Category Archives: Politics

He Kept Us Safe – Cry of the Tyrant

Posted on by

he-kept-us-safePresidential candidate Donald Trump stated the factual information that President George W. Bush was the sitting president when the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and other locations occurred. This has spawned hue and cry from Republican politicians including Bush’s brother, John Ellis (JEB) Bush who tweeted the image I’ve included in this post.

The gist of the argument is simple enough, He kept us safe.

The problems I have with this statement are many and deeply felt. I’ll start with a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin that I think well sums up my opinion.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

My first shuddering reaction to that tweet is the simple fact that Jeb Bush apparently thinks the primary job of the President of the United States is to keep us safe. The idea sounds reasonable but it’s not. If your main job is to keep anything safe, the best way to do this is to take away that thing’s freedom. Keep it locked behind impenetrable walls and away from the dangers of the world. One, of course, should not be foolish and do dangerous things for no reason but safety and freedom are to a large degree antitheses of one another. That Jeb Bush thinks of this first in defending his brother is troublesome.

My next reaction is the simple fact that it cannot be established as an accurate assessment. There is no way to know if the lives lost in President Bush’s administration were equal to, less than, or more than would have been lost under another leader. Were lives lost? Certainly. Many soldiers died and many more were horribly maimed in wars that, if anything, made us less safe, emboldened our enemies and created new foes.

The third thing I think about is that it’s just more of the same fear-mongering that our established politicians use to ensure our votes. Vote for me or you’re in danger! Enemies everywhere! I’ll keep you safe, just give me more of your freedom, that’s all I ask! No thanks, I’ll brave freedom, danger and all.

Finally I think of the Tyrant. Such as they come to power by binding us with fear and we willingly, nay eagerly, give them our freedom. Fear is their stick and the promise of safety their carrot.

When I think about the United States and what has happened to us, it makes me wonder if we ought to think about changing the final line of the Star-Spangled Banner.

What do you think, Jeb?

O’er the land of the dependent, and the home of the fearful?

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

Do not take Stelara if …

Posted on by

stelaraI do most of my television watching on the computer using Hulu, ESPN3, and other outlets. Lately I’ve seen a commercial for a drug called Stelara quite frequently. There is something in that commercial that hit me right in my Libertarian breadbasket.

A few years back the federal government regulated advertisement for pharmaceuticals. One of the rules is that any such advertisement must list major side effects and contraindication of the drug in question.

In the rundown of side effects for Stelara, which includes death by the way, we get the following.

Do not take Stelara if you are allergic to Stelara.

What more do you need to know that the entire process is an exercise is silliness? The reason behind the rule about advertising is so people won’t take a drug that harms them. This relies on the idea that people won’t take a drug if they know it has harmful side effects or they won’t take it under certain conditions like after drinking. That idea is utter nonsense. People are idiots. If they are willing to take a drug whose side effect is death, what’s the point of any warning?

People will talk with their doctor and either make an informed or uninformed decision about taking medication. Stupid people will make bad choices more often than smart people, that’s reality. No amount of warning in a commercial is going to prevent stupid people from doing something stupid. Likewise, an intelligent person who cares about his or her health and what he or she put into his or her body is not going to trust a commercial, but will consult with their doctor prior to making such a decision.

It’s a rule designed to make us feel better about helping people when we’re not actually helping them at all. Do you think anyone bent on taking the medication is deterred by the warnings? Of course not.

Do not take Stelara if you are allergic to Stelara? You have to be kidding me.

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

Rep. Kevin McCarthy Tells Truth – Faces Hell’s Fury

Posted on by

benghazi-hearingIf anyone possibly needed a more damning indictment of politics in the United States of America you couldn’t find a better example than the reaction to Representative Kevin McCarthy’s statement that the current Benghazi Probe was about tarnishing the image of Hillary Clinton.

The statement itself is rather remarkable but the reaction from the Republican Party is predictably nauseating.

I’ll sum it up quickly for those who aren’t following the story.

There have been several investigations into what happened when four U.S. citizens were killed during an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya. Clinton was Secretary of State at the time of the attack and there was thought that her inaction during the attacks was ultimately responsible and that her office lied about events leading up to the attacks. All completed investigation largely found no evidence of wrongdoing from Clinton or the administration.

McCarthy made a statement indicating that the current investigation had succeeded in its purpose of damaging the reputation of Clinton.

I would like to say it’s the reaction to that statement that bothers me but I cannot do so with any honesty. The reaction is completely and totally expected.

Republicans are largely calling on McCarthy to apologize for making the statement and reiterating their opinion that the current investigation has nothing to do with tarnishing Clinton’s reputation but is simply aimed at getting to the truth of what happened. Republicans are furious at McCarthy for telling the truth and insisting that he go back to lying. They want him to apologize to the families of those killed in Benghazi because if the investigation is about tarnishing Clinton, it is about politics and spits on the memories of those who died.

What more do you want as proof as to the dysfunctionality of our government? Of the willingness, eagerness, slavering devotion to lie, lie, lie, and lie again?

The investigation is about politics! It does spit on the memories of those who died! Everyone knows this. Everyone. Yet the lie must be maintained.

In our Republican and Democrat led government the truth is to be avoided at all costs. The truth is the enemy. Winning the election is of far greater priority than good governing.

What more evidence do you need that something is horribly amiss?

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

He Touched Me First – Trump v. Lowry

Posted on by

Squabbling-kidsThe editor of the prestigious National Review, Rich Lowry, is currently engaged in a nuanced and intellectual debate with the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States, Donald Trump.

I’m reminded of the discourse exhibited by the likes of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams as they discussed their differences during the formation and early years of the United States of America. They, like Lowry and Trump, were engaged in exceptionally important matters. They wrote carefully worded editorials explaining their points of view and we have a historical record to remind us of these titans who created this great country of ours through the force of their will.

Trump and Lowry show the same depth of thought as Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the other Founding Fathers displayed at a time when they were barely removed from the breast of their mothers.

Is anyone else ashamed to be a citizen of this country? These twitter rants smack of arguments I had with my sister on a long road trip when I was five years old, I blush for the United States of America. I blush!

Leading journalists, the men and women who want to lead this country, the editors of influential journals, they are as children. Squabbling elementary school kids hurling insults at each other on the playground.

These are the choices we have? You, the voters, are responsible for this mess more even than the bickering babies who foist their idiocy upon us.

You, the voters, could choose to cast your ballots for reasoning adults who discuss their differences like adults and compromise to find solutions. But no, you prefer the quip, the one-line insult, the impossible idea, the pleasant sounding lie, the red-faced buffoon.

If you like whining, egocentric, hold their breath until they get their way babies in charge of this country, well, don’t be surprised when your nation functions like an unsupervised kindergarten class in a room filled with paint and brushes.

We get what we vote for in this country. Good or bad.

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

There is No Gotcha Question – Just Bad Answers

Posted on by

GotchaIt seems to be a trend among modern politicians to blame journalists for asking “Gotcha” questions. I’ve got news for you politicians. If you don’t know the answer to a question the answer is … I don’t know.

There is no such thing as a “Gotcha Question”. You can have an opinion on the subject. You can know the answer to the question. You can think you know the answer to the question. You can not know the answer to the question. Those are your options.

If, in retrospect, you don’t like the answer you gave to the question, the correct reaction isn’t to blame the question or the questioner, the answer is to own up to your awful answer. At least that’s the choice of someone who believes in personal responsibility. But I guess that leaves out just about every politician. They can’t seem to find a limit to the number of people to blame for their own shortcomings.

Have I said stupid things? You bet.

Have I said wrong things? Absolutely.

The reality is that in the modern political climate people are going to ask you difficult questions and they are going to ask you unfair questions.

The classic example is: How often do you beat your spouse?

The answer is simple enough. Never. There is no such thing as a question that can’t be answered as long as you don’t restrain yourself to the questioners paradigm.

The premise of the Gotcha question is that there is no good answer. A tough political question about an obscure leader of a terrorist group. Your answer is, I don’t know. It’s not an answer that politicians want to give but it has the advantage of being the honest reply.

When it turns out the answer you gave to a question doesn’t meet with public approval, tough. Give a better answer next time or stick by your guns if you gave an honest answer.

Anyone who claims the Gotcha excuse, I have no time for you. Good day, sir.

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

 

What’s in a Word – a Constitutional Debate

Posted on by

ConstitutionI’m a member of a Libertarian website where they host regular web based shows and I was watching one of these, led by a man named Sheldon Richman, which discussed a Supreme Court case that caused a great deal of debate among Libertarians when it was adjudicated. I do not wish to discuss the case but an assertion made by Mr. Richman during his show.

It involves the nature of the meaning of words and the nature of interpreting the Constitution of the United States. In this case the debate came about over what is called the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The key phrase being … nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Mr. Richman interpreted the last two words to mean whatever the seller demands. Legal scholars disagree. They have said repeatedly in law that it means the value lost by the current owner of what was taken.

In this blog I do not even mean to debate the meaning of those two words. Where I absolutely disagree with Mr. Richman is his assertion that we must use a textual, or possibly even strict constructionist interpretation of that document. That is that we must go by the words they used and not read meaning into them.

He argues that those who wrote the Fifth Amendment could have easily written … without fair market value compensation. That because they did not use those words they didn’t mean that.

Here is where I disagree with Mr. Richman. They could have just as easily used the words … meeting the owner’s set price.

They didn’t. They used the words they used. That is what we have. No more. No less.

I think Mr. Richman’s interpretation is far more fanciful than the currently accepted legal interpretation of those words. What I find maddening is Mr. Richman’s seeming insistence that he wasn’t interpreting. That he was taking the common meaning of the words while the legal precedent was somehow interpreting.

In this case the Taking party and that who is Taken from are clearly going to be in disagreement, otherwise the Taking would never happen. If the Taker had met the price asked there would be no need for Taking. I’m certain Mr. Richman is wrong and I would guess that he is certain I am mistaken.

In any case, both are interpretations. You might favor Mr. Richman’s or you might, like me, prefer the agreed upon legal interpretation. But you cannot pretend that one is an interpretation and one is not.

You must agree that words have no inherent meaning. They are merely sounds or squiggly shapes. We give the squiggles and sound meaning. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. It’s not a question of interpreting or not. We are never not interpreting.

Richman interprets. I interpret. You interpret. We disagree, certainly, but we all interpret.

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

Why do we Need the State to Give Us a Marriage License Anyway?

Posted on by

Marriage-CertificateI’ve followed the Kim Davis story with moderate interest and most people seem to think there are two sides to the issue. I disagree. I think there is a third point of view that makes the first two irrelevant.

Why do we need the government to issue a license for two willing, legally competent, adults to sign a contract? Why? I ask a third time because it is the most important question in all of this. Why?

If you come to the conclusion that the answer is simply, “We don’t.” You have solved the entire problem.

Those who believe, like Davis, that it’s immoral won’t have to sign such a license because it won’t exist. Those who believe that state employees must carry out their duties without regards to their religion won’t have to worry about it because one of those jobs won’t be issuing marriage licenses.

Why is the state involved in marriage at all? The argument boils down largely to social engineering. It is to the benefit of the state to encourage marriage because society is stronger when it has more stable family units. That may or may not be true but it’s not within the realm of power of the state to encourage or discourage a private contract of this nature.

If two people want to get married, if three people are in a group relationship and want to get married, if two men want to get married, if a brother and sister want to get married; I see no justification for the state needing to issue a license. I know people won’t like that last example and I’m willing to begrudgingly agree that the state can make certain marriages illegal, but even then, if the state has agreed to make it legal, why do they need to issue a license?

If two or more legally competent people sign a contract stating they are married, that’s that. No more problem. No more Kim Davis. No more Constitutional debate. If it turns out later the contract is invalidated by law, say one contractor was underage, then the marriage is invalid. What benefit is there in having the state “license” a marriage?

You tell me.

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

 

Dick Cheney is not the Most Vile and Disgusting Human to have ever lived

Posted on by

Dick-CheneyFormer Vice President Dick Cheney is talking again. Joy.

This is the man who sent 4,000 of our best to die in Iraq for nothing, based on a lie. Who is largely responsible for tens of thousands of our soldiers who suffered horrible wounds in a useless war. Who caused the deaths of arguably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

This is the man who watched as 3,000 citizens died in the World Trade Center attack and responded by attacking the wrong country, thus pissing on their graves.

This is the man whose friends pocketed millions (perhaps billions) of dollars through no-bid contracts while our soldiers were dying for nothing.

This is the man who, every time he opens his mouth, spits in the face of our service members who trusted him.

The man who presided on the committee to look into President Reagan selling anti-aircraft missiles to Iraq to raise money for the Contras of Iran and thought the committee was overreaching.

There was Hitler. There was Pol Pot.

I’m comfortable saying Cheney is not the worst, most vile and disgusting human being to ever set foot on this planet. I won’t go any further than that.

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

Sidney Blumenthal’s Private Emails to Hillary Clinton

Posted on by

sidney_blumenthal_private_emailsI just read a story that churns my stomach.

I’m sure everyone knows that there is an investigation into a private server Hillary Clinton used to send government emails on. After much wrangling, the information on that server was turned over to a committee. The story I just read contained multiple quotes from a fellow named Sidney Blumenthal in emails to Clinton that are private communications between two people not involving anything remotely classified.

This means that whoever has access to those emails is releasing them to embarrass people. I don’t care if you’re a democrat or a republican. You should be horrified by this abuse of power. I don’t have to question if my libertarian friends are horrified, I know they are.

This is vile beyond my ability to express. This is government abuse of private information on a level that sickens me.

Whomever released this information should be fired at the least and possibly prosecuted for criminal violation of privacy rights. I’m no lawyer and I can’t say if a law has been broken but this most certainly disgusts me.

I really don’t have anything to add. Vile. Disgusting. Morally bankrupt. Evil.

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

Mt. McKinley or Denali?

Posted on by

mckinley-versus-denaliIt’s not exactly the most major news story in the world but the Department of the Interior just changed the official name of Mt. McKinley to Denali.

The mountain is the tallest in North America and to say it is majestic is not to give it full credit. There has been dispute over it’s name virtually ever since it was officially named Mt. McKinley. This was done by the United States government in 1917 to honor the recently assassinated President, William McKinley.

Before that it was largely known as “The Great One”  or “Big Mountain” in various languages. The word for this used by the natives in the region was Denali. Despite the official renaming of the mountain it has generally been called Denali by people in Alaska and starting in 1975 they asked the government to change the official name. This was steadfastly blocked by Ohio Congressman Ralph Regula. Regula retired in 2009. McKinley was from Canton, Ohio, which is in the home district of Regula, thus the unwillingness to make the change.

I’ve been to Denali National Park and I recommend to you without reservation that you should visit Alaska and the park at first opportunity. It is a magnificent state and park. You will see whales breaching, grizzly bears, the mountain itself, and much more.

But on to the question at hand. Did President Obama and the Department of the Interior do the right thing? Opinion, not surprisingly, seems divided along partisan lines. Why this is so baffles me but I no longer question the reality that some people will oppose an idea simply because of the person suggesting it rather than the nature of the idea itself. This sort of blind antipathy or support is foreign to me, something to which my mind cannot submit. To me an idea has merit or lacks the same simply based on facts, not the person presenting it.

What are the facts here?

The mountain was called Denali by the people who lived there at the time. The people who currently live there have continued to use that name all along. The name McKinley has no actual association with the mountain. President McKinley did not visit the mountain nor have any special attachment to it.

It’s an easy call for me. The name changing was long overdue and the appropriate action to take.

Was President Obama Right or Wrong to Change the Name to Denali?

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

55,000 Armored JLTVs for Thirty Billion Dollars

Posted on by

JLTV_TruckThe United States just began ordering a new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle from OshKosh Corporation in Wisconsin to replace existing HumVees.

They made the first purchase of 17,000 vehicles for $9 billion and are expected to eventually order 55,000 of them for a total cost of $30 billion. I have a big problem with this but bear with me before you get angry in the comments.

I have no problem with getting well-armored transport for our troops. I think our troops should be well-protected from the Improved Explosive Devices (IEDs) that are a trademark of the sort of conflict we are currently facing.

The price of $545,454.55 per vehicle, which certainly includes maintenance, seems rather high but that’s not my biggest problem with the purchase.

So what’s my issue? 55,000 of these things? I absolutely don’t mind getting enough of these for our troops to use while they are traversing enemy terrain in combat areas. That being said, there is no possible way we need that many of them for such circumstances. The vast majority of these vehicles will be used to transport soldiers back and forth right here in the United States and in other countries where there is virtually no danger of attack. That’s my problem. I don’t see how anyone can argue that we need 55,000 of these things.

There’s no reason we can’t use a lesser vehicle to transport troops in non-combat situations. $30 billion is a lot of money. It represents 5% of the 2011 total military budget. Now the new JLTV will be used over many years so this comparison isn’t completely valid, that being said, it’s a lot of taxpayer money.

If the people in charge of spending this money had any responsibility they would have ordered two vehicles. One for transport in safe areas and one for combat. There would be a much smaller number that were combat ready. Thirty years from now, the Humvee has been in service 31 years, we’ll be ready to replace these 55,000 vehicles with something new and I absolutely guarantee that a tiny percentages of those to be retired will have been used in combat dangerous situations. It’s a total disregard for taxpayer money. It’s largess to OshKosh. It’s nuts. It’s symptomatic of a government that just doesn’t care, that will do what is in their own interest, not what is in the interest of the nation.

Military folks, tell me where I’m wrong. I’m willing 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

$400 a Month Forever Student Loan

Posted on by

student-loansI went down to my corner bar the other night to watch my beloved St. Louis Cardinals play, eat a delicious burger, have a nice gin & tonic, and generally try to shake off my anti-social tendencies. The place was largely empty and I struck up a conversation with the young (and attractive) bartender. What I learned was disturbing. She’s been paying $400 a month to pay off her $35,000 student loan for seven years and she still owes $29,000.

What, what, what?

There’s a problem here. Let’s solve it.

The first step is to identify the problem. It turns out to be systemic and rather like the 2008 housing crisis that cost We The People billions of dollars.

Colleges are charging huge fees for tuition that are far above the value of the education. Banks are giving out loans to people who cannot afford to repay them in a timely fashion. Loans are structured in a predatory fashion to ensure people pay essentially forever. People are willing to take out ridiculous loans. People who should never go to college are going and incurring debt. Lots of blame to spread around.

The next question is to find out how this all came to be. The root cause is money, as is often the case. The federal government, banks issuing loans, and higher education facilities can make huge amounts of money from these loans. 2005 legislation, The Bankruptcy Reform Bill, included provisions that meant declaring bankruptcy did not absolve students of debt. This means that you can’t legally get out from under the debt, you owe forever.

So we understand the problem and its causation, what’s the solution?

I’m no Socialist. I don’t think making higher education free for all is a reasonable solution. It sounds good and it certainly has some appeal. The big problem, from my perspective, is that higher education costs will rise to take advantages of this government larder. Many students who have no business going to college will do so at a cost to the taxpayer.

I am a capitalist and I think loan institutions should make money on their loans. The loans are a good thing in that they provide young people a chance at a higher education when they otherwise could not afford such. They also make money for the banks. That’s good.

So where does that leave us?

The Higher Education Act of 1965 created something very useful called the Perkins Loan. It is more like a car or home loan as opposed to a never-ending credit card charge. It’s a ten year loan at a fixed 5% rate.

Let’s take my new bartender friend’s case. She has paid $400 a month for seven years. That’s $33,600 off a $35,000 loan. Add the annual 5% to the principal and she’s pretty much got the thing paid off. Another three years and she’d be done. However, she didn’t get a Perkins Loan. Seven years into it and she’s nowhere near paying it off and there is no end in sight.

The problem becomes how to limit student loans to just Perkins type structures. If a student agrees to pay a ridiculous loan is it the bank’s fault for offering it? If banks give out insane loans are higher education institutions wrong to raise the fees to absurd amounts? Can the government legally force banks and schools to be less predatory and make a reasonable profit while allowing students to get an education without mortgaging their future? Can we force students to be reasonable about their future and crush their often misguided dreams?

No easy answers here.

I do think predatory loan practices are essentially stealing. It’s more egregious than taking money from a person via direct criminal actions. Yes, people are foolish to willingly sign for a loan that will essentially keep them in debt forever but fraud is a crime. I see no issue with charging people with theft for loan conditions that are unmanageable. Put a few loan officers in jail for issuing such loans and I think the problem would largely be solved.

Yes, fewer students would get loans. Yes, higher education facilities would see drops in enrollment. Yes, lenders would take a hit to their profits.

The other option is sit idly by while really nice girls like my bartender are made slaves to debt. Oh, and destroy the economy with a huge student loan default.

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

Rise of the Demagogue – Lessons of Trump

Posted on by

trumpThe presidential campaign of Donald Trump is raising some ire across the country. Trump is an anti-establishment candidate for whom reality apparently has little or no meaning. I’m not going to talk about his policy statements, his personal insults against anyone who dares disagree with him, his rather naive view of how complex is the world, or anything along those lines. Today I’m going to talk about how Trump is merely a precursor to what is coming.

By and large there is a theme in contemporary media, be it mainstream or alternative. That theme is fear. The general message is that any political candidate, any voter, or any person who does not agree with the promulgator of the story is a danger. A threat to the nation. Someone who will destroy the United States. Any idea different than that being suggested will immediately or relatively quickly bring an end to your safety.

Your way of life is in danger. The other side is an active enemy out to destroy you. That’s the promulgation of fear and that’s the message.

What’s most interesting about this message is the motive of those that deliver it. By and large they fully understand they are saying things that are factually and demonstrably false. They know the threats they repeat endlessly are merely phantoms used to frighten people into voting for a particular candidate or legislation.

For the most part the people that are doing this know when to rein in the threats before stirring up so much fear that people react with violence.

What they don’t understand is that they are clearing the path for a demagogue.

Did President George W. Bush understand that his policy against Iraq would create ISIS?

Did President Eisenhower realize that by supporting the coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 that he was essentially creating the entire terrorist world that exists today?

Did President Reagan realize that by aiding Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo he was largely creating the Mexican drug trade?

They should have but they didn’t. We live with the results of their fear mongering.

What Trump represents is the inevitable result of state or mass-media sponsored fear-mongering. Those that use fear to spread their ideas are eventually usurped by those working the same tools but without the moral character to understand the dreadful consequences of their actions.

Those that created the environment of fear do not get to reap the rewards. They get put up against a wall by their misguided followers because, in the end, the original fear-mongers aren’t willing to go all the way. So they die horrible deaths.

Reason is the first casualty to the sword of fear.

Take note, Roger Ailes’s of the world. Take note. Trump is only a partially realized shadow of the kind of leader that is coming. You won’t be able to control that leader.

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

Kim Kardashian, Diclegis, and the FDA

Posted on by

kim-kardashian-diclegis-minThere’s an interesting story about government regulations making the rounds involving Kim Kardashian and a drug called Diclegis. At question is the fact that Kardashian is essentially a paid sponsor for Diclegis through her Tweets, Instagram photos, and Facebook posts.

This sort of sponsorship deal is not new. Companies pay celebrities to mention their product in apparently normal social media interactions.

What’s different in this case is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has laws about advertising products without mention side-effects and other drugs which are dangerous to take with the original drug. In this case Diclegis can often cause drowsiness and it should not be taken with alcohol or other sleep inducing medication. If people take Diclegis and then go out driving, they risk the lives of many other people.

Kardashian does not mention these side-effects or incompatible drugs in her various social media advertisements. The FDA now wants to fine her for these violations.

The FDA was created back in 1938 as knowledge of what was going into food and drugs became more well-known. There were any number of cases where people ingested lethal substances when they thought they were taking medicine or normal food. A particularly loathsome case involved the deaths of thirteen children here in my hometown of St. Louis traced to a tainted diphtheria anti-toxin.

The question for me is complex.

Does the government have constitutional authority to protect people from the food and drugs that manufacturers produce, advertise, and distribute? Clearly, yes. Congress has given them such authority and the constitution does not forbid it.

Does the government act in the people’s interests with such authority? Now it becomes tricky. Certainly the idea of the FDA is good. We want to protect people from toxicity in our food and drug supply. We want to protect people from unscrupulous manufacturers selling their snake-oil. We want to prevent people from taking Diclegis and then driving in their cars.

But do FDA regulations accomplish these things? I think the answer is largely, but not completely, no. We’ve all seen drug commercials that go through an endless litany of possible dreadful side-effects and warnings. Do these warnings prevent people from mixing drugs or driving cars while taking the drug?

We must be responsible for ourselves. We must investigate the drugs we are taking. We must listen to our trained physicians who are prescribing them. If we are not doing so, then that’s our fault. The FDA shouldn’t be able to tell Kardashian to tell all the side-effects of every drug she mentions as part of a paid advertisement.

That being said, I’m not totally opposed to the FDA. I do think they have a useful function in our country. I think the FDA can and should test drugs and food. They should post all the pertinent information on readily available websites for We the People to look at. Then, with the aide of our physicians, we can make informed decisions. If a drug kills people the government can and should arrest those responsible for its distribution. If a physician lies about side-effects to a patient to sell more of a drug then that physician should be prosecuted.

There will always be snake-oil salesmen (see Dr. Oz) who find ways around government regulations. We must always be responsible for ourselves. No amount of regulation will save us if we 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

How to Succeed in Business – The American Way

Posted on by

donald-trumpI’ve been watching the rise of Donald Trump as a viable political candidate with some interest of late and I just saw a sound blip that I thought was very telling.

At question was the fact that Trump led business endeavors have gone bankrupt four times. Trump correctly denied that he had ever gone bankrupt. He pointed out that virtually everyone you see in the business section has used Chapter 11 laws to their advantage and that only Trump is being singled out.

He’s right. I don’t say this to defend Trump. I say this to point out that the way to succeed in business in the United States is to start a company, pay yourself and your chosen friends a huge salary, take out as many loans as possible for as long as possible, and then declare bankruptcy leaving the banks to make up the lost capital by overcharging average citizens. This is our business model now.

If you are a small or medium sized business owner trying to provide a quality product at a reasonable price, trying to employ good people to enrich their lives, and trying to earn a good living; you’re headed for disaster. If you think pro-business Republican candidates are on your side, you’re living a lie. I’m not saying Democrats are any better but if you keep voting for Republicans you are voting against your interests.

There was a time when good business owners did stress making a great product or providing a good service. When employees were part of the team for life. When profit was nice but not the most important factor. Those days are gone.

Want to succeed in business? Give yourself and your friends a huge pay raise. Take out as many loans as possible. Drive your company into the ground. Declare bankruptcy.

Then what, you ask?

Do it again!

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

Advertising Foreign Policy – Iran Nuclear Deal

Posted on by

modern-advertising-methodsWhat has come of the United States of America when we have to spend millions of dollars advocating our foreign policy?

I don’t care if you are for or against the Iran Nuclear Joint Plan of Action. You can hate it. You can love it. You can think it will lead to a nuclear Iran or prevent a nuclear Iran. You can’t possibly think it is a good thing for the United States of America that special interest groups are spending tens of millions, likely eventually hundreds of millions of dollars, trying to influence public opinion to their cause.

They are doing this in the hopes that people will call and write their representatives in Congress and thus swing votes in one direction or the other. I have no doubt they will succeed in swaying people’s opinions. I have no doubt these people will contact their representatives and thus the vote of the men and women who decide foreign policy.

What do we call such an outcome? Democracy in action. To paraphrase Mr. Mackey, Democracy is bad, mkay. I explained exactly why this is case in a blog post back in February of 2012.

Does anyone seriously think it’s a good idea to have foreign policy decided by a popular vote? Have you seen who wins the popular vote for the best restaurant in town?

This is the future of our country. Fear based advertising dictating important policy decisions. Vote your conscious? Vote what you think is best for the country despite the political ramifications? Not a chance.

It doesn’t matter which side wins this debate, this is the new paradigm for all major political decisions in the United States. This is what you country has become. You’re welcome to it. Me, I thought out of control spending on election was horrible. This … I can’t even find the words.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Very Soon!

 

Fourth Degree Arson for Burning a Flag?

Posted on by

burning a flagA woman named Patricia Cameron organized a rally in which the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia was burned in a charcoal grill. She’s been given a summons for fourth degree arson. Welcome to the United States of police intimidation.

Here’s what happened:

In the aftermath of the Dylann Roof murders, Cameron went to a local park with a few friends, laid the flag on a pole in a barbecue pit, sprayed it with lighter fluid, lit it, and then another protester held onto it in the grill while it burned.

Here’s the crime she’s being charged with:

… a person who knowingly or recklessly starts or maintains a fire or causes an explosion, on his own property or that of another, and by so doing places another in danger of death or serious bodily injury or places any building or occupied structure of another in danger of damage.

It’s clear to me that Cameron started a fire but it’s also completely obvious to me that there was no danger to the structure or any bystander. They were cautious and careful in their protest. It is an area where barbecues are often held although this particular pavilion was not a barbecue pavilion. I’m sure much more dangerous fires, and by that I mean fires that are hardly dangerous at all, take place in that park every weekend.

The police then conducted a two week investigation of the incident and showed up at her door at midnight to give her the summons. Really? Midnight?

This is simply a case of police officials using their power to intimidate and harass citizens and waste tax-payer money.

Here is a video of the entire incident.

Manitou Springs Police spokeswoman Odette Saglimbeni said, “We’re just looking at the safety of anyone around there, and city property as well. Those flames got pretty big pretty quick.”

Those flames got pretty big, pretty quick? Wow. I’ve seen bigger flames at a fish fry. I can only guess the police in Manitou Springs don’t have to worry about real crimes, either that or they’re a bunch of jerks.

Tom Liberman

Parks Department Wants to Stop Selling Bottled Water – Lobbyist Convince Congress Otherwise

Posted on by

parks service water stationYet another example of who actually runs this country was in display when the National Parks Service found that the clean-up cost associated with plastic water bottles was eating up their budgets and the bottles themselves were becoming a fairly large trash problem.

Many of the parks in question decided to stop selling plastic water bottles and install watering stations where visitor can fill up their own containers. An elegant solution that solves the trash problem, the recycling problem, and also allows park visitors to keep hydrated at a significantly lower cost.

Apparently not. The lobbyist for  the bottled water industry have spent half a million dollars bribing … er … lobbying Congress to prevent the Parks Service from stopping sales of bottled water.

I want to be clear. The Parks Service is not banning bottled water if people want to bring their own. They are simply not selling it anymore. They are providing a cheaper and clearly better system. They will sell reusable containers for people to use at the water stations or simply allow people to use their own.

Congress is now in the process of preventing the Parks Service from implementing the change. The arguments they use are laughable. Basically that by not selling bottled water they are encouraging the drinking of soda which is unhealthy. That park patrons might die of dehydration because they can’t afford a reusable container as opposed to a bottled water. The reality is much more obvious. The bottled water companies have lucrative sales of their products at our National Parks. They don’t want to lose those sales to water stations.

This is the country in which we live. Congress members do not care about this country. They do not care about you. They simply care about who is going to pay for them to be elected so they can enjoy the graft associated with being a politician.

Representative Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania, where the bottled water industry is quite large, is leading the charge to prevent the Parks Service from making the change. Hmm, I wonder why?

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

El Chapo Guzman Escapes

Posted on by

El ChapoOne of the leaders of the Mexican drug trade, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, escaped from prison the other day.

Guzman’s story is so illustrative of why the United States should not be meddling in the affairs of foreign countries that I can’t pass it up without writing a blog, although I’ve done so before.

The entire Mexican drug trade exists largely because of President Ronald Reagan. Yep. You heard me right. I’m not some crazy, anti-Republican democrat. It’s the truth. There are some pretty important people in the United States who have no desire to extradite Guzman to the United States because of the stories he can tell. Stories about high level Reagan administration officials who are still alive and who still wield influence in our nation.

Guzman worked for a man named Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (who likewise has never been extradited despite the fact he ordered a DEA agent named Enrique Camarena tortured to death). Gallardo built the entire Mexican drug trade with not only the knowledge of the United States government but with their help. Why? Because he was funding the Contra revolutionary group that President Reagan wanted to use to oust the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Yep. I’m not making this stuff up. Do you remember Iran-Contra? That’s where Oliver North helped sell anti-aircraft missiles to Iran in order to get money to fund the Contras. There is considerable evidence to suggest that North was also working with Panamanian strong-man Manuel Noriega to directly bring cocaine into the United States via the CIA in order to use that money to … yes … fund the Contra.

What a sordid, sick, sad tale.

This is the result of our meddling. This is one of the legacies of President Reagan.

All because we wanted to influence the political situation in Nicaragua. When the Sandinista government came into power, President Carter didn’t like them but he agreed to allow their legally held elections to stand and refused to get involved. President Reagan reversed this policy when he came into power.

You may not like President Carter very much and you may love President Reagan. At least be aware of the realities of their policies. President Carter isn’t guiltless in the meddling game in that he continued our misguided attempts to influence the country of Iran. Those policies largely created the entire terrorist network that exists today. Yay for meddling!

We should stay out of the affairs of foreign countries even when we don’t like their policies. This meddling is directly responsible for both the rise of terrorism and the rise of the Mexican drug trade.

Oh and end the War on Drugs.

Tom Liberman

Democracy and Voting for the MLB All-Star Game

Posted on by

all-star ballotI just read a rather stupid article from Big League Stew about how the All-Star game balloting displayed a “Midwest Bias” because the Kansas City Royals and St. Louis Cardinal had four and two players voted in as starters.

The Cardinals and Royals have the two best records in baseball and you would expect them to have more starters on the All-Star team than anyone else although four is inordinately high and voting issues in Kansas City have been in the news for a while now. The idea of a Midwest Bias is rather laughable simply because the starters for the game are determined by a democratic vote. No one picks the teams and therefore the only bias is that of the ballot box. Larger fan bases usually generate more winners.

That being said I did want to examine the idea of how the All-Star game balloting has regrettable similarities to how we choose the men and women who will make up the government of the United States.

If one group of people, call them fans of a team or a Special Interest Group, manages to get more organized than another they can sweep the ballot away from those who vote more on the basis of their integrity. By grouping their power and voting as a bloc they overwhelm individual voters and skew the ballot toward their candidate.

The result of this is that other groups must likewise organize themselves into entrenched voting blocs in order to win. They can’t vote for deserving players and a sprinkling of their hometown heroes when fans in other cities are voting en mass for their team’s players. This splits the vote and the organized group then wins.

There is also the issue in that the All-Star balloting system usually ensures at least one or two formerly great players who are not having a particularly good season are voted in on their name recognition whereas lesser known players, only known to hometown fans, lose out.

The end result is that we often have players in the All-Star game who are clearly not deserving of their places while those who rightly should get a spot do not. This is one reason pitchers and reserves are exempt from the voting process. The managers of the teams pick their own players to fill these spots although this often leads to controversy as well. Managers sometimes overlook deserving players in order to place their own favorites on the team. That is a good example of bias, unlike the silly article.

What have we learned? Popular voting leads to undeserving candidates winning. Popular vote leads to divisive pack voting, which in order to win you must use an “all or nothing” strategy.

Welcome to how we choose our Congress and President. Of course in baseball, at least, there are thirty teams. In politics we largely only have two teams and they actively prevent anyone else from playing the game.

Is there a better way?

You tell me.

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