Category Archives: Politics

Banning Bicyclists the Government Way

Posted on by

15-foot-flag-bikeIf you don’t like bicyclists on the road and you’re a Missouri state representative what would you do?

If you are Jay Houghton, the elected state representative from 10th District of Missouri, you try to pass laws banning them, for the safety of the bicyclers of course. The first attempt was an outright ban on people riding on rural roads and the second involves essentially making it impossible for them to ride by having them attach ludicrously tall flags to their bikes.

The first bill failed and I’m certain the second awaits the same fate but their very existence is further evidence anyone in power will do whatever they possibly can to prevent people from doing things that the legislator doesn’t happen to like. Of course Representative Houghton is a Republican. Naturally.

This second attempt really gets my anti-government Libertarian blood to the boil. The idea that this bill is being passed for “safety” reasons is so ludicrous and insulting to every human on earth that one wonders what Houghton thinks about the intelligence of his constituents. He must despise the very people he is supposed to serve to lie so transparently. What sort of person is capable of such ridiculous deception? Certainly not someone I would want as a friend of mine.

I’m sure Houghton has no desire to be my friend so no great loss for either of us.

The very existence of this proposal is proof positive that small-government Republican are merely enormously intrusive government wolves in disguise, bad disguises at that. They want the government involved in every tiny aspect of your life with which they happen to disagree.

Here is the wording of the bill just for those who might doubt that such an abomination has actually been introduced:

Every bicycle. as defined in section 307.180, operating upon a lettered county road shall be equipped with a flag clearly visible from the rear and suspended not less than fifteen feet above the roadway when the bicycle is standing upright. The flag shall be fluorescent orange in color.

The picture I’ve included is a bike with a fifteen foot flag on it although I don’t think such is necessary to convince anyone of the stupidity of this proposal.

And people wonder why I’m a Libertarian.

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

Who is it that Wants to Chop up the Corpse of Justice Scalia against his Spouse’s Wish?

Posted on by

justice-scaliaMy question is relatively simple. What group of people is eager for the police to take Justice Antonin Scalia’s corpse, move it to the coroner’s office, have it chopped up into bits, the organs removed, tested in every way, and stitched back together again for the funeral?

I’ll not leave you in suspense. It’s “small government Republicans” and it surprises me not a bit.

Who is rightfully against this ridiculous overreach of state power into the lives of citizens? “Big government Democrats” and that surprises me not in the slightest either.

Furthermore I can unequivocally and without hesitation say that should it have been Justice Stephen Breyer who passed away with a Republican president in office the sides would be absolutely reversed.

Justice Scalia had a weak heart and high blood pressure. He was 79 years old. The scene of his death had absolutely no sign of criminal activity.

Justice Scalia, of all people, defended the Constitution of the United States to his death bed. And now those very people who expressed their admiration for his principled stances want his body taken by the state, against the will of his family, and mutilated?

What does this prove? It proves that principles simply do not exist anymore. The ideas our country was founded upon mean nothing. It is political expediency first, second, third, last, and forever.

The police are not allowed to enter our homes or search us without a warrant from a judge and probable cause and yet people think this is acceptable?

No! No! No! I say it thrice. I say it from the hilltops. No! You cannot chop up Justice Scalia. No! You cannot. Damn you, foul evil. Get thyself from my sight and do it right quick.

I have nothing further on this topic.

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

CDC, Pregnancy, and Alcohol

Posted on by

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

The warning is specific and terrifying:

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

The danger is called Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oregon Standoff – Lots of Blame to Go Around

Posted on by

oregon-standoff-stupidity

My friends have been urging me to write a post about the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the Oregon Standoff, for quite some time and I’m finally going to wade in.

I suspect those who have been urging me, on both sides of the issue, and everyone else will find plenty to be angry with me about. There is so much blame to go around almost no one escapes unscathed.

There are a number of people and rules to blame for this situation and it starts with Steve Hammond.

He and his friends killed a herd of deer that was on Bureau of Land Management property. An event that was witnessed by hunters in the area. Knowing this was a crime and wanting to cover up the evidence, Hammond and his friends then set fire to the entire area recklessly endangering the lives of anyone who happened to be there. Couples canoodling under the stars, hunters, kids camping, hikers, bikers, or anyone else.

Hammond is lucky nobody died or he would have been facing negligent homicide charges instead of arson. He should have admitted to killing the deer and paid the fine, that would have been the end of it. Setting those fires was reckless to the extreme and he has only himself to blame.

The next culprit? Minimum Sentencing guidelines. I wrote an entire blog about why I so hate these guidelines. The minimum sentence for arson on public lands is five years. It’s ridiculous that judges cannot decide for themselves the circumstances of the case. Yes, Hammond was reckless. But he did not commit arson to damage property, to collect insurance, or even to hurt anyone. He was stupid but not malicious.

When he was found guilty of arson, Judge Michael Robert Hogan showed the only bit of sense in this entire episode. He realized five years was too long and shortened to one year and one day the sentence for Steve Hammond and imposed a fine. This triggered an Appeal process and the original order from Hogan was thrown out and the mandatory five-years reinstated. Hammond fought it all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled against him in 2015, not even agreeing to hear the case. This means there were not at least four Justices who thought the issue worth examining.

The problem here is that the Justices most likely to sympathize with the Hammonds, the Conservative Wing of the Supreme Court (Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito), are those that most strongly support minimum sentence guidelines. So, they’re not going to jump in to do something about this miscarriage of justice.

At that time Steve Hammond reported for prison and paid the remaining outstanding fines.

Now more blame. Ammon Bundy along with a group of followers decided they wanted to use the Hammond case as an excuse to launch their own protest. The Hammonds themselves wanted nothing to do with them. Here’s a couple of quotes from the Hammonds.

Their attorney: neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family.

Dwight Hammond’s (the other man sentenced) wife: I don’t really know the purpose of the guys who are out there.

Okay, Bundy, you’ve got a cause. Great. Don’t leap onto to someone else’s problem and claim it as your own when they don’t even want you! You’ve got a problem, stand up for yourself! Don’t pretend to be helping someone else. It’s dishonest bullpoop! The idiots that joined him are using Bundy just as much as he’s using Hammond, they’ve got a whole cartload of their own issues. Find your own grievance and if people don’t support you, then that’s your fault for not getting your message across!

My next target in this situation? All those supposed Hammond supporters who are angry. I get that, but I’m pissed that they are claiming Hammond was retried for the same crime because “the government” didn’t like the first outcome. This is completely false and seems to say that once a case is adjudicated there should be no appeals process. They also don’t seem to understand that Bundy doesn’t care anything about Hammond, Bundy is just using the case for his own ends.

The Appeals process is a good thing. Let’s imagine judge Hogan was a real tough judge and sentenced Hammond not to one year and a day but to twenty years. By the logic employed by his supporters he shouldn’t be able to appeal. Once it’s done, it’s done.

Another example would be if a drug trafficker was given a very short sentence compared to the minimum guidelines. I guarantee you that all those people angry about the Hammond extension wouldn’t have a word to say if the Appeals court slapped more years onto the drug-dealer’s sentence. It’s selective logic and it’s wrong.

The Appeals system is largely a good one. When a judge or jury makes a decision, it should be reviewable at a higher level, all the way to the Supreme Court. In the case of the Hammond conviction I’m of the opinion that the government should not have appealed the original sensible decision of Judge Hogan, my only hero in this mess. The government foolishly took it as far as they could to make a point. That showed no sense and led to the Bundy situation.

So, let’s sum this entire mess up. A moron lights fires all over to cover up a relatively minor crime. A bunch more morons, our judicial system, end up putting him in jail for way too long. A third group of morons pretends to take on the first moron’s problems when they’re just idiots with their own separate agenda. And finally, just about everyone arguing for the long sentence or against doesn’t have a clue as to what they are talking about!!

Go it? You’re all morons. Except you Judge Hogan. You can come to St. Louis and I’ll buy you some good Kentucky sipping whiskey any time.

Did I miss insulting anyone? Yes? Well, you’re an idiot also.

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

 

War or Defense? What’s in a Word?

Posted on by

war-or-defenseI recently read a comment written in response to an article about Robert Gates that got me thinking. What is the nature of a word? Why do we use one word instead of another? Does it make that much of a difference?

In WW ll we did not have a Secretary of Defense, DOD or JCS was the comment. Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff are the acronyms referenced in the comment.

The comment is true in a literal sense but largely false. Up until after World War II the Secretary of Defense was called the Secretary of War and the Department of Defense was the Department of War. From a Libertarian perspective I think that sums up something that has gone wrong with the United States of America. Our government, at its very heart, uses the word Defense instead of the word War.

There was a time when this nation was a small country, largely incapable of carrying out aggressive war. We lived in fear of invasion from Britain and potentially other nations as well. We were almost solely concerned with defending our shores. But somehow even then we knew that War was war and Defense was defense. Congress created the Department of War in 1789.

What does the word Defense conjure in your mind? To me it is a woman being attacked and using her martial skill to fend off the assault. I imagine most people conjure up a similar image when they hear that word.

What does the word War conjure in your mind? For me it is horrors. It is death, maiming, good people without limbs, stinking bodies. I would guess for many the same images come to mind.

So what does it tell us that in 1947 Congress passed legislation called the National Security Act of 1947 which reorganized the department but also made the subtle name change?

This happened just as the United States was emerging as the strongest military in the world. We were and remain in a position where our borders are virtually unassailable. Yes, terrorists can sneak in and kill people. They might even set off a nuclear weapon and kill millions. But the reality is that the United States has no fear of foreign military invasion. No country in the world can mount an attack on the continental United States with even the slightest chance of success.

And yet the word Defense is used with ever greater frequency and the need to strengthen it stressed by our politicians. Not only strengthen it but do so at the expense of our basic freedoms.

I say we should call things what they are. War is war. When our political leaders send young men and women off to foreign countries to kill and be killed, to maim and be maimed, maybe they should have images of war in their minds, not pictures of defense. They might hesitate before committing troops to situations in which the United States has nothing to gain.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a name doesn’t mean that much.

What do you think?

Should the Department and Secretary of Defense names be changed back to War?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Political Endorsements are Now a Negative

Posted on by

candidate-endorsement-minThere was a time in the United States when newspapers endorsed a candidate, when other politicians endorsed a candidate, when celebrities endorsed a candidate, when, I don’t know, the family dog endorsed a candidate and it caused people to vote for the person so endorsed.

I just finished watching as much of the Sarah Palin endorsing Donald Trump video as any rational, sane human can stomach and I have come to realize that an endorsement, any endorsement, is a net negative. That more people will be turned away from a candidate no matter who is endorsing them. When and why did this come to pass?

I think it’s an interesting question that goes well beyond the ramblings of Palin, who, by the way, went to college with me back at the University of Idaho. Yep, we were classmates. She lived in the women’s dormitory right across from Upham Hall where I spent my time.

In any case, that’s not the point here.

My supposition is that endorsements likely alienate more voters than they sway. This can be debated and I welcome anyone who would refute me but, for the sake of this blog, I’m going to assume that statement is true.

What is the cause of this dramatic shift? I’m of the opinion it is the plethora of information available about all of the candidates. I think people are far more comfortable choosing a candidate on their own, simply because they know that much more about them. Prior to the explosion of the Information Age people had to rely more on the opinions of others to decide their ballot because their knowledge of a candidate was limited.

It’s an interesting phenomenon to me because the general opinion seems to be that most voters are not particularly informed about their choices. Republicans and Democrats largely blame “the media” for twisting the opinion of the voters.

I think exactly the opposite. It seems to me that voters in general have a significantly better idea of the various candidates and stronger personal opinions about them than did people prior to the availability of so much information.

I think politicians far more closely represent the views of the average United States citizen today than they ever did in the past. This, by the way, is a bad thing. It brings us closer to becoming a Democracy, something I wrote about back in February of 2012.

The people who like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton do so not because the media fooled voters but simply because the media more clearly explained the candidates to voters. Thus, it’s my opinion, people are less likely to be influenced by third-party endorsements. They know who the candidate is and they do not need anyone else telling them how to vote.

Let me know what you think.

Does an Endorsement of a Candidate make you more likely to vote for that person?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Japanese Train Station Kept Open for One Girl – Not

Posted on by

Remote-Hokkaido-trainThere’s a rather sweet little story making the rounds on Twitter, Facebook and various media outlets about a rural train station in Japan that was scheduled to close. I’m sure a few of you have read it, smiled, and gone on about your business.

Would that I was capable of accepting such little moments of happiness without question. Nope, you guessed it, ding ding, bullshit alert going off, must check it out.

Sadly, it’s largely nonsense, but instructive nevertheless.

The story goes that a train station in a rural area of Hokkaido was sparsely used and scheduled to be taken off the schedule. It turned out a lone schoolgirl used it to get to school so management kept the station open until her graduation. They even went as far as to adjust the schedule of the train to meet with her needs.

Judging by the comments I read on the story, people seem to think the girl is the only passenger. That the train is merely running to get her from her rural station to her school. They also seem to be of the opinion that it was some sort of wonderful testament to government in Japan. Even if we take the story at face value these inferences are both incorrect.

It is just one of many stations along a rout. The trains are running in any case, they just were scheduled to bypass that station thus forcing the girl to travel further to another station to catch a train.

Also, the Hokkaido Railway Company is a private enterprise so even if they did do what was being claimed in the story, it has nothing to do with government but instead private industry.

The real story is that the girl actually uses another, nearby, station along with a number of fellow students. There is only one train in the morning but there are three possible trains that drop them off in the evening. This station, along with the one in the story, are actually scheduled to be closed later this year, in line with the news reports, but it apparently has nothing to do with the girls.

This means passengers from that rural area, the schoolgirls, will have to drive further to get to a larger station in the future.

What I find most interesting about this entire episode is the combination of misinformation and poor comprehension.

The story itself was largely false. The stations were being closed on a schedule that has nothing to do with the girls, the timetables weren’t adjusted, and there is more than one girl.

But even if we take the story as truth, the vast majority of people seem incapable of figuring out what was actually written. They read that the train had a single passenger and the government was responsible for keeping it running despite the fact the story said neither of these things.

Their minds turned what was written into something that better fit what they hoped it would be. Astounding!

Do you think there are any lessons to be had?

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

And Three Say No to Ken Griffey Jr

Posted on by

ken-griffey-jrThere’s an ugly tradition in baseball regarding the Hall of Fame and I’m hardly the first person to write about it but here I go anyway, please forgive me.

No player has ever been elected into the Hall of Fame by a unanimous vote of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. The very first inductees in the Hall of Fame were Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, and Walter Johnson. Since then the likes of Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Tom Seaver, and others have joined them. Men who were elite among the elites. Giants of the game.

There is no question these players deserved the vote of every writer but tradition says no. And thus the greatest player I ever saw, Ken Griffey Jr., was supported by only 437 of the 440 writers voting.

The first vote back in 1936 was a special situation. Voters were only allowed to put ten names on the ballot and there was quite a backlog of worthy players. Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Rogers Hornsby, Micky Cochrane, and George Sisler didn’t make it that first year although later joined.

Writers who left off Ruth or Cobb were instead voting for Speaker or Hornsby. I’m willing to give them a reluctant shrug of the shoulders. That first list did have ten players fairly close in skills to that top five. It’s possible that someone could argue Ruth was the 11st best player on that list. Unlikely, I’m not buying it, but it’s not a completely unreasonable position.

The backlog continued for a while but eventually there were fewer than ten deserving candidates each year.

There are some members of the voting block who think because Cobb and the others were not unanimous, to elect anyone with 100% of the vote is insulting to those five, it somehow diminishes those five. They often submit a ballot with no names at all.

This is injustice. This is unfair. It is against the traditions of our nation.

Let’s imagine a world in which voters do not cast their ballot for the person they think best represents the qualities needed for the position. I know it is difficult to fathom but try to conjure a world in which people vote for or against a candidate not because of their abilities but because of their perceived chances of winning or losing. Imagine a nation in which people have so long voted for inferior candidates that qualified people have no desire to run for office, where the only choices are bad and worse.

Cast your important ballot for a person based upon their record. Vote for them because they are the candidate that most closely represents your views. Vote for them because it is the right thing to do. Vote for that candidate no matter their chances of winning or losing. When we vote for the most worthy candidate regardless of other factors, we make the nation strong. Anything else is a betrayal of your obligation as a voter. It destroys our country one election at a time.

Yes, I’ve finally gotten to the point. I’ve tricked you and I feel shame. Vote for Gary Johnson.

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

Kansas City Drug Raid that Produced Nothing Based on Bad Evidence Was Legal

Posted on by

hydroponic-tomato-and-drug-raidI wrote a post about a drug raid that took place at the home of Robert and Addie Harte back in March of 2013. The family spent $25,000 of their own money compelling the police department to explain how they chose that home to raid. When they found out a lawsuit was filed. The result of that suit is in.

More information about the raid and the reasons behind it have come out since I wrote the original piece and I’ll summarize here but I’d highly recommend you visit the link I just posted and read the excellent article in the Washington Post written by Radley Balko. He gets it.

Basically the Harte’s visited a local garden shop in order to purchase supplies for a hydroponic experiment their son was conducting. The police apparently keep surveillance on such stores and note every licence plate of customers. They used this information to find the home of the Harte’s and searched their garbage on several occasions. This does not require a warrant. Flawed field tests returned false positive results for marijuana on loose leaf tea in the garbage. The police could have waited ten days to wait for more accurate lab tests but decided not to do so.

Police are well aware that field test results return false positives at an alarming rate, over 70% of positive results are false. They presumably like it that way. In an example given in the article by Balko there is a link to a video of a field test kit used for cocaine resulting in a false positive on a bag of air.

The police used the false positive results, on a substance described by lab personnel as not physically resembling marijuana in any way, to gain a warrant for a search. After twenty minutes of searching for a major crime scene they started looking for marijuana in small quantities for personal use. After two hours they found nothing and left.

The Harte’s had to spend $25,000 to find this out. The police in Kansas largely don’t have to explain their actions to anyone.

A judge heard this and dismissed all charges summarily. There was not even enough evidence of wrongdoing by the police to go to trial.

What does this say about the laws we live under? What does this say about the War on Drugs as a whole?

The police can, without any fear, take your license plate for doing ordinary shopping. Search your garbage. Use fatally flawed tests to obtain warrants. Come into your home and terrorize you. When they find nothing, you have no legal recourse. You must simply take it.

If this happens to a well-to-do family in an upscale Kansas City neighborhood do you imagine you are safe from such attacks?

This is a government using the mantra of fear to take away your freedom. Beware the scary drugs. We’re only doing this to protect you, to make you safe.

The government is most certainly not making us safer. They are putting us in greater danger AND taking away our freedom.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it now. End the War on Drugs. Make us safer and more free.

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

George Will Fears the End of a Conservative Party – It’s Already Gone

Posted on by

modern-republicansThe candidacy of Donald Trump has put to test a part of the Republican party that considers itself truly Conservative and George Will is of the opinion that a Trump nomination will mark the end of that faction of the GOP.

I’ve got news for you, Mr. Will. You and those of like minds might still be voting for Republicans, but the party is no longer Conservative and hasn’t been for a long time.

Part of the problem is that the term Conservative has come to mean two very different things to people who are members of the Republican party. The group to which Will largely belongs is Libertarian Conservativism. He does not believe the government should be telling individuals what to do and how to behave.

Meanwhile the majority of the Republican party has long since swayed to a combination of Cultural and Religious Conservatism. This group believes the government should interfere intimately in the lives of its citizens in cultural and religious matters. They believe preserving the state is integrally tied to preserving the culture. They believe in a very strong state with an untouchable police force that has the ability to enforce any and all draconian measures in order to keep us safe. They believe in a mighty military in order to keep us safe. They believe freedom is secondary to safety.

The two ideologies have, much to my mystification, remained compatible with one another in a single party up to this point. Certainly some people who considered themselves Republicans and Democrats have transitioned to the Libertarian Party in the last few years but hardly enough to make an impression in the political juggernauts that the two main parties remain. Libertarian candidates get around 1% of the vote in general elections.

Will finishes his article with the following sentiment: If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.

Mr. Will. There is a Conservative Party the 2016 election but it’s not the Republican Party, no matter who the nominee. There will be a Conservative Party in the 2020 elections and it won’t be the Republican Party. The party to which you harken with nostalgic foolishness may be there in name but it is not there in spirit.

Mr. Will, you cling to a phantom that is no more. A ghost, an apparition, and the longer you hold the dead thing to your bosom the more life will be sucked from your own body. You will eventually be nothing more than a husk of a man. An empty corpse that manages to shuffle along but does not see, does not hear, does not understand. Perhaps you are already there but I suspect not. I suspect there is life in there still, intelligence, vigor, and ability.

Mr. Will. We are Libertarians and with open arms we welcome such as you.

Tom Liberman

Gamblers Lose Willingly and Kentucky Wins Legally

Posted on by

Kentucky-pokerstars-online-gamblingAn astonishing case just reached its first stop when Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate ruled that the state of Kentucky can claim triple $290 million dollars in gambling losses of residents between 2006 and 2011.

For a period  of time a company called Poker Stars offered internet gambling across the United States. In 2006 a law was passed called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. In 2011 the government acted on this law and stopped all such gambling. The state of Kentucky claims that all losses made in the interim were illegal and thus they can collect said money.

There are so many things wrong with this case it makes my mind boggle and my blood boil.

I suppose I’ll list them by what I perceive as the most egregious.

  1. Kentucky is collecting the gambling losses made by its citizens, not for the citizens, but for its own treasury.
  2. Not a single one of the 14,000+ gamblers who incurred losses has made a single claim.
  3. The figure arrived at includes all losses in the time frame, not winnings and services minus losses. Just add up all the losses and go.
  4. The statute that allows Kentucky to do this was re-codified in 1942 and was apparently originally written sometime in the 1800’s although I can’t find a date.

Here’s the wording of the statute and here is a PDF of it.

372.040 Suit by third person where loser or creditor does not sue.

If the loser or his creditor does not, within six (6) months after its payment or delivery to the winner, sue for the money or thing lost, and prosecute the suit to recovery with due diligence, any other person may sue the winner, and recover treble the value of the money or thing lost, if suit is brought within five (5) years from the delivery or payment.

I mean, you have to be kidding me, right? This is some insane joke? Nope, sadly not.

This is an example of the power that government can wield. If the state of Kentucky can not only pass a law claiming any third party has the right to collect the gambling losses of another individual but actually enforce it … what law cannot they pass?

The only laws they can’t pass are those which the Constitution forbids. Kentucky is not allowed to abridge my freedom to speak, to assemble with like-minded people, to be immune from unwarranted search and seizure, to house soldiers in my home, establish a religion, and more.

We take many of these rights for granted but I hope this case makes you appreciate them all the more. Do you imagine a legislature that can write things like 372.040 wouldn’t be happy to take away your right to speak? To assemble? To vote? To own a weapon?

The sad part in all of this? The judge is probably correct in interpreting the statute. The statute is, quite obviously, madness. It is overreaching, money-seeking government at its worst, exposed to the light of day. It is sickening. It is a dark shadow upon the thoughts of any liberty loving individual. It is the raw power of a government not checked by the people.

There is one group who can remove this stain of a statute from the books.

Kentuckians, what say you?

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

Making Indoor Tanning Illegal for Anyone Under 18 without Consent

Posted on by

tanning-bedThe Food and Drug Administration has just issued a proposed regulation on the indoor tanning industry that would bar anyone under 18 years of age from tanning without signed consent forms from their parents.

Indoor tanning increases the risk of melanoma enormously. The statistics on this are overwhelming. Anyone who uses indoor tanning is putting their long-term health at risk. Children are particularly at risk.

The FDA is proposing these regulations in order to save lives. These regulations will save lives. These regulations will save insurance companies money, they will save people enormous pain and suffering from skin cancer as they get older. I absolutely agree that people should not go into tanning booths. I think people should use sun screen whenever they’re exposed to strong sunlight for any length of time.

And yet I’m totally against these regulations. The reasons I’m against the regulations are fairly numerous but it all comes down to one thing.

The dangers of tanning beds are well known and anyone who uses them has no excuse for not knowing them. Even children.

Other reasons include the fact that where there is a market a supplier will arise. Someone will find a way to provide tanning services to teenagers who do not have permission from their parents. Money will exchange hands. Raids will be made. People will end up in prison. Fake age identifications will become a bigger industry. Some parents just don’t care. They’ll sign any consent form they’re handed. Kids who tan a lot are likely to be children of parents who do it as well and choose to ignore the danger. Why an agency called the Food and Drug Administration should have any power of tanning booths is another mystery.

Yet all those reasons are secondary. If a teenager wants to tan and can’t bother to read through the already voluminous notices about the dangers of tanning that the government forces indoor tanning facilities to post, that’s their business. The government does not need to protect your child from tanning, you need to do it. If your children don’t listen to you, as teenagers a prone to do, then trying to rely on the government to protect them is an exercise in futility.

If you step into a tanning booth, even once, your insurance rates should skyrocket. If you lie about tanning and get skin cancer, your insurance shouldn’t cover the costs. It’s brutal. It’s painful. People will suffer. A pretty, young, pregnant girl will get skin cancer and won’t be able to afford treatment. More regulations people will scream. Protect us from ourselves!

It’s the price we pay for freedom. As I write in my latest novel, The Girl in Glass I – Apparition. Freedom is free, it just isn’t safe.

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

Hamilton off the $10 Bill – Good but Maybe not for the Reason You think

Posted on by

Lady-Liberty-CoinThere’s been a story making the rounds for the last six months involving replacing Alexander Hamilton’s image on the $10 bill with that of a woman.

I’m in full agreement with removing Hamilton’s image but probably not for the reasons you think.

Hamilton was a great man and deserves to be honored as one of the most important figures in the founding of our nation. So was Andrew Jackson whose face is on the $20 bill. Many want Jackson removed, instead of Hamilton, because during Jackson’s presidency he was largely responsible for the forced immigration of the Native American population. George Washington was probably the man most instrumental in the creation of the United States, I’m all for honoring him despite the fact that he was a slave owner for his entire adult life.

All people who accomplish great things are merely mortals. As such they did things most of us would consider reprehensible. Ulysses Grant issued the infamous General Order 11. Franklin Roosevelt incarcerated innocent Japanese Americans during World War II. John Adams issued the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I do not think such are good reason for their names to be removed from buildings, currency, monuments, or any other such place. Despite their flaws and bad decisions their deeds helped to make this country what it is. They sacrificed much and deserve our honor, but also our honest assessment of their mistakes.

None of this is pertinent to my discussion today. Why, you might ask, do I want Hamilton removed from the $10 bill?

I’m of the opinion that the United States of America is a nation built upon ideas, upon an ideology that transcends the flaws of people. It’s those ideas we should enshrine on our currency. Liberty, Freedom, Self-Government, a Nation for the People and by the People.

The first set of coins issued by the United States back in 1792 were quite simple. There was a picture of the Goddess Liberty on the front and a bald eagle on the back. After that came the Draped Bust followed by the Capped Bust. It wasn’t until 1909 that the image of a living person appeared on any U.S. Currency with the introduction of the Lincoln Penny.

Ideas were good enough for the Founding Fathers and they are plenty good enough for me!

Eventually physical currency will make way for digital and that will be that, but until then I say get rid of them all!

We are nation of ideas, not hero worship. We are nation of principles, not hero worship. This nation, more than any other, has inspired people to throw off their chains around the world, to insist upon a government in which they, the people, have voice. I say we should always honor those ideas.

All people are flawed but the ideas of Freedom, of Liberty, and of Pursuing Happiness are not.

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

Barring Muslims Practicality

Posted on by

Trump-Muslim-ImmigrationI want to take a very quick look at the practicality of Donald Trump’s plan to bar Muslims from entering the United States.

The idea behind the plan is simple enough. The vast majority of terrorists in the world are Muslims and therefore if we ban all of them from entering the United States we decrease the chances of a terrorist attack.

There are a lot of people out there decrying the plan for any number of reasons but I simply want to look at it from a practical perspective. Let’s imagine Trump is elected President of the United States and manages to get legislation passed barring all Muslims from entering the United States.

The law is passed. All travelers coming from outside the United States into the country must declare their religious affiliation before entering. How is it implemented?

At entry points everyone is asked their religion. What will happen?

  1. Any person who plans on a terrorist act will lie about their religion.
  2. Many people will refuse to answer the question.
  3. Some people will give an accurate answer.

The result. No one is any safer.

It’s quite obvious that any terrorist is going to lie about their religion, in order to prevent that person from entering the country we will have to do a background check on them to ensure they are the religion they claim to be.

This means everyone entering the country will have to have a background check. This would be a huge inconvenience to all travelers, frankly, it would make travel into the country all but impossible. A literal army of agents would be required to do the check which would cost trillions of dollars. Trillions? You bet. Think about all the people who are entering the country every day and what it would take to investigate each one.

And, of course, any terrorist who plans on entering the country will take the time to fake a conversion to some other religion.

So, in a nutshell, the plan is useless in preventing terrorists from entering the country, will cost taxpayers trillions of dollars, will inconvenience every traveler harshly, and will invade the privacy of all our lives.

Welcome to ‘Merica.

I’ve got another plan for you. Vote Libertarian.

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

 

Does Banning the Sale of Horns Help Rhinos?

Posted on by

rhino-poachingA South African court ruled on Nov 26, 2015 that a legal market for Rhinoceros horns can be implemented. Until that ruling a moratorium placed by the South African government prevented the legal sale of the horns.

Naturally those interested in saving Rhinos are horrified by this ruling. They are misguided although well-meaning. Let me explain.

The reality to this awful situation gives us an excellent opportunity to examine the nature and effectiveness of government in attempting to control human behavior through legislation.

There is a large demand for the horns, primarily in Vietnam and China where they are considered useful as a medicinal product. A single horn can sell for as much as $250,000.

The ban was implemented as prices for the horns started to rise and poachers began to kill more and more of the animals. The idea being that demand would diminish if it was illegal to sell horns. Naturally this failed. I need not explain that making something illegal does not remove the market for that product. It is self-evident.

After the ban came into effect poaching rose quickly with the number of animals killed growing larger each year. I think it can be argued that, with or without the banning, the market would have grown. That being said, it’s clear that banning the sale of rhino horns has done nothing to slow the slaughter of the animals and might well have increased the pace. It drove the market directly into the hands of criminals.

The new legislation will allow the legal sale of the horns. I’m not convinced that will save the animals because of the extremely limited nature of the supply and the massive level of demand. Even if a few hundred horns are legally harvested each year that will not fulfill demand. But at least it’s recognizing the reality of the situation. The ban makes us feel good. It gives us the illusion that we’re doing something to help. I’m opposed to such sugar-pills. I don’t want to feel good while rhinos are driven to extinction in South Africa as they were in Vietnam. I want to help save rhinos!

The only viable solution is to harvest horns from living animals. Sell them on a legal market. License hunts of aging animals. This will raise money which will, hopefully, be used to help protect the rhinos. Even that’s not guaranteed. When millions of dollars are at stake the unscrupulous are always attracted to it.

A market might arise for rhino bones. Who can say?

The point is that the original ban had no chance of working, just as banning alcohol or marijuana simply drives the suppliers into becoming illegal operatives.

My larger point is that we should not applaud useless solutions simply because they make us feel good. We should not cheer nice sounding ideas that are completely impossible to implement, will most certainly not return any of the results promised, and will likely make the original issue worse.

Politicians love to offer useless platitudes and ineffective solutions with absolute certitude of conviction. If we cheer and vote for such politicians, well, we deserve what we get. Bigger problems.

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

Of High Castles and Real Freedom

Posted on by

amazon-man-in-high-castle-adMake believe fascism is a good thing. Let me explain.

In 1962 an excellent writer named Philip K. Dick wrote a novel called The Man in the High Castle.

Amazon has now produced and is releasing a television series based on the book. The book is an alternate history tale in which the United States and the Allies were defeated by the Axis powers in World War II. In it the United States is under the control of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Amazon has been publicizing the upcoming show in a number of ways and they recently draped a New York City shuttle with imagery mating United States symbols of those of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

As you may know, New York City is home to a large Jewish population. Offense was taken. That particular advertising campaign was removed.

What is fascism? It is radical and authoritarian nationalism. It is essentially the antithesis of Liberalism (in the classical sense) and of freedom as a whole.

I don’t want to get into a discussion about the definition of fascism and who is or who is not a fascist.

My topic today is to state that make-believe fascism, like the Man in the High Castle, is a very good thing. Advertising that strike us viscerally, as did the Amazon campaign, is a good thing. It’s important to be able to recognize fascism. If we do not recognize it immediately then we are suspectible to its seductive message.

There is political rhetoric making the rounds in this election cycle that rings of fascism. There are certainly some people commenting on this rhetoric and recognizing it for what it is. That’s a good thing. But a lot of people who support this sort of talk seem to be completely unaware of its fascist origins. That’s a bad thing.

I recognize fascist talk because I’m a student of history. I know that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany used xenophobia to mobilize their people. I know how they used fear to lure people into giving away their freedom. I know how they used hate to turn a nation upon itself. How they manipulated the fear of average citizens to ensconce themselves with absolute power.

The fact that a great number of people don’t know these things is dangerous. When someone fictionalizes fascism, shows us what it truly is without actually creating a fascist state, we should embrace it. We should expose it to as many people as possible.

The shuttle covered with symbols of United States mated with those of fascist states is disturbing and rightly so. The solution isn’t to ban such displays but encourage and understand them.

If we hide the true nature of fascism because it is so awful, do we do ourselves a service or a disservice? Do we help our nation or harm it?

In order to combat evil you must be able to recognize it. Expose evil to the light of day. Explain it. Show how its seductive lure can entrap the unwary.

Evil cannot survive such examination.

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

Great Pyramid of Giza and Critical Thinking

Posted on by

Great_Pyramid_DiagramThe pyramids of Egypt are in the news lately for a couple of reasons and it gives me the opportunity to discuss the nature of critical thinking. Of course I’ll take it!

The first story involves a new chamber being found in the tomb of Tutankahmun.

The second story involves presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson’s assertion that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built as a grain silo.

Another group of stories involves how it is impossible for the pyramids to have been built with the technology of the time. I addressed this issue in another blog so I’ll leave it alone today.

Finally is the twenty year timeline for building the pyramids themselves which is based upon certain assumptions.

The first story proudly declares that a new, hidden region was found in the burial chamber of Tutankahmun.

When I finally got around to reading the story I discovered that no such new chamber has been found at all. What they do is scan the region for temperature. An area where the temperature is slightly cooler might indicate a draft from a room. It could also indicate some damage to the structure that is letting in air. No one has gone into these areas because to do so would potential destroy them. It’s a lot of speculation and, frankly, I’m not convinced. It seems more likely to me that the cool areas are caused by structural flaws than hidden chambers, particularly because any number of these were found in the analysis.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there are many hidden passages in the burial region. It just seems to me that it’s best to go with the most logical explanation before leaping to the most sensational conclusion. That’s critical thinking.

This, naturally, leads me to the rather bizarre assertion by Carson that the Great Pyramid of Giza was a grain silo. I’ve included a diagram of the pyramid to illustrate why this conclusion is so unlikely. The grain silo explanation has to do with a biblical story about Joseph warning Pharoah (Genesis 41 ESV) that seven good years would be followed by seven lean years and thus grain should be stored away.

What is called the main shaft of the pyramid, which leads to the burial chambers, is basically equivalent in dimensions to a silo. However, building a grain silo of those dimensions would have been trivial to the people that built the Great Pyramid. One look at the diagram above makes it obvious that it was not designed to store grain. Only someone who desperately wanted to come to the grain silo conclusion could possibly think otherwise. This is called a Cherry Picking fallacy. From what I’ve seen of Carson this fallacy seems to largely determine his entire thought process.

Finally, as to the twenty year time scale on the Great Pyramid of Giza. This is based on three facts.

  1. Workers left a mark in an interior chamber with their name on it and the name of Pharaoh Khufu.
  2. Khufu reigned for 23 years. This is disputed.
  3. The mummification process took some 70 days to complete.

From these three facts Egyptologists assume Khufu started the Great Pyramid upon ascending to the throne and that the completion of the pyramid coincided with his death.

I find these conclusion dubious. Khufu could have died long before the Great Pyramid was completed and been stored away until then. His reign could have been much longer than twenty years, some sources put it at over sixty.

The most logical conclusion I can draw is that some other Pharaoh started the pyramid but it was finished during Khufu’s reign and he simply usurped its use for himself.

Do we know for certain? No. But why not go with the most apparent conclusion first? Why leap to an unlikely scenario?

Tell me where my critical thinking skills have failed me in the comments!

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

 

U.S. Government Murders Phedras de Blondel

Posted on by

phedras-de-blondelA prize Show Jumping horse was recently killed, dismembered, and it’s meat taken from a rural farm in Florida and it’s the United States Government’s fault.

This will my third blog on this topic. I wrote in May of 2013 about why horses were essentially being tortured. I followed up with a blog in June of 2013 about how this came to be.

This new story about Phedras de Blondel again shows how governing beyond the Constitution causes many unintended consequences. That horse is dead today because of the United States government. That’s the long and short of it.

What happened is that Senators and Representatives of the United States government allowed themselves to be swayed largely by T. Boone Pickens who apparently loves horses and is bothered that other people like to eat them. People in the United States are largely against slaughtering horses for consumption although other nations largely do not have such misgivings on the subject. Congress attempted to pass laws banning the slaughter of horses but failed to get them signed into law.

Thus failing they resorted to other methods. They included no funding for USDA inspection of horse slaughtering facilities. By law all such facilities must be inspected. No money for inspections means they can’t legally sell the meat. The existing packing plants immediately offered to pay the USDA themselves for such inspections but the courts ruled this illegal.

Naturally the export of horses for slaughter to Mexico and Canada increased dramatically and, of course, the fact that there are many more horses nobody wants leads to abuse. This includes up to 50,000 horses who are currently living in pens in the western states in what can only be called a horrific existence.

Yes, most people don’t eat horses in the United States but clearly some people do. A group of people killed Phedras de Blondel for his meat. Meat but for the government’s actions they could have easily purchased instead.

There’s a lesson in here for those that want to listen.

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

Lessons from Royals v. Blue Jays

Posted on by

incredible-catchAs most of my dedicated readers will know, I’m in a period of mourning over the defeat of my beloved St. Louis Cardinals in the playoffs this year. In an attempt to forget my sorrow for a short time, I walked to a local pub to imbibe a Beefeater and Tonic, enjoy the company of some intelligent and attractive women, and watch the sixth game of the Kansas City Royal v. Toronto Blue Jays playoffs.

And what a game it was.

As I watched scintillating defense, prodigious hitting, superb pitching, daring base running, and essentially, sport at its finest, I found myself imagining a world in which merit was always rewarded. A world where the people who gained promotion were those whose performance earned it. A world where elected officials were those most dedicated to their nation and only wanted the best for it.

There may be no crying in baseball but more importantly there is little room for incompetence. I do no pretend that sport is a perfect meritocracy. There will always be aging veterans and high priced rookies who are given more opportunities than they probably deserve. That being said, there is a limit to failure in sport. A pitcher who can’t get a batter out will soon be dismissed whereas a politician who fails to make the country a better place might well continue on eternally in a gerrymandered district.

At this time only 90 of the 435 House of Representative districts in the United States are considered competitive.

What do we get in the absence of competition? The answer is obvious. Mediocrity and worse, incompetence. People on both sides of the political divide agree that competition is good. The Royals and Blue Jays prove as much. Yet both side gerrymander their districts into noncompetitive elections in order to “win”. And therein lies the problem.

If the Royals promoted players not because of their skill, dedication, hard work, and determination but upon who management wanted to succeed, the Royals would finish in last place every year. Sport is a hard crucible. You do not succeed with incompetence in sport and your failure is quickly and painfully manifested. Fans demand change and they demand it right now.

Politics? Not so much.

And we wonder what’s wrong with this country.

Vote not for the candidate who is from your party but for the candidate who is best qualified to run this country.

Vote well or your nation will finish in last place.

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

Kasparov and the Problem with Moral Codes

Posted on by

Kasparov-banned-fideThere’s an interesting story in the world of chess that I think illustrates one of the problems with so called Ethical Codes.

Former chess champion Gary Kasparov has been forbidden to hold office in the chess federation, FIDE, for two years because of an accusation of attempted bribery during his recent campaign to become president of that organization.

Ethical Codes are created by organizations as a way to prevent behavior that they considered unethical. If an employee violates this code they are subject to punishment up to and including termination. The modern use of such codes in business is often related to justifying punishment rather than preventing unwanted behavior.

I’m not completely opposed to such codes. I think an organization has every right to create their own rules. I recently wrote about how the U.S. Soccer Federation should prevent Hope Solo from participating in the Olympics because of her troubling off-field activities. Likewise I spoke about the NFL’s sanctioning of Ray Rice for similar transgressions.

The problem in this case is that the FIDE is absolutely and totally corrupt. It is run by a man who routinely uses bribery to implement policy. To have such an organization stipulate ethical violations against a member for doing exactly what they themselves do is a rather tough pill to swallow.

When a code is applied unfairly it’s not really a code at all. It’s just a cudgel used to keep those who disagree in line and punish enemies.

What is to be done?

I’m opposed to removing such codes because I think any organization has the right to create their own rules. I’m also against a higher agency coming in and dictating how an organization applies it codes because this just means corruption moves up to that higher agency. The problem is not solved at all, despite the illusion of improvement, and in many ways made worse because the higher the agency the more people it has control over.

The only real solution is for members of the organization to see through the facade and elect better representatives or form their own group.

It’s not easy to convince those currently in power that misapplication of rules in a way that benefits them is, in the long run, bad for them. It is. If one person can misapply rules to gain advantages then soon enough someone will come to power who is not your ally and will use the same methods against you. It is far better to apply rules fairly and evenly and allow the best to succeed within the confines of your structure.

While that philosophy is comforting, the pragmatist in me realizes that reality is not. Kasparov is banned. The FIDE is corrupt. No solution appears imminent. Those in power and those who support them seem perfectly happy with the arrangement as it is. They have enormous bankrolls and there is no shortage of people willing to do anything for money. The Libertarian ideal is but a dream.

What can I do about it? I’ll write another book and hope the leaders at FIDE read it, understand it, and apply the principles of freedom to their organization. What else can I do?

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