to put pressure on U.S. politicians and politicians in New Zealand to put an end to Megaupload. This money and influence purchased police action. Dotcom was raided and still faces extradition orders from the United States. His business was destroyed. Servers with information were taken and the files eventually destroyed.

This in itself is frightening. That people with money can influence a government into arresting people and destroying their livelihood. The corruption of the enforcement and judicial branch of any government is not something to be taken lightly. If a wealthy person can buy the arrest of another person, are any of us safe?

Even worse, in my opinion, is that the authorities held onto Dotcom’s possessions for well over two years and he still hasn’t been brought to trial. They illegally watched his home, raided it in an extremely overzealous and publicity minded fashion, took his stuff, and still haven’t brought him to trial.

Whether you support file sharing or not it seems to be me that anyone who believes in freedom cannot support a government acting in this manner, particularly at the behest of moneyed interests.

When politicians have too much influence over the judicial and enforcement agencies of our government there is the real possibility of freedom being taken from us. Where justice is just a word, not a beloved and cherished idea, there is danger to everyone.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Broken Throne
Next Release: The Black Sphere

To Protect and Serve or to Raise Funds?

Posted on by

Policing for ProfitAll across this great country of ours police officers are being put into a terrible position and the situation grows worse every day. The double attack of less money available to run the department and more money spent on fancy equipment is leaving more and more police departments with revenue shortages.

The solution to this gap seems to be to fleece as many people as possible.

For communities along major thoroughfares the best method is to charge passersby with small crimes and impound everything they have and extort them for more money. This directive comes from corrupt politicians and departmental leaders who see dollar signs in their eyes.

Even communities who are nowhere near criminals now gear up and scour the country not looking to make arrests but simply to seize money from as many people as possible.

It is very likely that your state politicians have passed laws allowing police to seize anything and everything from your car under the flimsiest of suspicions. Trying to get back your property and money will take a huge amount of time and effort.

That’s hardly the end of the story. More and more police departments are funded almost entirely through their ticketing systems. Not only are the departments funding themselves but they are funneling that money back to City Hall. As politicians see this revenue stream increase they place money-seeking officers in charge of departments and these leaders create quotas that insist upon more and more traffic stops. Officers who simply want to Protect and Serve are ostracized, put on desk jobs, and fired.

In order for a police department to be legally forced to stop this scam the entire municipality must get 50% or more of their revenue from such stops. Anything less than 50% and they can continue to steal your money.

After reading what I’ve written so far I’m sure some people will leap to the conclusion that I’m against the police and law-enforcement in general. This could not be further from the truth. I think the police do a dangerous job and I well appreciate their efforts. I’m of the opinion that this revenue grab hurts the police department and the officers tremendously. They are prevented from Protecting and Serving but more importantly they lose the trust of those upon whom they depend.

Without the trust of We the People the police become nothing more than a thuggish paramilitary operation preying on the weakest members of society. Officers generally join the force out of idealism and hope. When they throw away these wonderful ideas they destroy their own sense of self-worth.

I’ve ranted now about the problem for a while and I’d like to offer a few solutions before I get ready to watch The Masters golf tournament today.

I largely think it’s a matter of where the seized money goes. If the money doesn’t go into the coffers of the politicians then we solve most of the problem. All money obtained from traffic violations should go immediately back to the community as a refund. None of it should be used for any other purpose. Communities should apply tax dollars to completely fund their departments with no consideration towards eventual ticketing revenue.

Seizure money presents a bigger issue because even if said money was to go to the community, voters would feel monetary pressure to seize as much as possible. I think the best solution might be to have all seized money and assets go to various national charitable organizations. Communities could vote on which organizations to fund based on some sort of list of reputable charities.

I think the key is to remove the element of profit from the situation. When we do this I think both We the People and the law-enforcement officers will be the better. Money might not be the root of all evil but I’m hard pressed to argue that it isn’t.

Tom Liberman

Seat Belt Violation leads to Arrest

Posted on by

Greg ReidThere is what many people would call a sports story making very small waves here in St. Louis about a player the Rams recently signed who has been arrested.

I don’t really think it is a sports story, it’s more an erosion of our rights story. It’s not a huge thing but it just makes me shake my head at our nation’s descent into a police state.

The Rams recently signed a fellow named Greg Reid who was once a top football prospect at Florida State but got into some trouble and was kicked off the team for unspecified violations. He then suffered a major injury while playing at a small school and eventually was arrested on a misdemeanor marijuana offense some years ago. As is common for municipalities across the U.S. there was a large fine for the offense and in addition Reid was put on probation. Reid either missed a probation phone call about six months ago or still had $400 to pay on his fine and a bench warrant was put out for his arrest in October of 2013.

None of this bothers me that much although I find excessive fines for minor crimes to be rampant in many districts because communities use it as a way to fund their law enforcement officers without having to pay taxes. There are many horror stories of this sort of extortion for things as small as crossing the center line but that’s a topic for another day.

What bothers me is that Reid was a passenger in a car that was stopped because the driver wasn’t wearing his seat belt. The officer in question had absolutely no right to question Reid or identify him in any way. The driver of the car should have been given a small fine and the story ended there.

Don’t get me wrong, Reid had a bench warrant in his name and the arrest itself is justified. It’s the manner in which it took place that bothers me. I cannot find justification for the officer to even talk to Reid, let alone get his name, run it through his computer, and make the arrest. It doesn’t matter that the arrest was legal and proper. It’s a violation of all our rights when the police are allowed to do this sort of thing. It’s an abuse of the power we give them! We give them the power, they don’t just have it.

This is not an isolated incident. As we become more frightened we tend to give power to the police and this erodes our freedom and is the real threat to our nation.

If the police are allowed to search, seize, and arrest for something as small as a seat belt violation; who is safe?

This may seem like a small deal and in many ways it is, but I’m still bothered by it. I think that if a police officers ever asks me a question, my answer will always be “I have nothing to say, sir”. That’s not a good feeling for me to have. I think the police largely do a difficult job and do it well. I respect our officers and admire them. When someone like me, a law-abiding citizen, finds himself afraid of the police, there is a problem.

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

Dogs, Butter, Marijuana, the DEA, and Stupidity

Posted on by

Michele LeonhartThe people have spoken in Colorado and Washington State in regards to making marijuana legal. Polls indicate that most people accept the idea it will eventually be legal nationally. There are those who disagree.

Michele Leonhart is one of those. She heads up the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and has come up with a … well … novel argument to try to persuade people. More on that in a moment. Why should we care about what she says?

One good reason is that you’ve been paying her salary since 1980 when she joined the DEA. Her current remuneration for coming up with the incredible nonsense I’m going to explain to you is apparently a secret. I can’t find out how much she makes. My Search-Foo is strong and after fifteen minutes I gave up.

This afternoon in a committee meeting in which she is trying to justify the $3 billion annual budget of the DEA she mentioned that edible marijuana products, which will be increasingly available in homes to be snarfed up by hungry dogs, might pose a threat to them. She justified this by mentioning a study done from 2005 to 2010 in which two dogs that ate a large amount of a “baked product” that used medical marijuana laced butter died. Could it have been a “chocolate” baked product? Maybe? The article doesn’t say. The last line of the study, you might ask?

UDST may be unreliable for the detection of marijuana toxicosis in dogs.

UDST being the test they used to figure out that in five years two dogs died, maybe because they ate chocolate or maybe because the chocolate had marijuana in it. The study found a significant correlation between increased numbers of pot brownies in the house and dogs eating pot brownies, therefore, we need to outlaw pot; brownies are apparently still legal but you never know!

According to Leonhart it’s all about her compassion for the terrible fate that awaits our canine friends should they eat marijuana, which, by the way, is completely non-toxic to dogs, unlike, say, chocolate. Yes, your dog can eat a pile of marijuana with no ill effects. It’s not toxic for dogs or people. The convoluted logic Leonhart relies upon is that a dog high on marijuana might not be able to throw-up the toxic chocolate he ate!

It couldn’t possibly be that Leonhart is grasping at straws so she and her friends can keep their lucrative jobs in the War on Drugs. No, of course not, it’s about the dogs! The poor dogs!

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

Cyber Fugitive? Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Cyber Fugitive HeadlineI know, it’s only Tuesday but when you see a headline as stupid as the one I’m about to show you, well, you just can’t resist. The fact that the headline is an extension of a story I’ve already written about doesn’t hurt. Go ahead and read my post to find out the full details of his arrest and the freezing of his assets. The details of the case should frighten any Libertarian.

Here’s the headline:

Cyber Fugitive Dotcom mocks authorities…

In early 2012 the government of New Zealand, with the help of the FBI, raided the home of Kim Dotcom and arrested him. He spent some time in jail essentially being tortured. He had his company and his money taken from him despite the fact that he still hasn’t stood any sort of trial.

Now this headline! Cyber Fugitive?

  1. He’s not cyber. He’s quite real and rather rotund.
  2. He’s not a fugitive. He’s out on bail.

Congratulations Reuters! You win the stupid headline of the week. As an added bonus take pride in the fact that I awarded you the win and it’s only Tuesday!

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

Women Can’t Get Divorced in Alabama – Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Same Sex MarriageRight at the buzzer we have our misleading headline of the week! I had all but given up but I should have known that something would come along.

Judge: Married women can’t divorce in Alabama blares the headline from the Associated Press.

So what is the article really about? Two women got married in a state where such marriage are legal and are now trying to get a divorce in a state where it is not legal.

I happen to agree with the judge in that if a state doesn’t recognize a marriage it certainly is not legally possible for it to recognize the divorce. It’s perfectly possible for one state to make marrying your cousin illegal while another state recognizes such pairings. If you traveled all the way to Iowa to get married, then head on back and get the divorce. One state is not obligated to have the same laws as any other state nor recognize said laws.

What makes me angry is the misleading nature of the headline. It reads as though all women in Alabama will no longer be able to divorce their spouses.

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

Boobies Win!

Posted on by

I love boobiesIn October of last year I wrote a blog post about the possible Supreme Court case involving boobie bracelets. Today the Supreme Court decided against hearing the case which essentially means none of the justices disagreed substantially with the Appeals Court decision. This means that the boobie bracelets win.

I’ll recap quickly. Boobie Bracelets are designed to promote Breast Cancer Awareness. The Easton Area school district in Pennsylvania thought the word boobie was lewd and obscene and banned the bracelets. Two young girls refused to honor the ban and were suspended.

In court the school district changed their story somewhat and claimed that the bracelets were disruptive. In a series of opinions it was determined that the district could not show that classes were disrupted and the girls were victorious at every turn.

I wrote in my original blog that the school district was stupid for attempting the ban, stupid for pursuing the case, but that it was their right to ban anything they wanted. Apparently I was wrong. If something is not lewd, not disruptive, and there isn’t an existing dress-code rules violation; they can’t ban a piece of apparel.

I thought a quick course in Supreme Court processes might be interesting for my readers. I wrote above that refusing to take the case meant that none of the justices wanted to hear it. That’s technically inaccurate. The justices gather in a conference with just the nine members; no clerks, no one else.

The rules state that if four justices want to hear the case then it comes before the court. The reality is that if even a single justice feels passionately about a case the others will generally acquiesce. If the case goes unheard it usually means that no one felt strongly enough to argue for it. There are exceptions of course.

Another interesting insight into this case is that the original suspensions happened in 2010 and it took nearly four years to make its way through the system. The girls are now in high school and making preparations for college. The suspension is but a distant memory. Still, there has to be some feeling of vindication.

As for the Easton Area school district, well, if I were a taxpayer in that district I’d be quite angry about how my money was being used. I’d think about voting for someone else come election time for the school board. But, that’s me.

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

Oscar Pistorius – Why a Trial when he’s Guilty?

Posted on by

Oscar-Pistorius-Trial-On-TVWhen I got up this morning and looked at ESPN3 to see if there are any upcoming events available I noted that the Oscar Pistorius trial is being broadcast live.

Cases like this make me think about the purpose of laws, trials, and the nature of justice. Before I get into my thoughts I’ll recap events in the Pistorius case for those who are not following along.

Pistorius is an athlete from South Africa who I wrote about not long ago in regards to the fact that he has two artificial legs. The article that day was about how mechanically enhanced athletes will soon be dominating those without artificial aid (medically enhanced athletes already dominate those who don’t use PEDs but that’s another topic).

On February 14, 2013 Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. There are two versions of events.

Pistorius claims that he awoke in the middle of the night, heard sounds, assumed a burglar was in his bathroom, and shot through the closed-door four times only later realizing that it was Steenkamp. This is, obviously, a lie.

What happened is that Pistorius and Steenkamp were engaged in an angry, passionate fight heard by neighbors over a hundred meters away. Pistorius chased her into the bathroom where she locked the door. In a fit of rage and madness he fired into the bathroom four times, hitting her three times, once in the head.

It’s clear to everyone that Pistorius intentionally shot her. That his fabricated version of events is filled with logical holes. So why are we having a trial? What’s the purpose of laws? Judges? The nature of justice?

This is what brought me to Wikipedia articles about Law and about Justice. It speaks to why I’m a Libertarian. If we do not have laws then people within society are subject to the whims of those in power. Without the concept of blind justice those in authority can simply do whatever they want.

What happens when law becomes perverted? When wealthy and powerful people can do as they wish? When politicians can terrorize citizens without repercussions? When police agencies can take our possessions on trumped-up charges designed to fleece us?

I’ll tell you what happens: people stop believing that justice is possible in their nation. When people give up on justice they get violent. When people believe that a legal system works and they can have their grievances fairly adjudicated they work within the system.

That’s why there is a Pistorius trail, despite his obvious guilt.

I know some people are going to read these words and try to politicize them. Blame Republicans or Democrats for violating the spirit of the law. I’m both with you and against you. I’m with you in that, yes, Republicans/Democrats are eager and willing to ignore the law when it benefits them. I’m against you in that one side is in greater violation than the other.

This is largely the problem. Most people seem to have no objection whatsoever when the group they support violates the law to pursue their ends. Anything to win an election as long as it’s your political party.

When we stop looking for justice and merely want to expedite our agenda we tear down the fabric of our nation, one law at a time. If you don’t like it when the other side violates a law, I suggest the solution is to come down hard on your side when they do the same.

So I got pretty far from the headline of this post but the trial itself doesn’t interest me much. Pistorius is murderous scum regardless of the outcome. It’s the reason for the trial that intrigues me. In a totalitarian state Pistorius would either be hanged already or been given his freedom by a sympathetic dictator.

Be happy if you live in a republic (like South Africa) and do what you can to preserve it (regardless of your political affiliation).

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

Thomas M. Harrigan and Marijuana Stupidity

Posted on by

Thomas Harrigan MarijuanaAm I the only one who doesn’t like being stupid?

I’m going to tell you a personal story and in it one of my five sisters is not going to come off looking all that great. I just want to be clear that everything is all patched up now. The events depicted in this story happened many years ago and I have nothing but love and good feelings for said sister. All is forgiven.

When I was a young lad my sister used to have a favorite word. “Tommmmmy” she would say after I did something not so smart. She then used a facial expression that left no doubt to anyone witnessing it that I was possibly the stupidest human being on the face of the planet. That drawn out recitation of my name still sends me weeping to the corner of shame.

The end result of hearing “Tommmmmy” is that I don’t like to be wrong. People often mistake it for always having to be right. It’s not that. It’s being wrong that bothers me. It literally causes me to have an upset stomach. When I’m wrong I get physically sick. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. Thanks, sis.

What’s the point of all this personal information? I just don’t understand how people can say incredibly stupid things. Things that have no possible chance of being accurate. And yet it happens.

Thomas M. Harrigan is the Chief of Operations for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and has been a DEA Special Agent for nearly 25 years. He has a Master’s Degree in Education from Seton Hall. This is an intelligent man.

He told a Congressional committee that “Every single parent out there” opposes the legalization of marijuana.

He said: We also know that marijuana destroys lives and families, undermines our economy, and insults our common values. There are no sound scientific, economic or social reasons to change our nation’s marijuana policies.

This is a man whose salary I pay! We pay! He has been a DEA agent for twenty-five years.

There are reasons to oppose the legalization of marijuana just as there are very compelling and good reasons to decriminalize it.

I fully understand why Harrigan wants to keep marijuana illegal. It means he gets to keep his job. If we ever decriminalize drugs then the people enforcing the current laws won’t have a lot to do. This includes Harrigan. Maybe they could spend their time chasing down child molesters, rapists, and murderers.

But, seriously? A Master’s degree from Seton Hall and you say that every single parent is opposed to decriminalization? He later amended his incredibly stupid and false statement by saying “most” parents would oppose decriminalization. That’s reasonable and polls suggest that parents support legalizing marijuana at a lower rate than the general public which favors it at about a 55% rate.

I don’t want to go on yet another rant about how the War on Drugs has fueled violence, crime, and done nothing to limit the supply of illegal drugs. I do want to ask you, my loyal audience, a question.

Do you hate to be wrong? Do you try to think out your statements before you make them so you don’t say something stupid? When you do make a mistake, are you embarrassed? I’ve made a few with this column of mine and I always try to immediately post a retraction and admit my mistake.

I’m always astonished when I see someone make such an incredibly inaccurate statement. I don’t get it and I never will.

If I was Harrigan I’d be hiding in the corner and I know what my sister would be saying … “Tommmmmy!”

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

PacSun Shirts were Obscene so Mom bought them All

Posted on by

PacSun t-shirtsThere’s a really interesting story making news in the little town of Orem, Utah. At the local University Mall they had a bunch shirts on display made by a company called PacSun.

A woman browsing through the mall with her son found pictures on the shirts to be obscene. The shirts that Judy Cox found offensive are from a campaign called Visual by Van Styles.

Cox started off by complaining to the store manager who explained that they would have to get approval from company management to remove the shirts from the display. Not satisfied with this answer Cox purchased all nineteen shirts.

No problem, right, her money. However, her plan is to return the shirts after 59 days thus meeting the store’s return policy. There’s my issue.

She has, in my opinion, committed larceny by false pretenses. The store will be unable to sell those shirts for 59 days and this represents a loss to them even if she returns them.

If you’re a lawyer, I’d really like to hear from you about the legality of making a purchase with the intent to return it.

I do think a community has the right to determine what is obscene and if an ordinance passed by the city prohibited shirts of women with bikinis from being displayed, that is their business. The right to sell a shirt with a particular image is not protected by the Constitution of the United States.

That should have been the route Cox took rather than her approach which is, to my way of thinking, theft. If she goes through with her plan of returning the shirts she should be tried and, if found guilty, put in jail. A crime is a crime.

My major complaint here is that one person should not be allowed to make such a determination for a community. We live in a Representative Republic. If Cox wanted to protect the children of her community from such images there are legal and reasonable methods to achieve that. She could have brought a motion to her City Council and if enough people agreed with her then such displays would be banned.

Those of you who will defend Cox please keep in mind that there is someone out there who finds something that you enjoy to be offensive.

Should a vegan be allowed to purchase every wool and leather item in the store and return in 59 days later?

Should a PETA member be allowed to purchase every fur coat and return it 59 days later?

Should a devout christian be able to purchase every copy of various Harry Potter novels and return them 59 days later?

We live in this fantastic country wherein the people vote and have a voice in their government. When you resort to criminal activity to enact your own brand of justice; take a moment to consider the kind of country you would live in if everyone felt the same way.

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

St. Louis Assault Via Foam Dart

Posted on by

Foam Dart Attack St. LouisIt’s been a while since I’ve done a feature in my Critical Thinking Fail category but I have a winner!

Apparently my hometown is making national news with a rather ridiculous story. A young couple drove their car up to the checkout window at the drive-through of a St. Louis Lion’s Choice restaurant not with the intent of purchasing anything but so that they could shoot the attendant with a foam dart.

With the prevalence of video cameras it was all caught on tape and after investigation by the police the couple was apprehended and is now being charged with felony assault.

The Failure of Critical Thinking in this story is pretty much across the board.

Who in their right mind thinks it’s okay in this day and age to point a gun-like object at an unsuspecting person? Have you not been reading the news? The couple is lucky the attendant didn’t open fire with a real gun. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with shooting games and shooting toys. I played plenty of such games when I was a child but with people who knew we were playing. Even then I didn’t go around pointing toy guns at people who were not in the game.

Secondly, someone needs a lesson in Nerf. Nerf darts are not yellow. It’s not a big deal but can’t we at least get the story right?

Apparently the restaurant brought the police into the matter and I’m not totally opposed to their role in all of this. I think if someone is shooting anything through the drive-through window it’s not unreasonable to alert the police to the activity even if it was a harmless foam dart. Still, it seems excessive.

I don’t blame the officers in question for tracking down the fugitives. They were likely called by the restaurant and it’s their job to investigate crime. I do have an objection to charging the couple with felony assault. I suspect this a product of our zero-tolerance, no personal responsibility world. If the officer in charge of the investigation didn’t charge the couple he might have feared being accused of not doing his job. In this world he might have been reprimanded or even fired. Who knows.

What should have happened? The officer should have dragged the couple back to the Lion’s Choice, made them apologize to the worker, made them shake hands, and finally had them order a delicious roast beef sandwich. Problem solved.

This is the way we used to solve a lot of problems in this country. We don’t any more because we fear repercussions. A teacher cannot discipline a child in school for fear of being charged by the outraged parents with assault. An officer can’t walk a criminal around the block.

I’m not going to pretend there isn’t a rationale behind the zero-tolerance policies. There are teachers who physically and emotionally abuse students for their own sadistic pleasure. There are police officers look the other way for those from whom they curry favor.

My point is that these zero-tolerance policies aren’t helping. There are still individuals doing those things. The real solution is to spend the time and effort to prosecute those who are dangerously criminal in their actions. This involves giving discretion and responsibility to people in charge. To administrators, to teachers, to police officers, to judges, and many others.

If those people fail in their duties then they must be appropriately punished.

The problem is that we seem to think zero-tolerance, zero-responsibility rules will solve the problem. They won’t and they create their own issues as well. As we see in this case.

The less responsibility we give people, the less responsible they will become.

The Libertarian Ideal is a world in which the vast majority understand their actions and take responsibility for them. When there are those that do not; they must be reprimanded, educated, and often given another opportunity. This is not an easily arrived at state of affairs. It requires that everyone understand the principles of critical thinking and have the ability to apply them to their day-to-day lives and actions.

In this sort of world we wouldn’t be talking about foam dart assaults but might be focused on more important things.

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

Airline Phone Calling to be Banned by Act of Congress

Posted on by

Talking on a PlaneThe FCC is finally loosening rules on using your phone while flying. These rules are ridiculous and I wrote a blog about why. But now that the rules are changing your friends at Congress want to get involved.

The United States Congress is considering a bill sponsored by Bill Shuster (R – Pennsylvania) and co-sponsored by 29 members (18 Republicans and 11 Democrats) to make talking on the phone during a commercial flight a crime. The Prohibiting In-Flight Voice Communications on Mobile Wireless Devices Act of 2013 is coming to an airline near you. Hooray!

The federal government is poised to make me safe from obnoxious phone callers, fathers and mothers wanting to talk to their kids, business travelers who need to keep up with projects, friends who want to touch base, and anyone who wants to talk on the phone.

Why have they taken on this potential crisis issue? Because their focus groups tell them it will be popular, that’s why.

Well Congressman Shuster, I hate to break the bad news to you but we don’t live in a Democracy (thank goodness). We live in a Representative Republic and there is a little document called the Constitution of the United States that supposedly limits your power.

Judging by the comments below the article the focus groups are doing their job well. Most people apparently want the government to ban talking on phones during a flight.

I’ve got a crazy idea. If the person next to you on the plane is talking too loudly you could ask them to stop. If they refuse you can get a flight attendant to ask them to stop.

Should we pass a law to prevent someone from snoring too loudly on a plane? How about a law to prevent someone listening to headphones from singing too loudly on a plane? How about a law to prevent someone from kicking my seat back?

Is talking loudly on the phone in a movie theater or at the table next to me such an offense the federal government needs to get involved?

My gym has a rule about cell phones and somehow they didn’t need Representative Shuster to come in and do it for them. Airlines themselves are considering such a ban. Fine and dandy. The gym can and should make that call and so should the airlines. If they make such a rule and I decide to fly that airline or go to that gym then I should abide by that rule, but the federal government? A law? Presumably to be subject to imprisonment for violation therein?

Are you kidding me?

If they can pass a law like this; what can’t they outlaw?

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

California Eggs and the Commerce Clause

Posted on by

Commerce ClauseThe Attorney General of my home state of Missouri just filed a case in federal court over a California law concerning purchasing chicken eggs. The basic premise is that the California legislature has decided that chickens kept in small coops are being abused. Having watched a few videos (graphic content, beware) I can’t say I disagree.

No one is disputing that California can pass laws regulating their own state but what Missouri, Iowa, and other chicken egg producing states are questioning is the effect that it will have on them. Missouri sells about 1.7 billion eggs to California consumers. This represents about 33% of their total sales. When California passes regulations about purchasing it affects states like Missouri.

If Missouri wants to keep those sales it must comply with the California regulation. Thus the lawsuit. Missouri says they are being forced by California to comply with regulations designed for that state. That California is forcing many states to comply with its own regulations. This all falls under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The clause is short and sweet but has had a huge impact on laws in the United States. I will end the suspense right away as to where I stand on this issue. As a Libertarian it is my opinion that the Commerce Clause has been stretched, twisted, and maimed beyond all recognition. It is used in all manner of things well beyond what I consider to be its original intent. It reads: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

In this case largely republicans dominated states are angry that they can’t sell to California without abiding by its rules. If you feel that way, go sell your eggs elsewhere. California is a massive state with a huge population and a giant impact on our economy. If you want to do business with them then abide by their laws. The same goes for Texas where there is much debate about the content of schoolbooks based upon Texas laws. If you decide their laws are burdensome and you don’t wish to participate, then don’t. If the price of eggs in California skyrocket maybe they will change their regulatory laws. Maybe other states will decide that the torturing of chickens is disgusting beyond description and pass the same laws themselves. It’s not up to Missouri to decide what California should do or vice-versa.

Anyone wishing to lambaste one party or the other over the implementation of the Commerce Clause merely needs to look at the various cases that include everything from milk, to guns, to health care, to marijuana. Both sides have eagerly and repeatedly attempted to use the clause to extend their own view of government power while attacking the other side for doing the same.

It is an incredible complex question and directly affects the power of the Judicial Branch to overrule the Legislative Branch. It speaks to State’s Rights. When the Judiciary restricts a law it means that judges are overriding the power of elected officials. When states pass laws that hurt other states and this is overruled it means that Congress has power over the states. There are many, many cases and a great deal of literature on the Clause.

I think where the law often goes wrong is when it assumes the federal government has the authority to create a “fair” commercial field. There are examples of the Commerce Clause being used for ostensibly “good” reasons. Result of which made commerce easier and better for American citizens. This is not, in my opinion, a legitimate reason to grant the federal government this power.

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

Why you Should Ignore Rules and Procedures

Posted on by

Slavish Insistence on Following RulesI’m a big fan of rules and procedures. I’m rather a pest in the office when it comes to such things. Well written procedures are extremely useful in running an efficient operation. There are any number of ways to do something but generally one method has emerged as the best. When rules and procedures are not followed there are often problems.

I’m a proponent of stop-signs and no right hand turn on red regulations at particular intersections. There are generally good reasons for these things and following the rules and regulations is a benefit for everyone. When people stop following the rules things can become chaotic, inefficient, and error-prone.

So, why am I writing about ignoring rules and procedures? Because rules and procedures don’t exist without purpose. They are merely an attempt to codify a method by which things are most efficiently done and to prevent mistakes and even tragedy. If we do not understand the purpose of rules and procedures and follow them slavishly under all circumstances then we not only undermine efficiency and safety but we give up our freedom.

This is the world of zero-tolerance. This is a world bereft of personal responsibility. This is a world where creativity is crushed and mindless obligation to duty praised.

In my office we have a lot of computer equipment. This equipment ends up coming into the office and going out of the office. It moves from location to location in our office. It is very easy to lose track of this equipment and then there is a problem. Projectors go missing, laptops go missing, servers go missing. These things cost a lot of money and where there is inadequate tracking there is the opportunity for theft.

I teach training classes and we have a group of machines that have Microsoft Office 2007 on them and another with Office 2010. This week I have a very small class, two students, for Office 2007 followed immediately by a very large class for 2010.

The room where I teach is generally setup for Office 2010 with thirteen machines. For the small class I had to get three (one for the instructor) computers from our lockup and put them in the room. I wrote down the asset tag numbers for these computers and notified the appropriate person that they had been moved.

I was asked what happened to the three machines that had been removed, did they go back into lockup? No, I just stashed them behind my podium as the next day I’d be returning them to their original station.

That’s not the procedure I was told.

It’s not a big deal but this what I’m getting at. I wasn’t punished, no one is in trouble. Those three machines were in the room, stayed in the room, and will be replaced in their original position after being displaced for about 48 hours. The purpose of the procedure was to make sure they weren’t misplaced. It is my assertion that there was no danger of that in this case, and therefore the procedures can safely be ignored. It was agreed I was correct and the tracking was not performed on those three machines.

This is a reasonable outcome. The procedure didn’t make sense in this particular case. If we had followed procedure it would have taken time for me to note the three moved machines and taken time for the tracking person to fill out the appropriate forms in SharePoint both “moving” from the room and the back into the same place. This would have been a waste of time with no gain. Not a huge thing but an effort nonetheless.

This is the sort of slavish reliance on regulation that a fearful society embraces, that a tyrant embraces. This is a police officer giving you a ticket for an illegal right-hand turn on red early on a Sunday morning when there is no traffic for miles. This is a student suspended from school for cutting a cookie into the shape of a firearm. This is a society afraid of personal responsibility.

It’s a recipe for tyranny and I don’t like it, much though I love rules and regulations.

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

Doffing and Donning the Final Decision

Posted on by

Donning and DoffingI recently wrote about the case before the Supreme Court which asked the question of whether or not a company must pay their workers for time spent putting on and taking off required clothing and safety gear. The main issue being safety gear.

Well, the court has ruled!

In my original blog I discussed how difficult a question the court was examining. I found it not surprising that most of the commenters didn’t think it was a tricky question and wondered why the court was examining something so “simple”. Most people thought the case was rather silly but the reality is that industry was watching it very closely. There are many jobs which require a uniform or considerable safety equipment and the amount of time spent changing clothes can run from a few minutes to more than an hour for “clean room” laboratories. Police Officers, Firemen, food industry workers, mill workers, the list goes on and on and it was an important question. Are companies required to pay people for the time they spend doffing and donning?

My suggestion was that some minimal change time be the responsibility of the employees and anything over it be the responsibility of the company. Let’s say five minutes to change in and out of clothes at the beginning and end of the workday. So, if it takes an emergency technician eight minutes to change in and out of clothes they must be paid for the three minutes over the “free” period.

What did the Supreme Court decide? In a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia they decided it was not their business. If a contract between employees and a business stipulates that donning and doffing should be paid time then, it should be so; it not, it shouldn’t.

This is viewed as a “win” for U.S. Steel because the current contract with the union does not pay for such time. The reality is that the union will just have to negotiate such pay in future contracts. It’s not really a “win” for anyone, it just clarifies the law. If you want to be paid for donning and doffing then you have to make sure it’s in the contract.

Upon reflection and reading the opinion I’m in agreement. My system would, as Justice Scalia points out, convert federal judges into time-study professionals.

It’s good when laws are clarified so that everyone knows the rules and can write contracts accordingly. People may view this as a win for business and a loss for employees but I don’t see it that way. Employees who spend considerable time donning and doffing will have to make sure their contracts cover such events. Companies that want to attract the best and hardest working employees understand they will have to offer such compensation where a large amount of time is spent in such activities.

I would tell the Justices “good job” but I don’t think they much need to hear it from the likes of me.

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