Category Archives: Politics

Paul Ryan and the Marathon – The Little Lie versus the Big Lie

Posted on by

Compulsive LiarThe recent lie by Congressman Paul Ryan about his marathon time sort of struck me in an unusual way. I’m pretty accustomed to politicians lying about their record, their accomplishments, who they slept or didn’t sleep with, and things of this nature but this ridiculous little lie really bothers me. Certainly President Obama, Mr. Romney, Vice President Biden, and Congressman Ryan have had Fact Checker reveal many of their falsehoods in virtually every speech they give.

President Clinton lied about having an affair which I can understand in a way. That’s an important thing when it comes to the wife and family. When running for office the politicians lie about their own records and their opponent’s record on a daily basis in order to sway votes. Certainly deplorable but with a relatively important goal in mind. But, to lie about the time it took  you to run a marathon? That seems … egregious. I know several runners and the best time they achieved in races are ingrained in their minds. They know them literally to the second.

To lie about a personal accomplishment that has no bearing on anything? I mean, really, what won’t a person who tells that whopper, lie about? Then to lie in such a completely unrealistic way? That seems like self-destruction to me. I want you to know that I’m a liar so I’ll lie really, really badly about something that is easily checked. Either that or he is a compulsive liar. I knew a pathological liar once. He was incapable of telling the truth, he believed his lies when they were easily and demonstrably refutable. He was a strange, strange bird. He lived in a weird sort of fantasy world. I would not vote for him. Frankly, I’d vote for his opponent in any election if he ever chose to run for office.

I wasn’t going to vote for Mr. Romney and Congressman Ryan in any case, go Gary Johnson.

I just have to say that I wouldn’t want Congressman Ryan as a friend. Someone that lies that easily about something so silly is not a person I’d trust in any situation.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Animal Torture in Iowa – The Government Moves to Help … Abusers

Posted on by

turkey abuseI was, once again, made aware of the sick depths to which government will bend to those who pay the election bills. It’s become a fairly regular occurrence for an Animal Rights Activist group to gain employment at animal husbandry facilities and then take videos of the vicious, vile, sickening torture of animals.

In Iowa the state legislature has responded with House File 589. This bill bans people from taking employment at factory farms under “false pretenses”. Thus, the people who get into the farm and film the vile, sickening, disgusting, horrific, inhuman torture of animal will be put in prison for gaining access under false pretenses. The people who do the abuse, the people who allow it to happen on their property, minimal punishment when they are found out.

I urge you to brace yourself and watch this video.

Butterball is horrified by this abuse and is taking action. Frankly, I’m skeptical. I’m disgusted. I’ve seen a number of these videos now and it kills a little part of my humanity every time.

The Iowa legislature is made up of 42 Democratic Representatives and 59 Republican. 26 Democratic Senators and 24 Republican. The Governor of Iowa, who signs the bills, is Republican Terry Branstad.

They will tell you, with a straight face, this bill is designed to keep vandals off the property of farms. That is a lie. It is designed to prevent animal rights groups from filming the horror of animal abuse. How these politicians look their children in the eye I do not know.

I beg you my Republican and Democrat friends to vote for independents. Vote for people who still have a conscience. Vote with your purchases. Buy your meat from local farmers who treat their animals with dignity.

Insist on legislation that puts 24-hour-a-day cameras on the farm workers. Web cameras are cheap and could easily be put into all factory farms at minimal cost. The video could stream live and activists could watch at no cost to the government. There would be many volunteers. I’d be willing to bet animal activists would install and maintain the cameras for free with no government intervention, no cost to the farms, and no cost to the taxpayers.

Please take a stand, we can’t let evil win.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Republican Convention Ron Paul Tribute – Without Ron Paul

Posted on by

Ron PaulI couldn’t let this one pass without comment. The Republicans are planning on having a Ron Paul tribute at their upcoming National Convention but would only allow Congressman Paul to speak if he agreed to have his speech vetted by the Romney campaign team and only if he fully endorsed Romney. Congressman Paul, of course, said no thanks.

A tribute to a man and he’s not allowed to speak? Seriously? Congressman Paul will be giving a speech nearby.

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign continues to do everything it can to keep properly appointed Paul delegates off the floor and away from the campaign. It is shocking hypocrisy but nothing I find unusual, sadly.

I only wish Paul, and his son Senator Rand Paul, would just leave the Republican Party once and for all and join the Libertarian Party. Their thinking, not wrongly, is of a practical aspect. They believe they can do more to influence the country from within the ranks of one of the two major parties than they can from outside of them. I think they’re wrong but it’s certainly their decision.

The two parties both are tied irrevocably to moneyed interests and have little to nothing in common with Libertarian ideals. Both parties try to talk about the principles of real men like Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy, of small, less intrusive government, of noble government, but both parties support massive, corrupt, and intrusive government in virtually all of their policies.

A Ron Paul tribute in which the honoree is only allowed to attend if he bows down and betrays his principles. That’s the current condition of the United States of America. What a shame. What a terrible, terrible shame.

Only you can change it. Don’t vote Democrat or Republican. Vote Independent.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

None of the Above – Nevada

Posted on by

None Of The AboveAn interesting case was just decided in Nevada about having “None of the Above” on the ballot. The basic premise is that in 1976 the people of the great state of Nevada decided that they would add “None of the Above” to the choices in addition to each candidate for every elected office. A fine idea if you ask me.

From a philosophical point of view the case seems relatively simple. The vote of “None of the Above” is a shout against the candidates put forward. From a legal point of view I must admit that I see merit to the judge’s ruling. If, by some chance, “None of the Above” wins the election, the law in Nevada voids it and the candidate with the next highest total wins. The judge suggested that in those circumstances if the election itself was voided and the position filled by appointment or new election then “None of the Above” would be constitutional.

It’s probably too late for this election but I hope the men and women of Nevada go ahead and change the “None of the Above” choice in the way suggested by the judge.

The reality of what I want to discuss is why “None of the Above” is an important decision opposed to not voting at all. The reality of not voting is currently an issue but simply hands the election to the minority who do vote. We see that today. When anyone wins a “mandate” from the people the reality is they had a relatively small percentage of the total possible votes while gaining a majority of those votes cast. Not voting is a bad choice. Voting for “None of the Above” meets with my approval.

My own voting habit is to cast my ballot for any independent candidate that happens to be on the ballot and write myself in when there is no such candidate. This is because I’m of the opinion that our two-party system is essentially a one party system and that party is moneyed interests. I detail this idea in posts here and here. The basic idea is that the only way we can expect politicians to pass legislation we desire is if they feel that is the only way they are going to get elected. As long as we elect only Democrats and only Republicans they will continue to bow to those who provide the campaign money.

“None of the Above” is a vote in that direction. If enough people start to vote for Independent candidates or “None of the Above” then change will eventually follow. If you like the direction this country is headed then please feel free to vote for you Democratic or Republican candidate, it makes only a slight difference. You are fooling yourself if you believe that if the other party wins the country is doomed. That’s the logic the two-party system advocates want to foist off on you. It keeps them in power together and eliminates any real chance of change.

One final note, the case in Nevada against “None of the Above” was financed and brought forward by the Republican party. Their thinking is that independent minded voters like myself are more inclined to vote for Republican candidates than Democratic ones. I can only speak for myself but … fat chance. Republicans are so far away from Libertarian ideals they are, in many ways, for bigger, and more intrusive government than Democrats.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Representative Todd Akin – Legitimate Rape

Posted on by

It’s all over the news so I probably don’t have to fill you in on the details but a candidate for U.S. Senate from my great state of Missouri made some controversial comments. I’m not going to spend time analyzing the statement itself but I do want to address the follow-up remarks. I want to examine the difference between misspeaking, forgetting a fact, lying, breaking a promise, misunderstanding, and saying what you meant to say. I think it’s a hugely important distinction that speaks directly to the character of the person making the explanation.

First the story. Representative Akin said that doctors have told him that women who are raped rarely become pregnant because their bodies naturally have “ways” of preventing the pregnancy. It’s all on video so you can judge yourself.

Now, the possibilities are that he misspoke, that he forgot some facts, that he lied, that he failed to keep a promise, that he misunderstood something said by someone else, or that he actually meant exactly what he said. Representative Akin now claims that he misspoke.

Misspeaking

When someone says something incorrectly, uses improper grammar, inserts the wrong word where they meant another, switches word order, these are examples of misspeaking. Some examples:

  1. President Obama visited 57 states when he meant 57 states and territories. He clearly does not think we have 57 states. He misspoke.
  2. President George W. Bush said “I’ve been in the Bible every day since I’ve been the president.” He meant that he read the Bible everyday. He misspoke.

Forget Facts or Lie

It’s easy to forget that something happened and when presented with such evidence suddenly remember. It can be difficult to differentiate between someone who claims to have forgotten and someone who lied. Some examples:

  1. Congressman Paul Ryan repeatedly said he never asked for stimulus money up until the day he was presented with letters he wrote asking for stimulus money. He is either a liar or legitimately forget he (or an assistant) wrote said letters.
  2. President Reagan could not recall authorizing Oliver North to trade shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to Iran in order to obtain money to fund the Contra revolution in Nicaragua.

Misunderstood

It’s possible for someone to tell you something but you either heard incorrectly or misunderstood the point they were trying to make. An example:

  1. I wrote earlier how many people think a woman raped in Islamic culture must provide four witnesses to the event but actually reading the wording of the Quran shows that the accusers must provide the four witnesses or he is deemed to have lied. I think most people just misread this passage.

Failed Promise

A failed promise is when you promise to do something, give it a realistic try, but fail.

  1. President Obama promised to close the Guantanamo prison and failed. It can be argued that he didn’t try hard enough but he certainly tried.
  2. An athlete who promises a sick child a particular sporting feat but is unable to accomplish the deed.

Spoke Truthfully

This is when a person says exactly what they meant to say.

It is particularly pertinent in this case because Congressman Akin did not misspeak. It is possible he lied or misunderstood when he claimed doctors told him that women have ways of terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape but his basic premise is exactly as he expressed it. He believes that women should not have abortions even if raped. He believes, wrongly, that women generally spontaneously miscarry from pregnancy caused by rape.

This is my problem. He now claims he misspoke. He didn’t. He said exactly what he meant to say. He was clear. However much I disagree with him, I would have actually respected it if he came out and affirmed his original position. He might have said I was misinformed about the spontaneous miscarriage but that doesn’t change my position. But, the one thing he didn’t do was misspeak. So, when he claims he misspoke he moves directly into the realm of lying.

Here is my advice. When you say something that is unpopular, that is wrong, that is a lie, admit it. Oops, I misunderstood some facts and reported them incorrectly. I meant to say this. I forgot about that incident. In my enthusiasm to get elected I said something that was false and I knew it even as I was saying it. I’m sorry.

For you Representative Akin, as a proud resident of the great state of Missouri, I say this: No vote for you.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Post Office Financial Woes

Posted on by

US Postal ServiceIt’s a little after the meaningless default but I wanted to talk today about the financial situation the U.S. Post Office finds itself in and, more importantly, the political dividing line that it has created.

Basically, the Post Office owes the Federal Government $5.5 billion and they are unable to pay it. What’s important to understand is that this is not money they owe to their employees for work, or money they owe contractors for building, repairing, and working on existing post offices. This is money they owe the federal government. That in itself should cause you to raise a few questions.

Why does the Post Office owe the federal government anything?

First lets examine what they do. They employ half a million people (including many veterans), deliver over 600 million pieces of mail to over 140 million places. They operate 31,000 post offices and over 218,000 vehicles. Suffice it to say that it’s a big operation. These operations are funded by stamps. People pay to have packages and letters delivered. The Post Office is not funded by the Federal Government or taxes collected by that entity.

Now, why does the Post Office owe the Federal Government? We have to put on our time travel hats back to the mid 1980’s in order to fully understand this situation. After the Carter presidency the United States was in a recession and the Reagan administration’s solution to this was stimulus. We spent money and this in turn raised our national debt from $800 billion to $2.4 trillion in eight years. This dramatic increase caused a great deal of concern, well-deserved I might add. In order to mask this precipitous increase the Federal Government instructed the Post Office to start to pre-pay their pension rather than deducting salary from worker’s checks.

As the debt rose the amount of pre-pay increased until it reached $115 million a week. This represents a 75 year in-advance pension payment. 75 years. That’s not a typo. The post office fully funds retirement for employees who won’t be born for 3 years, that is, if they work until they’re 72. All this to mask the true debt.

The pension payment was based on the growing employment of the Post Office and the growing U.S. population which seemed to go hand in hand. But then something important happened. Email.

The ever-increasing prevalence of email and instant messaging has reduced the Post Office’s workload, and revenue, by about 30%. They responded by eliminating many jobs and increasing productivity. Now, we have a collision here. The Post Office pays pension on an estimate of an ever-growing workforce while shrinking their actual workforce. So, as of now the Post Office has overpaid their ridiculous 75 year pension payments by $75 billion. So, not only is their pension payment insane to begin with but they’ve overpaid that madness by $75 billion and now they are going to default on a $5.5 billion payment to the entity that owes them at least $75 billion. How does that make any sense?

Meanwhile the leaders of the Post Office have repeatedly asked Congress for permission to close post offices and reduce delivery days only to be denied. They are denied for three reasons all of which should anger every small government, libertarian out there. The Post Offices are generally named after Congress members. The Post Offices serve as a place to reward loyalists with a job of Postmaster. And most insidiously, if the Post Office is forced to borrow money from the Treasury rather than work on a break even basis the banking industry makes huge amounts of money on interest on those loans. Yep. Greed, paying off those who finance the campaigns, corruption, graft, massive egos, you name it and it’s part of the problem.

Now, despite the loss in first class mail revenue the post office has offset this loss with increases in package delivery for small businesses engendered by internet shopping.

If the Post Office was allowed to close offices, reduce delivery days, had not been robbed of $100s of billions, and had not been forced to take out loans and pay them back with interest they would be more than solvent. They would likely be profitable. Even if they were not they would have a nest-egg to pay off their debt as they restructured.

My big question is why has the fiscal woes of the Post Office split the electorate with Democrats largely on the side of the Post Office and Republicans against it? It doesn’t make sense to me. The Post Office is not an example of big, wasteful government. It was explicitly authorized by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution of the United States. If it had just been allowed to do its job without Big Government interference it would be delivering mail to your house and making a profit all the time, or at least breaking even.

To me the demise of the Post Office should be a rallying cry to all Americans. It was interference from the federal level that ruined it, a Republican talking point, and it was a shining example of government working well to the benefit of all citizens, a Democratic talking point.

Now, it lies in ruins because of greed.

Don’t write your Congress person. Don’t protest at the mall. Don’t spout off to all your friends. Vote for someone who offers realistic solutions to the issue. That’s how we change things.

Tom Liberman

Space Exploration Man versus Robots

Posted on by

Space ExplorationOne of the major debates about space exploration is the idea of putting people in space versus the idea of focusing on robotic exploration. It’s an argument that brings out a lot of nerd rage and I aim to take it head-on today. I’m bracing for some backlash!

I’ll tell you my position up front and avoid any suspense. I’m not a proponent of manned exploration. I think money is better spent on robotic exploration.

Now let’s take a critical look at both types of exploration and their advantages and disadvantages. Oh, and for the politically correct crowd, when I reference manned versus unmanned I’m talking about people, men and women.

Manned Exploration

The biggest advantage of sending people into space involves their ability to react to an unknown situation in a way that a computer cannot, at least cannot yet. The argument runs that if something were to go wrong that people would be able to fix it on-the-fly as it were. My rational against this idea is that at the speed events are happening humans largely cannot react fast enough, the space shuttle disasters being examples of this. The counter-argument is Apollo 13 where men were able to find a solution to a problem and fix it. My argument against that would be that there never would have been a problem if men weren’t aboard Apollo 13 in the first place. The systems involved to transport people are more complex than those used to transport machines. Oxygen catches on fire. Robots don’t need oxygen.

The second big reason you hear to promote manned missions is that if we as a race are to eventually colonize the moon and Mars we must learn how to live in a deep-space environment. This is a reasonable argument but I think there is plenty of time to test those complications out after we send in the robots to explore and prepare the way for manned missions.

Unmanned Exploration

The advantages here are many. The cost of sending robots into space is far less than sending people. The complexity of sending robots is far less than for sending people. One of the major obstacles for sending people into space is that they must have food and water. The biggest job the shuttles to the Space Station have is sending up food and taking back waste. Believe it or not, human waste is a major problem in space.

Another huge advantage of sending robots is their durability. Rovers on the moon and Mars can operate for years in the open. While it is true men would be able to drive the rover far more quickly from place to place, they are heavily restricted by radiation concerns. Shielding is a major issue for a journey to Mars or an extended stay on the moon. Men must stay in shelters a great deal of the time and prolonged exposure to radiation is a major problem for which there are not really good solutions as of yet.

To my mind the entire International Space Station idea has been a terrible waste of time and resources for the United States and the world. It is locked in low earth orbit. The total cost of the ISS is calculated at $150 billion dollars which includes shuttle flights and components provided by other nations. For that $150 billion we’ve gotten exactly what? We’ve learned about how deep space affects the human body, something we don’t need to know if we only send robotic missions. I’m not sure what else we’ve learned? It’s a long article with many links and I’m sure a proponents of Manned Missions can fill me in!

Meanwhile our robotic exploration continues to provide actionable information about planetary bodies, meteors, the sun, and other useful things that will help us eventually exploit the solar system.

I’m not completely opposed to manned exploration, I just think our resources return much more value when spent on robotic exploration. Curiosity cost about $2.5 billion although operational costs will continue (at a far cheaper rate than the ISS) to rise. Opportunity continues to provide useful information eight years after it landed and the twin rovers (Spirit conked out) total cost to date is about $1 billion.

The manned moon missions, while certainly romantic, brought us back a bunch of rocks of little value. If we put people on Mars or establish a station on the moon what is our goal? Just to do it? That’s noble but I’m all about practical when it comes to spending my tax dollars. I’m a huge proponent of space exploration and I’d keep my support if manned missions to Mars continue apace, I’d just rather see all that money spent on robotic exploration. Robotic science is in its infancy and the ability of these tools to explore space, deep-sea, underground environments far exceeds those of men.

Don’t hesitate to tell me I’m an idiot in the comments!

Tom Liberman

Throwing my Vote Away

Posted on by

Throwing Vote AwayI was out and about being social last night which is unusual for me (thanks AU). While out I happened to be speaking with a pair of Republican leaning friends although the conversation would have been virtually the same with friends leaning towards Democratic candidates. I was told, once again, that I’m throwing away my vote when I cast it for Independents like Gary Johnson.

I’m not and I’ll tell you why.

The argument that I’m throwing away my vote goes pretty much like this. You’re (me) voting for someone who has no chance of winning and therefore your vote doesn’t really count.

First: all votes count as one vote regardless of who wins or loses. The winning vote doesn’t count more than the losing vote nor does the vote for a candidate who wins by a huge margin. They all count the same.

Second: I think that when I vote for Independent candidates I’m voting for the person I want to win, not the lesser of two evils.

Third:  If independent candidates start to get enough votes then they will eventually become viable candidates. If I simply vote for the lesser of the evils; evil wins and independents never gain a foothold.

Fourth (and most importantly): If you vote for President Obama or Governor Romney you are voting to destroy the United States of America. Yep. You heard me right. You are voting for a candidate who will tell you what you want to hear and continue to drive this once great country to ruin all the while.

So, don’t tell me I’m throwing my vote away because I choose to vote to return this country to glory while you choose to vote for its destruction.

I think I’ve made my point. Tell me if you agree or think I’m a pompous jerk in the comments!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release:The Hammer of Fire

Soda Tax – Good Idea?

Posted on by

Sin TaxAs the Federal government continues with their financial woes and bond rate manipulation costs state and municipality millions if not billions of dollars those entities are coming up with creative ways to tax. One of the most common and popular way to raise revenue is so-called “Sin Taxes“. One new idea coming to a city near you is to tax soda consumption.

I’m going to explore the idea of a Sin Tax and whether it is a reasonable way for municipalities to raise money for their operations. I don’t want to get too deeply into the idea of waste and government overspending but focus more on whether these taxes are useful.

The Wiki article details the proposed benefits of such taxes which include the revenue raised and the societal benefit of increased cost and the accompanying discouragement of sin. In this case the societal good is the weight loss that might be associated with reduced soda consumption and its attendant health benefits.

Sin Taxes have a long history in the United States with tobacco taxes being the most prominently known. For those of you, like me, who love history, you’ll be interested to know that Alexander Hamilton proposed the first tobacco tax back in 1794. The current federal tax is $1.01 per pack while state and even city taxes vary. In Missouri, my home state, the tax is $.17 per pack. It turns out this tax burden is far less than I was led to believe by tobacco companies and smokers in general although that is to be expected. Missouri’s tax is the lowest in the nation.

There is, in fact, a correlation between higher taxes and reduced consumption. So that part of the argument seems to be true. If the price point rises to a certain level then a segment of the population will stop using the product. However, at least one study indicate that smokers and obese people are actually less of a financial burden on the health-care system because they die much earlier than healthy people.

One of the main arguments against Sin Taxes, and proposed nationwide consumption taxation, is that they are regressive in nature. What is meant by this is that two people who smoke a pack a day are taxed equally but one is wealthy and the other poor. Thus the poor person is paying a far higher percentage of their total income. In essence the tax forces poor people to quit or bear a much higher percentage burden. This could be deemed discriminatory.

There is no doubt that companies push such tax hikes onto the consumer but that is really beside the point. Studies indicate that raising taxes on soda will generate revenue for cities and will drive down consumption. Whether that consumption rate decline will result in less obesity and medical expenses is in doubt. It is certainly the right of cities, states, and the federal government to tax.

As a Libertarian I think people should largely be allowed to make their own decisions and government shouldn’t be in the business of discouraging or encouraging personal lifestyle choices. Contrarily I also think that all people and businesses enjoy the benefits of government building and maintaining roads, bridges, sewer systems, schools, and utility infrastructure and should pay for that boon. Back to the other side, I think taxing “sin” sends a bad message. We don’t want you to do something but we’ll happily take your money for doing it.

It’s a tough question. Certainly they have the right to tax soda but is it a reasonable exercise of government power?

I have to come to the conclusion that it’s legal but I don’t like it. I like taxes to be directly related to a function of government. A gas tax should go directly to roads and bridges. A property tax should go to schools. An airline tax should go to airports and their employees. Cigarette and Soda taxes should go towards public health-care costs if they are deemed to be an expense. When all the tax dollars are mixed and mingled strange accounting starts to happen and it becomes a magnet for waste and theft. Just as a quick example; let’s imagine all the money taken for Social Security was put into safe, low-interest bearing accounts and doled out only to those who paid in. It would be fully funded and not only fiscally solvent but be running huge profits by now.

I think that is a better solution than taxing soda but it would require a large effort. An effort that is worthwhile in my opinion. Have taxes support the specific government function to which they are related. If soda costs money in health-care then the tax should be used for that purpose. I’m not convinced reducing soda consumption will reduce obesity and even if it did that such effect would lower health-care costs. Thus, I don’t think a soda tax is reasonable.

What do you think? Tell me in the comments.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Pay Congress Minimum Wage – Good Idea?

Posted on by

Congress Minimum WageOne of my prolific Facebook posting friends recently posted a photo declaring that US Congress members should be paid at minimum wage. My first thought was it was a rather idealistic but silly idea but then I decided, what the heck, I’ll take a rational, Randian Objectivist look at it.

My first goal was to find the actual savings in real dollars. There isn’t an exact savings because the number of hours in a year fluctuates depending on how many weekend days there are and leap years but the formula looks basically like this:

Current Pay: (530 * 174,000) + (4 * 193,4000) + (1 * 223,000) = $93.2 million.

The breakdown is 432 House Members and 98 Senators at regular pay, Majority and Minority leaders at 193,400 and Speaker of House at 223,000.

Minimum Wage Pay: ($7.25 * 2088 * 535) = $8.0 million.

The Breakdown is all 535 paid for 2088 hours of a work in a fairly average year at the federal minimum wage. States have different minimum but I went with federal.

Savings: 93.2 – 8 = $85.2 million.

As a percentage of the 2011 budget this is (85.2 million / 3.7 trillion) = .0023%

So, the actual savings, negligible, although I’m not one to completely discount $85 million even if it is .0023% of a larger total. It’s still $85 million!

Now, as to the practical aspects of the idea. First the perceived cons:

  1. Only wealthy people could run for Congress as living on that salary would be extremely difficult.
  2. It would open up Congress members to bribery as they needed the money.
  3. It isn’t any real savings to the federal budget.

The perceived benefits:

  1. Saves $85.2 million in real dollars.
  2. Would attract only those who wanted to serve rather than those in it for the money

The cons seem to outweigh the pros at first glance but I’m not so sure. No one can run for Congress without financial backing anymore and the perks of being a Congress member, in the form of benefits given by lobbyist, far outweigh their simple salary remuneration. Congress members are already are bribed by lobbyist in the way of campaign contributions so I don’t think lowering the salary stops who can run or their susceptibility to bribes in any appreciable fashion.

The Supreme Court has ruled that anyone can anonymously give any amount to a campaign. Congress members will, until that decision changes, be completely at the whim of special interests in order to get elected. Once elected they might go against their financial backers but eventually such strong-willed individuals would be weeded out of the electoral process because they would get no financial backing the next election. Only those willing to do the bidding of the highest bidder would get elected.

The illusion of financial independence is simply that, an illusion. Our Congress Members are bought and owned by those who pay the campaign bills.

Having looked at it from this perspective I’d have to say, yeah, pay them minimum wage and save a small fraction of the federal budget but in examining it I realized something very interesting although off-topic.

I have an idea!!

The original the House of Representatives was to have one representative for every 30,000 citizens (Native Americans didn’t count and only 3 out of every 5 slaves counted). This has gone up with the increased population so that now we have one representative for every 700,000 citizens. If we went back to the original proportions we would have a Congress of about 10,000 members (300 million total citizens / 30,000).

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, we do have 10,100 representatives (100 senators added). At minimum wage that is about $153 million in salary or an increase in $60 million from current expenses but …. they work from home! No staff. Each one represents a much smaller district and has less influence, huge decrease in the cost to get elected, and less individual power so that lobbyist must spread their money very differently. It might even be impossible for a lobbyist to bribe enough Congressmen to get legislation passed.

There would have to be some serious reorganization in regards to committees but with the speed of computers I don’t see this as impossible. Voting is easily done with computers. It makes it much harder to play the You Scratch My Back game. It makes representatives much more accountable to their districts.

It does leave the Senate as a beacon for bribery and misconduct but with their six-year election cycle they’ve always been a bit more independent.

I think it might actually work to remove corruption from the cycle and I’m convinced that the reduction in staffing, housing, travel, and the rest would end up saving more than $85 million!

Am I crazy? Could this work? Tell me in the comments.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Senator John McCain – The President He Could Have Been

Posted on by

John McCainThere was a wonderful article about Senator McCain today and I just can’t help a welling up of sadness in my heart. This was the John McCain who could have been President of the United States. A man who has dedicated his life to serving the United States of American. A man of conviction, a man of courage, a man of moral integrity. A man who would make the right decision even if it meant going against his political allies. A man who could have led this country back to the light.

Then, he decided he wanted to get elected and threw it all away. He sold his ethical outlook to collect money. He spat out vile lies and attacks to get votes. He picked a running mate not out of moral conviction but of political expediency.

This man, this senator, this warrior is an absolute bell-weather indicator of what is horribly wrong in the United States of America. He needed the religious vote so he turned against his own standards in an attempt to climb to the presidency. Governor George Bush and his hatchet man Karl Rove taught McCain that he couldn’t run on his moral conviction. They attacked his military record, they called him crazy, they used every dirty trick in the book and they won. McCain learned well that game. Meanwhile the country and the world loses.

Oh, the horror, the horror.

If you love your country, please, please, vote for men and women of conviction even if they tell you things you don’t like. If they go against their party standards and fight for what is right, vote for them! It’s not too late even in this election cycle. Look up Gary Johnson. But, more importantly, look at your district, your state senator, your local mayor, your county dog-catcher. Vote for the candidates that gives you realistic answers. Don’t vote for anyone who tells you that his opponent will destroy the country. Don’t vote for anyone who tells each new audience exactly what they want to hear.

Better yet, run yourself. School board, assembly-person, whatever. But don’t sell your convictions on any issues! Never give in to expediency. State your case, tell it plain, and if the voters want to bring change, you’ll win. If not, it’s hopeless and you sold your convictions for nothing.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Why Throwing Tomatoes at Hillary Clinton is Good (not why you think)

Posted on by

TomatoSecretary of State Clinton paid a visit to Egypt the other day and was greeted by protestors some of whom threw tomatoes and shoes at her caravan as she drove past. At issue was the United States supposed support for the Muslim Brotherhood during the recent Egyptian elections.

I’ve noticed that Clinton seems to engender a lot of anger, maybe you’ve noticed the same thing?

The main group protesting Clinton’s visit were minority Egyptians including Christians who make up about 1% of the population. They are justifiably concerned that the Muslim Brotherhood might try to impose religious Sharia Law on them after years of relative secularism under the previous regime.

Hosni Mubarak and his predecessor Anwar Sadat ruled Egypt through the military and brutally suppressing dissidents but largely, after the peace treaty of 1979 ended the Isreal-Egypt war, were allies of the United States and allowed religious freedom although the judicial system includes a number of Sharia elements.

I’m a little divergent from my main topic here but now I’ll get to the point. During previous regimes if a protestor was to throw tomatoes or shoes at one of the dictatorial officials there was every chance they would be arrested, tortured, and even murdered while in prison. That’s what dictators do when they have absolute power.

The fact that dissidents were allowed to protest, not even completely peacefully, without facing arrest and incarceration is a huge step in the right direction. Any freedom loving government not only must tolerate protest and voices against the current regime but they must embrace them! This is the essence of free society and the heart of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The First Amendment, among other things, guarantees that people can speak out against the government without fear of arrest (Freedom of Speech) and can assemble peacefully to protest said government without fear of prosecution (Right to Peaceably Assemble). That we see these principles in Egypt is a great sign although it certainly doesn’t guarantee anything in the future.

A representative republic is a messy form of government where people are allowed, I would say encouraged, to protest peacefully and speak out against the current government without resorting to violence. This ability means that voices of change are not suppressed, that real ideas enter the mix, and that people are not eventually incited to violent rebellion because they are legally prevented from expressing said ideas.

So, I say to the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed Morsy, well done. Good start. Keep it up! The Arab world is watching and you have the opportunity to lead it away from its current horrific violence and terrorist nature. Don’t be afraid of dissent. Embrace it! You can change the Arab world from one of violence and hate to one where people can go about their business, raise a family, hold a job, go to the beach, and otherwise lead their lives without trying to kill one another and their perceived enemies.

I would say to Americans as well, dissent is good. Disagree with President Obama, fine. Disagree with President Bush during a time of war or any other time, tell us about it. Anyone who says, “America, love it or leave it” doesn’t understand America.

I suggest, don’t throw things, don’t shout down opposition, express your grievances like a civilized adult, show respect for elected officials, but never stop disagreeing.

Tell me what you think in the comments!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Egyptian Elections

Posted on by

Egyptian ElectionThere are some interesting happenings in Egypt with the latest elections and I think it’s critically important to the United States and the world how we interpret and react to events.

I’ll take a quick look historical events so as to provide perspective but it would be a good idea to look at a few wiki articles including Arab Spring, the Shah of Iran, and Muslim Brotherhood.

The incredibly important dividing line is the emergence of Arab nations seeking freedom. Some people think that nations such as Egypt are turning the corner from oppressive, authoritarian rule towards representative republics. Others think they are simply swapping totalitarian regimes for theocracy of an even more oppressive nature and ones more likely to act with terror tactics towards the western world.

I think it’s a vitally important issue because the last time something like this happened the results were catastrophic for the Arab world and unpleasant for the western, democratic world. The last opportunity of this nature came during the Iranian Revolution of 1979. In that uprising students ousted the Shah of Iran and established a theocratic government in its place. They took U.S. citizens at the embassy hostage and an antagonistic relationship between Iran and the United States continues to this day. Much of the ill-will that Arabs feel towards the western world stems from this relationship although unquestionably the Israel-Palestine situation is a major factor as well.

Since then hundreds of thousands of Arabs have died in terrible violence, oppressive regimes have become worse, children have grown up in an environment where terrorizing your foe was the objective, and Americans and westerners have learned to view Muslims as terrorists and with good reason.

This is not a winning environment for anyone.

I think that refusing to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood’s election leads us down the same path we’ve already traveled. I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood holds dangerous religious tenants and that theocracy are a very bad form of government. That being said if we had supported Mubarak until the end, if we refuse to deal with Egypt, if we continue to fight then the situation can only escalate into worse violence. More people will die. Americans will be killed by terrorists, Arabs will be killed by Arabs and Westerners. Children in Arab countries will grow up dreaming not of owning a house but of strapping bombs to themselves so they can kill other people they don’t even know.

We must embrace any popular revolution that overthrows a dictator even if the ensuing government isn’t to our liking. Could it possibly have turned out worse if after the Iranian Revolution President Carter had said, “Well done. You were right. We should never have supported a brutal dictator because he was secular and allowed us access to his oil. We’re sorry. Welcome to the world of nations. We hope you choose freedom, religious freedom, representative government, but it’s your choice. If you need any help just let us know. We’re here.”

I don’t like the Muslim Brotherhood. I’m Jewish by heritage if Atheist by religion. I don’t like Sharia law. I think one of the absolutely most vital things for the world to realize its potential is for women to enjoy all the freedom that men do. I don’t like a lot about the Muslim Brotherhood but I do like that they stood up and threw out a totalitarian regime. Fewer regimes such is this are a good thing.

Let’s not make the same mistake again. Let’s at least make a different one and maybe it will turn out to be not a mistake at all. At least I hope so, for all our sakes.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

The History of Marriage

Posted on by

MarriageMarriage is in the news a bit lately and I’m going to end my blog vacation with a few posts that I hope will clear up the debate for those of you willing to look at it from a critical perspective. I’m going to start with the origins, history, and general purpose of marriage.

A good start is this article on Wikipedia but I’ll try to summarize.

Marriage has been around for as long as recorded history and certainly seems to date from a time before that. The largest single factor in the concept seems to be that single, sexually active women wreak havoc on society. Sorry ladies. Of course, it’s not really the single, sexually active women wreaking all that havoc; it’s the testosterone fueled monkey-men going bat poop crazy for all those single, sexually active women that causes the trouble. The competition this engenders often turns violent, thus marriage.

There are three main types of marriage throughout history; a single man and a single woman called monogamy, a single man and multiple women called Polygyny, and a single woman and multiple men called Polyandry.

Ancient Israel was a Polygynous society and there are a number of rules set forth in something called the Covenant Code as to how a man is supposed to treat his multiple wives particularly in regard to not mistreating older wives when newer, presumably younger, wives are added. Adultery by a wife, as in most ancient cultures, was a capital punishment.

In Greece and Rome marriage was more of a mutual agreement between two parties rather than a religious or civic ceremony. It wasn’t until around the 300 CE that the Christian clergy took a stronger interest in the concept as an event before god rather than a simple mutual agreement. The state remained uninvolved until around 1545 with the church recording marriages for those who desired records and the state being completely removed from the issue. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1563 that a marriage was not considered legal unless a priest had presided at the event.

In much of Asia and the Middle East marriage was largely an arranged event with Polygyny remaining the most common form until around the 20th century. In many countries it is still perfectly legal to have more than a single wife and the Mormon religion practiced polygyny, which they called Celestial Marriage, from 1830 until 1890. The banning came after a long battle with the U.S. Government which tried to eradicate the practice. When Utah next applied for statehood, in 1896, it was granted.

Biblically marriage is referenced in the Old Testament with Polygyny being the most common form mentioned. Jesus mentions marriage explicitly on several occasions referencing a man and a woman along with monogamy.

In the New Testament there are some restrictions against Polygyny in that particular people; Bishops, Deacons, and Elders must have only one wife. Other people are not instructed as to how many wives they may have and monogamy is never explicitly mentioned.

Biblically marriage seems to be promoted as a way to avoid the sin of sexual congress in an unmarried state. If you can’t maintain celibacy then marriage is required seems to be the message most often mentioned.

Anyway, that’s a quick history of marriage. Tomorrow I’m going to look at marriage from a Libertarian point of view and what I think would be an ideal arrangement.

Tell me what you think.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Teachers as Bullies

Posted on by

BullyThere was a heartbreaking story on Yahoo recently about teachers  as bullies. I don’t want to spend time talking about how awful the teachers are and express my moral outrage because it’s going to be difficult to find anyone who disagrees. Never accuse me of taking the easy path! What I do want to talk about is how it happens that people are hired for certain jobs.

This one is going to be difficult for my audience to swallow but sometimes people take jobs because it gives them a chance to act out on their sadistic nature. We like to think that people pick a career they enjoy but there are a number of self-loathing people out there who enjoy hurting others, this is how we get teachers as bullies. I know it seems strange to call them self-loathing but generally people who hate themselves are the ones who are most sadistic to others. An interesting idea but a topic for another day.

What I want to explore today is how to avoid getting sadists in positions where they can take advantage of their desire to hurt other people. I think most teachers, police officers, soldiers, boy scout leaders, animal husbandry employees, and others who work at jobs where there is power over other people or animals are in it because they want to help. But, there is a sizeable minority who take jobs like that simply to hurt others, to be teachers as bullies.

There are two hugely important factors in preventing sadists from getting into positions like this. The most important is management oversight. Anyone who manages positions like that needs to be constantly vigilant that people they hire might be sadistic. The second thing that must be done is careful evaluation of people who apply for such jobs. The police force and the army are well aware that sadists apply and screen for them. Finally, and this is an absolute must, people who use their position of power to abuse other people must be immediately punished or removed. If this behavior is allowed then it simply emboldens sadists and causes good people to leave.

This is something that seemed to be strategy of the George W. Bush administration. Abu Graib, Pat Tillman, Brownie. The first instinct was to cover-up the wrong-doing because it embarrassed the people in power. The cover-up just emboldens sadists to be more brazen in their actions and inhibits good people.

I have absolutely no doubt the teachers in the case that I mentioned at the top of this article were at some point reported by teachers whose sense of decency and love of children motivated them into action. I’m just as certain no action or minimal action was taken to avoid scandal and embarrassment. Thus good people were driven away and sadists thrived.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing.

Thank you Edmund Burke. Of course, he never said it. What he did say was this:

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

So, the next time you encounter sadistic behavior, even in mild form, step up and take action. Particularly if you are a supervisor. It’s hard to confront people sometimes but the consequences of allowing such behavior are too terrible to tolerate.

Tell me what you think.

Tom Liberman

Stupid in the News

Posted on by

young and stupidI find myself rolling my eyes yet again as people call each other stupid. It was pretty much the national sport of Democrats when Yale and Harvard business school graduate George W. Bush was president. Now, in a peevish reminder of how we behaved as children, is seems necessary for Republicans to refer to Columbia University and Magna Cum Laude Harvard Law School graduate Barack Obama in the same fashion.

I suppose I must have a different opinion of “stupid” than apparently everyone else in the United States. By the way, I dropped out of the University of Idaho. It seems reasonable to guess that perhaps I’m the stupid one and everyone else is right. But I know better, you idiots! 🙂

Today I’m going to examine the phenomenon of calling people stupid but all next week I’m going to try to define intelligence. It’s a tricky topic but worth an investigation. However, let’s move on to today’s topic: Why we call people stupid when they are objectively intelligent.

When we criticize someone’s intelligence we are basically suggesting that everything they say is likely to be false. It’s much easier to say someone is stupid than it is to examine their words and ideas. Politicians talk … a lot. And when you talk a lot there is inevitably some stupidity that is going to slip out. A lot of times the “stupidity” is merely jumbling word order or getting two facts confused with each other. Sometimes we speak before we’ve completely thought through an argument and say things that later prove inaccurate. It’s normal. We all do it.

However, sometimes we just say stupid things in the heat of the moment. It doesn’t mean we’re stupid, or the political candidate for the other side is stupid. It means we said something stupid. The more we talk, and again politicians talk a lot, the more likely it is that stupid things are going to slip out. Perhaps we need to establish some sort of ratio of stupidity to non-stupidity. I don’t know, I’ll talk about it more later in the week.

The point I’m trying to make here is to not believe that someone is stupid just because you disagree with them. Listen to what they have to say each time they speak and judge that idea on its merits, not on some preconceived notion of the intelligence of the speaker. This is particular true in politics. It is important because the members of both parties have good ideas but the “all or nothing” philosophy that seems to pervade the United States is unhelpful in actually solving issues. We, with our votes, send men and women to Washington D.C. with the sole goal of destroying the other party and without much thought to making the country better.

So, the next time your friend calls President Bush or President Obama stupid I want you to look them in the eye and say, “I actually think [Bush/Obama] is an intelligent man. I disagree with him [sometimes/frequently/usually] but that doesn’t make him stupid.”

It’s up to us voters to change this country and calling each other names didn’t work in 3rd grade and it’s not going to work now.

[polldaddy poll=6119010]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Trayvon Martin Case

Posted on by

White NoiseIn my quest for sensational stories that will generate thousands of blog hits which in turn will drive sales of my novels I now step into the arena of the Trayvon Martin death. Here is my take on it.

The police didn’t investigate diligently enough, community uproar ensued, case now being pursued. So, anyway, that’s done.

Seriously, that’s it. Who disagrees? No one. Yet the madness continues on the front page of every newspaper and in the outraged mouths of politicians, pundits, internet flame mongers, crack whores, meth heads, six legged calfs, a rock sitting by the Current River, and this disgusted Libertarian blogger.

Do we have nothing better to discuss? Is yelling nonsense at one another the new America’s Sport? What’s the story here? Everyone agrees. If, down the road, the police investigation is shoddy then further outrage can ensue. I’m guessing they are going to be very thorough this time. Just my wild take on it.

Now, let’s get onto what’s really happening here. I’m sure this will come as a surprise to you jaded listeners but there are some alternative agendas out there that have nothing to do with the parties involved in the shooting. Shocking, no?

Media outlets want to sell advertising, politicians want votes, flamers want to flame, blacks want a cause, whites want a cause, half-Peruvian want a cause, talking heads want to foam at the mouth in indignation, I want to vomit.

Here’s the lesson. Listen to the people with an agenda if you must but find out what their agenda is and take it into account. And, if you want to view some interesting media look at this, or this, or this, or this. Just maybe, if you, the public, the one in charge, clicks articles like that then the media outlets might focus on them, maybe the pundits would talk about them, maybe the politicians would think about them, maybe … oh forget it … someone won the lottery!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Did Al Gore Invent the Internet?

Posted on by

Al GoreThe answer is no as I wrote about yesterday. A government agency with the acronym DARPA invented the internet. DARPA is an amazing agency and a model for everyone to examine. However, today I want to talk about why Al Gore said he invented the internet and his role in the thing you are using right now.

We have to put on time travel caps to head back … back … back to the 1980’s. DARPA created the ability of one computer to “talk” to another and that idea was expanded on many fronts after 1975 until computers all over the world were communicating with one another but, much like the real world, everyone was using different languages. People who had different computer systems could only communicate with others who had the same system. This is where Gore comes into the picture.

The United States Congress at this time didn’t have many members who understood computers and their potential. One of the few exceptions was Gore who had been championing computers since the 1970’s and was described as an Atari Democrat. That’s my kind of guy! Bring on PONG!

Gore introduced legislation in 1986 called the Supercomputer Network Study Act and after hearing a lecture to congress by Leonard Kleinrock began to work on a piece of legislation that eventually came to be called the Gore Bill although was officially titled High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. This bill led to the creation of the National Information Infrastructure for which Gore coined the phrase Information Superhighway. Upon signing the bill President George H. W. Bush said it would help unlock the secrets of DNA, open up foreign markets to free trade, and a promise of cooperation between government, academia, and industry. Probably much hyperbole there but the fact that the internet has changed the world is indisputable. And the fact that this bill with its various funding arms paved the way for what we see today is also not in question.

Funding directly related to this bill helped a fellow named Marc Andreessen create the Mosaic Web browser. The first browser! Andreessen said, If it had been left to private industry, it wouldn’t have happened, at least, not until years later.

Two internet pioneers you’ve never heard of, Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, credit Gore. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President.

Now, as to what Gore actually said on that fateful day he claimed to invent the internet: I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

Not true. He didn’t create the internet nor take an initiative in doing so. I spoke about all that yesterday. However, what he did do was extraordinarily important and the fact that you are reading this today on whatever computer system you have is thanks in at least some small part to Gore. So, love him or hate him, we can’t deny his important influence in bringing together this thing we call the internet.

Hats off to Al Gore!

Another lesson to learn is that sometimes public speakers don’t convey the idea they mean with the utmost clarity and taking their exact words to task to try to paint them in a negative light is something we see all too often. So, the next time a political pundit or politician attacks a rival for an exact quote, take the time to find out what was actually meant. It’s called critical thinking.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Black and White

Psychology Sunday – Splitting

Posted on by

Black and WhiteToday I’m going to talk about the psychological phenemonon called Splitting. It seems innocuous enough verbally but it’s a huge problem particularly seen in people’s voting rational. It is defined generally as the splitting of mental concepts (or black and white thinking). This sort of thinking has, in my opinion, caused the country to become driven into two different camps when in actuality most people are nearer the center of political ideology.

It is encouraged by the two viable parties, Democrats and Republicans, because it assures that if one doesn’t win the election the other will and this keeps out those who threaten their dominance of power. It is also encouraged by yellow journalists in their endless pursuit of ratings which, naturally, is a product of our viewing habits. I’ll probably talk about how we drive the media and not the other way around in a future blog.

Splitting is a dangerous way to think in many ways. It occurs not only in the political spectrum where you are inclined to believe a candidate not because of what they say but because of what party they are affiliated with but also in personal relationships when you attribute a person with particular virtues or vices. A person lies to you once so they are forever a liar or a person tells the truth once and so you believe everything they say. This is a natural phenomenon to some degree but it should be tested constantly. You should try to critically analyze each event in your life so as to properly judge it.

Splitting was first described by Pierre Janet and later analyzed by Sigmund Freud and his daughter Anna. However, in the sense that I am using here today we have Melanie Klein to thank. She argues this comes from when we are babies and there are good things and bad things and this mode of thinking haunts us into adult life.

Otto Kemberg argues that the ability to overcome splitting is one of the important developmental tasks of children. This ability to view the world in more complex shades is important for our overall development as adults. Generally things are complex and when we view them as simply good and bad we are acting like babies. This is the view that politicians would like us to have. They don’t want us to examine their propositions closely. They sieze upon relatively innocuous statements and turn them into full blown splitting insanity. President Obama says 57 states instead of 57 elections and he must be a moron. Newt Gingrinch mentions moon bases and he must be a lunatic. A political ally of Mitt Romney says Etch-a-Sketch and that means Romney will totally change everything he believes in after the primaries.

This sort of thinking leads us to vote for politicians who are uninterested in deep thought and real solutions. Simple splitting is the act of babies. Babies. Grow up and examine situations with an adult, critical mindset and we will get politicians who cater to that mindset. Keep thinking like babies and we’ll keep getting politicians who think the same way. And the country will suffer.

Tell me what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Bad Apple

Posted on by

Bad AppleWhile reading the news I recently came across a story about how hugging is now illegal in a New Jersey School. Naturally the original story sensationalized the situation and a better explanation came forth. Still, it got me thinking about why the rule was created and how it reflect the United States’ plunge into fear. Likely a pair of middle school students were behaving in some sexual manner and this rule resulted out of fear.

This seems to me to be the root of the issue. The fear of a bad apple causing us to throw out the entire barrel. Not that raging hormonal twelve-year olds is something that should shock us but I’ll talk about this strange puritan-like fantasy we seem to have constructed in our minds when it comes to children another time.

This all comes down to fear and whether we let it rule our lives. I’m of the opinion that the U.S. has gone from a daring nation filled with courageous people to a nation cringing in the shadows afraid that something will go wrong. Not to say there aren’t heroes out there who are starting new businesses, taking chances, defending our streets and our nation, but I think on the whole we’ve taken a turn to the craven.

Maybe this transition from bold to fearful is at the heart of the descent of all-powerful nations. A nation with more to lose, more security, is one that would tend towards caution whereas the young nation with little to lose acts boldly. Or at least the people of that nation do so.

Fear is a tactic used by politicians in many circumstances:

“The people don’t want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” – Herman Goering

“obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue” – The War on Terror phrase

The Daisy advertisement was used by a seasoned fear monger, Lyndon Johnson, against Barry Goldwater. It worked.

But, it’s not just politics, we see this is advertising multiple times a day.

Drunk DrivingAnti-drug adClimate Change

Much of the religious fervor we see is based on fear.

Here we have Jesus Camp and here we have Terrorist indoctrination.

Parents are told danger lurks at every corner. We see glaring statistics like 2,000 children kidnapped a day! Horrifying at first glance, hide your children. Except that the vast majority are “kidnapped” by a relative in a domestic dispute and returned within a week.

I could go on endlessly how people with agendas use fear to control us but now I want to get to the solution.

Fear is real, there are things to fear, and you should modify your behavior to this danger. However, you should analyze the motives of the person trying to scare you and absolutely go out and find if the things they are saying are true. For example, the ads I’ve posted above. Drunk drivers do kill people, drug addicts do turn to prostitution, climate change … well, it’s not going to turn you into a fish! However, is the solution to never drive again? Create a ridiculous, failed, expensive, “War on Drugs”? Reduce your carbon footprint by hiding in your house?

How about you pay attention when driving, particularly on weekend evenings? Look into the arguments for legalizing drugs? Switch to efficient lightbulbs and dryers?

Don’t let fear rule your life but don’t ignore it. Particularly pay attention to a politician who tells you that the sky will fall if their opponent is elected. The next time you have a political debate and your counterpart tries to frighten you; look them in the eye and say, “I won’t be scared.” Teach your children the same. If your twelve-year-old child is touched inappropriately don’t tell him or her to stop hugging, tell him or her to scream at the person who did it and if it happens again report it.

If we continue down this path of fear we will eventually find ourselves as a bunker of a nation peering out over the edge unable to act or live. We cannot trade freedom for safety because the result is neither.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety – Benjamin Franklin.

Comment away!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist