Category Archives: Society

Women’s Ballon d’Or given to Aitana Bonmati by Novak Djokovic

Posted on by

There’s a bit of a to-do regarding the awarding of the Ballon d’Or Femenin to Aitana Bonmati. Why, you ask? Because the award was presented by Novak Djokovic. What’s the problem, you ask?

It’s an interesting situation and reading comments on the story I’m reminded of the reverse standards many people have these days. It’s not really a matter of right or wrong, it’s a matter of who is complaining. If the person I agree with is aggrieved, they are right and vice-versa. Let’s get into it.

2023 Ballon d’Or

The ceremony involves passing out awards to the best and brightest in futbol, or soccer as we know it here in the United States. There are eight awards presented during the ceremony. The Ballon d’Or and the Ballon d’Or Femenin for the player of the year both men and women.

Additional awards are the Kopa for the best-performing player under 21, the Yashin for the best-performing goal-keeper, Gerd-Muller for best striker, the Socrates for most humanitarian player, and the Men’s and Women’s Club of the year trophies.

Interesting Sidenotes

I find it relatively interesting that the Kopa, Yashin, and Gerd-Muller awards do not have female equivalents. I wrote an article about gender neutral awards back in 2017 and it’s a subject of interest although I’m not going to spend much time on it today. I do think they should either include a female award or consider female candidates for the existing awards. No women were nominated for the Kopa and Yashin and the Gerd-Muller does not even consider them eligible.

The Main Issue with this Year’s Ballon d’Or

The issue people have with this year’s ceremony is the choice of Novak Djokovic, a non-futbol player and a man, to give out the Feminin Ballon d’Or.

Those on one side of the issue consider this a deliberate affront while those on the other side don’t see a problem with it. I’m in between, as usual. I doubt the award’s committee even considered the question very much and didn’t make the decision as a deliberate insult.

That being said, it is insulting. In what other award’s ceremony is the person handing out the most important trophy someone who has nothing to do with the industry in question? Certainly David Beckham, who gave out the Ballon d’Or to Lionel Messi this year is a celebrity on the order of Djokovic but he’s a futbol player.

Unprepared Djokovic

Adding insult to injury is the fact that after reading Bonmati’s name as the winner, Djokovic simply walked to the side and allowed her to accept the award without handing it to her. That’s on Djokovic, not the committee. He’s a disciplined and dedicated athlete who takes his profession seriously. If he’s going to be giving out an award, he should know enough to hand it to the recipient. It’s common courtesy.

Conclusion

I don’t think this is an enormous issue nor do I think the feminists of the world need to organize protests and call for boycotts. I do think the committee of the Ballon d’Or needs to rethink their policies and an apology is not out of line. Next year I’d like to see a change.

Tom Liberman

Iranian Women Chess players and Subtle Misogyny

Posted on by
Iranian Women Chess players

A subtle version of misogyny is on display in news stories about Iranian Women chess players. I’ve written about the subtleties of racism previously and today I take on a similar topic. Just because something is misogynistic doesn’t mean it’s obvious or even an intentional act.

Let’s examine stories making the rounds about Iranian women chess players. Basically, Iranian women are required to wear a hijab. Recent protests in that country brought attention to the practice and a pair of Iranian women, Sara Khadem and Atousa Pourkashiyan are playing the World Rapid and Blitz championship not wearing hijabs.

What’s the subtle misogyny in that? Let me explain.

What is Misogyny

I think the first thing to understand is the idea of misogyny. The dictionary defines it as dislike of, contempt, or ingrained prejudice against women. When we see a definition like this we think of open misogyny. Someone going around telling people that women are not deserving of human rights, they are weak, stupid, worthless.

The reality is that misogyny comes in many flavors and is not always obvious. That’s where such things are insidious. We look at behavior that, at first glance, appears perfectly normal, and accept it as such. Even when it’s actually not quite so harmless.

The Case of the Iranian Women Chess Players

If you look at the picture I’ve included at the top of this article, you’ll see of the players in question. Khadem on the left and Pourkashiyan on the right. Can you guess what image the articles in question are displaying? Both women? Khadem? Pourkashiyan? I don’t even really need to ask. You know the answer already. That’s my point.

In fact, when I first read about this story, the only name I saw was Khadem. They didn’t even bother to include the fact that Pourkashiyan also chose not to wear a hijab. It was only today I realized there were two women involved in the protest, if that word can be used.

Attractive Women are more Valuable

What’s the subtle message from the fact that Khadem’s picture is plastered all over the articles and Pourkashiyan’s is not? Prettier is better. A woman’s worth is in her beauty.

It’s a little more complicated than that. The picture of an attractive woman brings more clicks to the story. The agencies publishing such articles want clicks, therefore they choose to put up the picture of Khadem.

That being said, if we boil it down to its essence, the misogyny is there. It’s subtle, it’s not easy to see. Not virulent. Not overly damaging. A shrug of the shoulders type of misogyny, still, it’s there.

If you were the brother of Pourkashiyan, what would you say?

Conclusion

Little things add up in the mind of those prone to thinking this way. The path to misogyny, and most prejudices and hatreds, is not always obvious.

It’s not always easy to be a better person and sometimes we don’t even realize what we’re doing is wrong. In this case, it’s wrong not to include pictures of both women. It is misogyny, ever so subtle.

Tom Liberman

Teacher Sex with not Student

Posted on by
Teacher Sex at William Hulme school

I just read about an interesting teacher sex case involving a not student. It touches on a lot of issues that I find important as a Libertarian. Normally these teacher sex cases are fairly straight forward. The teacher, in a position of trust, has sexual relations with an underage student. Pretty easy to see the problem there. That’s not the case this time.

In this situation the student is not a student at all but a former student and past the age of consent. The William Hulme Grammar school teaches children all the way from the beginning of schooling to the age of eighteen.

The Teacher Sex Case

The student in question left the school at some point before the sexual relationship began. That being said, it is indicated the teacher and student had a close, but non-sexual, relationship while the student was enrolled.

After the student left the school, the two stayed in contact and went out to local pubs on occasion. Eventually they spent an evening together at a hotel although the teacher in question denies any sexual relationship. The student indicates that she or he, no name is given, spent the night in the hotel and the two had sex twice.

The administrators at the William Hulme school decided this was unprofessional behavior by the teacher, despite the other party being of legal age and not being enrolled at the school, and fired the teacher. The Teaching Regulation Agency suspended the teacher who is now barred from teaching for five years but can then appeal the decision.

What does this Libertarian Think?

I’m pretty much in total agreement with all events. I’m certain the teacher did nothing legally wrong and the fact criminal charges were never filed in this teacher sex scandal is correct. The young person was of legal age when the alleged sex occurred and not a student.

That being said, the circumstances of the case bring the teacher’s judgment into question. The idea of grooming is real and dangerous. I think the regulatory agency within their rights to suspend the teacher and I think the William Hulme school had every right to fire him.

Conclusion

That being said, I do think there are plenty of situations when a teacher can have sex with a former student without repercussions. Imagine a teacher who has a favorite student, sends that student off to higher education, ten years later the student returns and the two begin an adult, mutually consensual relationship. I don’t think the school, the regulatory body, or the law has any right to argue they know better than the two adults.

That’s one of the reasons I’m largely against zero-tolerance rules. It’s important to take in the totality of the particular situation before passing judgement.

Look at the circumstances of the situation, assess them as is best possible, come to the most equitable solution. That’s all we can ever do.

Tom Liberman

White Boy does not know about Rap Snacks

Posted on by
Rap Snacks

Today I recount an interesting interaction centered around a bag of what looked to be delicious Rap Snack Salt and Vinegar Chips. I’ve written about my life of White Privilege and about the Social Divide between black and white people in the United States. Today I write about that divide in regards to snacks.

Snacks you ask? Yes, snacks. After today’s encounter, which I will detail below, I begin to wonder how many delicious snacks I’ve been missing out on.

Rap Snacks at the Hospital

I was waiting for my mother to get her blood drawn and overheard a nearby technician waxing poetic about her Salt and Vinegar chips. Now, readers, let me be clear. I love me some Salt and Vinegar chips. So, when I heard a fellow devotee of the delightful treat gushing, I interjected myself into the conversation.

We spoke for a few moments about our shared delight of Salt and Vinegar before I asked her about the brand. I did not recognize the branding on the bag as I normally get Kettle Salt and Vinegar Chips. She paused for a moment, looked at her fellow technicians, and then finally told me about Rap Snacks.

Let’s Talk about the Pause

Why did my fellow Salt and Vinegar chip enthusiast pause? I suspect it was because she was a black woman and I am a white man. She knew, or at least strongly suspected, I never heard of Rap Snacks and likely the stores I frequent won’t carry it.

What’s important to understand is she’s right, if that was indeed her thought process. Until that moment I never knew anything about Rap Snacks and I feel fairly confident they will not be on the shelves of my grocery store.

If you take a look at the image I’m using with this blog post, you’ll probably understand why I’ve never hard of Rap Snacks despite my love of all things Salt and Vinegar. I’m not exactly in the market demographic for Rap Snacks.

Expanding my Horizons

It’s a shame I’m not a targeted audience for the chips because if so, I’d almost certainly have purchased a bag. Will they be better than my normal Kettle Brand? Worse? Equal? I’m not sure one way or the other but I do know that I’m the worse for not knowing they were an option.

Now that I do know, I will go out of my way and purchase a bag. I’ll likely get them from Amazon or Target although I’m sorely tempted to drive the short distance to a store outside of my normal shopping range and purchase them there.

I wonder how much else I miss out on in life because of marketing biases. I’ll keep you informed when I manage to get my hands on a bag.

Happy Snacking!

Tom Liberman

Hard Work without Reciprocity at Twitter

Posted on by
Reciprocity

The fallout from the Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter is all over the news and a story about Musk demanding hardcore work from his employees brought to my mind the concept of reciprocity.

The idea of reciprocity is fairly simple. If you do me a favor, I feel an obligation to return that favor. It’s sort of like a personal version of the Social Contract I wrote about a while back. In this case, Musk is asking his employees to work considerably harder, whatever that means, in order to save the company.

The Reactions

While reading comments, I found that reactions largely come in two flavors. The majority of people argue hard work is expected and if the employees don’t like it, tough. Get out. On the other hand, some argue that overworking your employees is not a recipe for a successful company.

Does Musk ask for Reciprocity without Giving it?

My thoughts are probably closer to the second group but my real problem with Musk’s ultimatum is simply the expectation of reciprocity. I’m of the opinion Musk has a long record of working his employees hard and taking more than the lion’s share of the profits for himself.

He fired nearly four thousand Twitter employees largely without bothering to even look at the work they do. He fired people without notice. He implemented policies that ended doing far more harm than good.

I see no evidence Musk will reward hard-working employees who work enormous hours of overtime. If, by some miracle, Twitter begins to turn a profit, Musk will take most of the money for himself.

Working Hard with Reciprocity

Don’t get me wrong. If you work for a struggling company and have confidence the owner will work with you, reward you for your efforts, pay you when profits return; I’m all for working extra hard. If you don’t believe your boss will do so, all you’re doing is giving the boss your money. Your time is money, your money, not the boss’s money. Yours. A boss who tells you that you must work extra hours without pay and doesn’t plan on giving you a reward at the end of the day is stealing from you.

Working Hard without Reciprocity

It’s hard for me to imagine anyone thinking Musk is the sort of person who gives reciprocity. He threatened the same work hard or go bankrupt scenario with SpaceX not long ago. He ran SolarCity into bankruptcy. The much-famed Hyperloop is now abandoned along with all the people who poured their hard work into it.

The Boring company is a mess. The Gigafactory in Germany is largely unable to start because of water issues of which he was warned, long in advance. I could go on.

Conclusion

I am not telling Twitter employees how to react to this offer. That’s their business. If they believe Musk will eventually reward them for working long hours, if they think said work can somehow save Twitter, have at it. They have families, obligations, quitting is not an easy thing to do.

I’m just saying, if you give something, the other party isn’t obligated to reciprocity. In this case, I wouldn’t expect it.

Tom Liberman

Kitchen Set for Young Boy Causes Controversy

Posted on by
Kitchen Set

An interesting story in the news involves an uncle giving his nephew a fancy kitchen set for his birthday. Apparently, the parents of the lad are quite upset with the gift. They think it’s inappropriate for a boy to get a kitchen set as a present.

Now, we do have to take Reddit posts with a grain of salt. It’s quite possible the person making the post is just trying to stir up trouble. Still, I think it’s a situation worth examining from a Libertarian point of view. Let’s go!

Parental Rights

For a Libertarian it comes down to Parental Rights. There’s a lot in the news about Parental Rights and, as usual, there is no consistency in the established parties. When it comes to math questions it seems the Republicans are all about Parental Rights and Democrats are against them. When it comes to certain medical procedures then it’s completely reversed. Republican’s think the state knows better for the child than the parents while Democrats think, rightly so, the parents must be the ones in charge of such decisions.

Now, in this case, it’s pretty simple from a Libertarian perspective. The parents have every right to restrict the type of gift their child receives. If they think a kitchen set is an inappropriate gift then they can inform the uncle to please gift toy soldiers to the lad in the future. Save the kitchen set for daughters, if there ever are any.

Boys Cook

Everyone is up in arms because the chef industry is dominated by men. The article states almost 75% of all professional chefs are men. It’s a good job and I’m quite proud and happy to say my nephew owns and operates a restaurant. You go, James!

The fact the parents don’t want their son to play with a kitchen set makes the parents morons. This is factually true and I agree wholeheartedly, they are idiots. The uncle is absolutely in the right in giving the gift as long as he didn’t know about the parents’ preferences. It’s a great gift for a young man or woman. I like to eat. I love good food. The more chefs in the world the better. You go, uncle!

Idiot Parents are Still Parents

The parents are living a delusional lie and trying to limit their son. Horrific. I hope the boy overcomes their miserable stereotypes and gender biases and becomes whatever he wants to be, a chef if that’s his passion. Perhaps the uncle can give him an example by cooking a delightful meal whenever the family visits. Make a point of being in the kitchen and creating great food for everyone to enjoy.

That being said, the parents are the parents. They have every right to raise their child the way they see fit, barring something illegal. It’s not illegal to deny your male child a kitchen set, just stupid.

Conclusion

Much as we’d like to everyone to agree with us, be it a math problem or a medical procedure, sometimes parents are stupid. Sometimes people are stupid. It’s not up to the government to fix stupidity. Freedom is all about allowing people to do as they want, within reasonable boundaries including not causing harm. Even if such behavior is self-destructive or incredibly stupid. Even if such behavior negatively affects a child, sad to say.

Tom Liberman

Sheriff Hickman and the Blacks

Posted on by
Sheriff Hickman

I just read a fascinating article about Sheriff Rick Hickman and his response to an emergency call in the neighborhood of Des Arc, Arkansas. Sheriff Hickman responded to the call by asking where the triple-shooting took place. When informed it was a particular apartment complex he responded, “Oh really, black people then.”

The upshot of the response is Sheriff Hickman is being called a racist. Sheriff Hickman claims the apartment in question is largely occupied by black people so his response was not racist, but natural. Now, it turns out the attacker and victims are all white but that is not relevant to the point I’d like to analyze today.

Is Sheriff Hickman a racist?

The Event and Aftermath

The event itself is a horrific example of the gun violence rampant across all sections of the United States, urban and rural, white and black. Three people died in the shooting. It’s horrible and my sympathies to all those who lost loved ones and those who respond to such events and see the horrors.

Sheriff Hickman and his Other Comments

Sheriff Hickman, now accused of being a racist, was asked if he ever used racial slurs before. He responded that he does not use the most egregious racist word often but has in the past and a lot of people around him do. He also thought his response when told about the location of the shooting was natural and not of racist implication. Black people live in that area so that’s what he assumed.

My Analysis

The case seems pretty open and shut but I think there is a great deal more nuance than people who view the world in simplistic, good and evil, terms will admit. Now, I don’t know Sheriff Hickman at all besides his few quotes so I’m merely stating an opinion here.

I found the response to the question of his own usage of racial slurs to be refreshingly honest. In this day and age where the standard law enforcement line generally includes something like: that sort of attitude has no place in our department. We never put up with it. I’ve never known a racist law enforcement officers. Blah blah blah blah blah. Bullshit.

I’ve lived in small towns. I know all about sheriffs, both good and bad. Fire marshals, both good and bad. Good old boys, both good and bad. The fact that Sheriff Hickman answered honestly about his own use of racial slurs when his brethren officers consistently lie in similar situations makes me like the man. It makes me think he’s one of the good guys.

I think if I sat down with Sheriff Hickman and asked: what do you think you’d say if the shootings took place in a predominantly white area? Would you have said, “Oh really, white people then.”? I suspect Sheriff Hickman might pause, look at me, thought about it, and replied, “You know what, Tom. You’re right. I wouldn’t have said that. Maybe I do have some unconscious racial biases and it affects the way I do my job and the way underlings look to my lead. I need to do something about that.”

Now, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he wouldn’t reply that way. Maybe he’d remain in continual denial about a problem that isn’t just overt racism, hatred of all black people. It’s subtle, it has nuance, and it causes problems in many ways, both small and large.

Conclusion

I think it’s important to have conversations with men like Sheriff Hickman. Difficult conversations where I understand his point of view and he understands mine. I think that’s the way forward. This rush to judgement, to cancellation or whatever you want to call it, just widens the divide instead of helping to heal it.

What do you think?

What should be done about Sheriff Hickman

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Meghan Markle and Donald Trump Two Peas in a Pod

Posted on by
Meghan Markle and Donald Trump

Narcissistic Personalities

In an attempt to anger the entirety of the human race I thought I’d write about how Meghan Markle and Donald Trump are pretty much the same person. It appears to me they clearly share a few traits; namely a long-term pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive craving for admiration, and struggles with empathy.

It’s called a narcissistic personality and the way both of them endlessly center their woes on the perceived behavior of others and refuse to accept any personal responsibility for the situations they find themselves in does not sit well with me.

Why You Support One and Not the Other

More to the point of this blog are the people who choose to support Meghan Markle and Donald Trump. They tend to be on the opposite end of the political spectrum. This paradox may surprise you but it does not come as any shock to me.

You see, politics don’t matter when it comes to people of this nature. They exist in a simple transactional environment where the only thing you are to them is a means to an end. Nothing political, ideological, moral, or ethical binds them from their goal of using you to get what they want. And, of course, you oblige.

We all have experience with this sort of person. You run into them after a long absence at some place you frequent. They tell you how great you look, laugh at your wonderful jokes; then they get to the point. What can you do for them? The meeting was no accident.

Meghan Markle used Piers Morgan to get into a party where she targeted Prince Harry, then she had no more need of Morgan so she dumped him. Donald Trump flailed around various political ideologies until he found a Republican base willing to listen to his completely disingenuous ramblings on immigration. When he no longer needs them, he dumps them. Meghan Markle and Donald Trump are largely one and the same.

Enlightened Self-Interest

I thought this might be a useful time to speak briefly on the concept of Enlightened Self-Interest because you might mistake the narcissism of Meghan Markle and Donald Trump for it. Nope. They tend to destroy all they touch in their mindless grasping for the glittery trinket in front of their face.

Someone who act to further the interests of others, or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong, ultimately serve their own self-interest. That’s enlightened self-interest.

Narcissists are Sometimes Right

It’s also important to understand that Meghan Markle and Donald Trump sometimes have good points. They aren’t wrong all the time and just because they are selfish, transactional people doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to their legitimate grievances.

I live in the real world and I’m quite certain Meghan Markle was subject to racist abuse and that Donald Trump was occasionally harassed not for his policies but simply because of his name. When bad things happen to bad people, we should call it out. That doesn’t make the narcissist less self-centered, it just makes us a better person.

Conclusion

When it comes to Meghan Markle and Donald Trump it is likely you hate one and support the other. If you dislike them both you are in the minority but, if it’s any comfort, you have my support.

Tom Liberman

The National Anthem before Sporting Events

Posted on by
National Anthem

The Dallas Mavericks haven’t been playing the National Anthem at the start of their games this season and apparently no one even noticed until recently but now, of course, it’s a big deal. The question I ask is why do we play the song in the first place? What sort of failed patriots are we that we need to play it to affirm our patriotism?

I’ve always thought it was pretty silly to play the awful song anyway. Not horrible in its symbology but in the actual song. It’s awful. Singing it is difficult. It’s all over the place without a chorus. I mean, seriously, listen to Oh, Canada sometime to hear a decent anthem. I digress.

When did we start playing the National Anthem before sporting events? Why did we start doing it? What does it have to do with my beloved St. Louis Cardinal playing the hated Chicago Cubs?

The Star-Spangled Banner didn’t even become our National Anthem until 1931. It all started back in 1918 when it was played at the World Series and people seemed to like it. Keep in mind, it was just a song then, not any national symbol of pride.

It didn’t really start as a tradition before games until after World War II when the NFL commissioner ordered it played at the start of games and other sports soon followed.

Now, don’t get me wrong. If team ownership wants to play the National Anthem before a game, more power to them. Go right ahead. It’s your team, play whatever song you want as far as I’m concerned. If you don’t want to go to games because they aren’t playing the anthem, that’s your business. You know you don’t listen to the song when you’re at home watching, you take a pee break.

Of course, Texas legislators want to remove tax breaks to American Airlines, owned by Mark Cuban who also owns the Mavericks. They think they get to tell private companies how to run their business all the way down to the song played before games. If that’s not government involvement in private business then I don’t know what is. Don’t get me started on government overreach.

The willingness of government and the average person to force their traditions onto others is growing ever more disturbing in this country supposedly founded on freedom.

I digress again. Personally, I’d like to see a song relevant to the team in question if anything at all. I just don’t think a sporting venue a particularly pertinent place to play patriotic songs. I’m sure many disagree.

Tom Liberman

Who Decides if there will be College Football?

Posted on by
College Football

Will there be college football is a question on the minds of many people these days but I have a different query. Who gets to decide if there will be college football? Coaches? Players? Politicians? The NCAA? Television networks? College administrations?

My question is not an easy one to answer because how far the tendrils of money spread from the game. If there is no college football it will affect a lot of people in a negative fashion and a lot of money won’t be made. In addition, my hatred of the NCAA as a whole undoubtedly clouds my vision. Nevertheless, I will attempt to come up with an answer.

First, I will dismiss the single party that absolutely should have no say whatsoever, despite their bleating to the contrary, politicians. There is no reason for politicians to get involved in this difficult decision in any shape, manner, or form. I tell all lawmakers, whether wanting a college football season to take place or against such, shut your miserable pie holes. Shut them now, stay out. Out!

The moneyed interests are significant. The NCAA makes a huge amount of money from the college football games. The colleges themselves, at least in the Power Five conferences, make enormous sums. The clothing manufacturers who give hundred million-dollar contracts to the schools to showcase their jerseys have a gargantuan financial interest. The television networks and all their employees have a stake. The coaches are paid to coach, not sit on the sidelines and their luxurious lifestyle is in jeopardy if there are no games. The star athletes get exposure and potentially lucrative professional contracts if they play.

The NCAA would certainly like there to be games but if the players intermingle with the regular student body they risk infection and transmission of Covid. The NCAA doesn’t have the luxury of creating a “bubble” like professional athletics. If the so-called student-athletes aren’t allowed to attend school; the entire façade of not paying the players falls apart. It becomes legally clear they are employees of the school, how this reality has evaded the courts for so long baffles me. I shall wax no further on that subject.

So, who decides? Everyone is tainted by financial gain or the potential of such. A clear decision in regards to the health of the players, coaches, and staff of the teams cannot easily be determined by people compromised so. It’s a mess, I readily admit as much, but I have an answer to my question at least.

Each university or college must be the final arbiters of the season as a whole. If a college is unwilling to open the doors to live, in-session classes, then it cannot expect athletes to perform. It is a decision for the boards and presidents of the schools in question. If one Big Ten school says no and another says yes, that’s fine. Schedule accordingly.

Likewise, participation is a choice for each player, coach, and staff member. There are consequences certainly, a player who refuses to play might be removed from the team or have their scholarship revoked. A player who participates, catches Covid, and suffers serious medical consequences has every right to sue for damages.

It’s a messy solution, I agree. It’s a solution that will result in some schools playing and other schools not doing so, I admit. It is, to my mind, the only solution that makes any sense.

Freedom is free, it just isn’t safe.

Tom Liberman

Nadiya Hussain Misleading Headline

Posted on by
Nadiya Hussain

One of the subtleties of the Misleading Headline is demonstrated in this article about Nadiya Hussain who won the Great British Bake Off back in 2015. She was interviewed recently and spoke about an incident some thirty years ago in which she was discriminated against because of her race. Hussain did nothing to contribute to the Misleading Headline nor is the writer responsible. It’s just an issue with human nature.

Hussain relates an incident from the past in which she responded to a casting call for hands to display jewelry. She was told that because her skin is black, she was not eligible to participate. The exact words, as Hussain relates were, black hands don’t sell jewelry.

The problem with the headline is it unintentionally implicates the Great British Bake Off in the racist incident. I want to be clear, Hussain had nothing bad to say about the Great British Bake Off. The article’s writer didn’t implicate the show in any way. It is human nature that we associate the Great British Bake Off with the incident of racism because they appear together in the headline.

I feel relatively confident no one intended to impugn the show in any way. The reason the show is mentioned in the headline rather than just Hussain’s name is that the Great British Bake Off is how she came to the public’s attention and the headline probably wasn’t going to generate many clicks with just her name.

Those of us who enjoy the show were instantly drawn to the headline because of the proximity of the show name and the word racism. The burden is upon me, the reader, to comprehend the article and what it means. This is often the problem. People look at a headline or a particular paragraph in an article that aligns with their view of the world and then leap to their own conclusions without using critical thinking and reading comprehension skills.

This problem is what leads to a great deal of censorship or attempt to restrict what we can and cannot read. When we don’t draw logical conclusions, when we let misleading headlines drive our thinking, when outright lies meet with our approval, we create an atmosphere in which the censor feels justified in his or her actions. These people are far too stupid to think for themselves and therefore we, the overseers, must restrict what they can see.

The problem with censorship is that, of course, it doesn’t really work all that well. People who want to find particularly loathsome and violent justifications for their distorted world view find them anyway. Meanwhile, the discerning mind is not allowed to peruse interesting articles that might legitimately sway an opinion.

The solution is not censorship, it is better critical thinking skills. The path to this solution is education in these matters, training the mind, from childhood to think critically. It is only then that the censors have no more justifications and we are truly free.

Like many things in life, the burden is upon our shoulders.

Tom Liberman

The Racist Statements that don’t Happen on Camera

Posted on by
Racist Statements

We’ve all seen apologies for racist statements caught on camera or posted on social media. That doesn’t reflect who I am or what I believe is how they mostly start. Well, I don’t believe the apologies. I’m of the opinion the statements represent exactly who you are and what you think.

If you look at my picture you see an average looking white guy, that’s what friends of mine see, acquaintances, and people I don’t know that well. They see a guy just like them. White, racist, angry. Believe me, I’m sitting right next to you when you spew your racism, your anti-Semitism, your hate, your misguided fear. Yes, anti-Semitism, right to my face. I don’t look all that Jewish, I guess.

Believe me, I’ve heard you make racist statements plenty of times when the camera wasn’t on. That’s why I don’t believe you when you claim it was a slip and you don’t really think that. I’m quite certain you say things like that all the time when surrounded by people you imagine have the same opinion. I’m fairly certain you say much worse than what you got caught saying.

I’m not kidding when I tell you people have said, directly to me: Hitler had the right idea. If we’d let Hitler win, he’d have gotten around to the blacks eventually. It won’t take long to kill all the blacks. Interracial marriage is evil. I’ve heard it all because I was sitting right next to you when you said it. I sometimes even speak up, do you believe that? As soon as I start asking questions the mouths start shutting. Uh oh, he’s not like us. Better shut up. This is a conversation we only have surrounded by our friends.

The racist statements you’ve made about people thinking I’m with you. The conversations you’ve had about Libertarians not knowing I was one of them. The conversations you’ve had about Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, women, homosexuals, transgenders, you name it, I’ve heard them and that’s why I don’t believe you when you claim: That’s not me! I’m not like that. I don’t believe the things I just said loudly and clearly.

Now, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you’ll learn from your mistake. That you’ll try to do better. In reality, I’m sure what most of you will try to do is not to say those things when you’re on video. I doubt most of you will change at all but I’m willing to give you the chance to do so. Take the opportunity while it’s offered.

Tom Liberman

Video Killed the Radio Star or Did it?

Posted on by
Video Killed the Radio Star

I was there the day video killed the radio star; watching in my neighbor’s room at Upham Dormitory at the University of Idaho. It was a glorious time to be alive when video killed the radio star. Momentous events that changed the world were going on all around me. Well, no, it’s all a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense, wistful memories, and wish fulfillment. Video didn’t kill the radio star and you’re not a special flower.

I’m reminded of the song Video Killed the Radio Star in relation to events going on in the world. People want to assign momentous meaning to anything and everything. This is the end! This is the beginning! Everything is different this time! It’s not. People are people and the answer to the question; did video kill the radio star is no, it didn’t.

If the radio star dies, it will be because people lose interest in the medium of radio. They listen to music on a music platform like Spotify or via internet. The musician lives on. Change is constant, nothing is the same as it was yesterday, at least if you view the world from anything other than a subatomic level, which we all do.

If the world changes it isn’t because of some external element, it’s because a whole bunch of individuals changed the way they go about their business. If the people of a country want a dictator who issues edicts with no checks and balances, no check and no balance will stop it from happening. If they believe in individual liberty with limited government control; by golly, we will have it.

The fight isn’t against a new technology but lazy minds that prefer comfort and safety over freedom. It’s just like Jonathon E told Ella in Rollerball: I’ve been thinking, Ella. Thinking a lot — and watching. It’s like people had a choice a long time ago between having all them nice things or freedom. Of course, they chose comfort.

The sky might well be falling but video didn’t kill the radio star, you did.

Tom Liberman

Why did Katie Hill Resign?

Posted on by
Katie Hill

There’s been a fascinating story in the news about United States Representative Katie Hill who resigned from her position after having sexual relations with a campaign aide, having lurid photos of her published in various news outlets, and being accused of having relations with a member of her staff. Why did she resign? Why is this even a story? Who actually cares? These are the things I hope to examine today.

Of all the things that Hill did, or has been accused of doing, the only one that presents a legal problem is engaging in consensual sexual relations with a staffer. In 2018 Congress enacted rules against doing so, this largely in response to the #MeToo movement in which generally women were coerced into sexual relations with their, often male, elected officials or faced retribution for refusing to do so.

The second issue involved the fact that the male aide she had sex with was twenty-two years old. Some people have a problem with that. The final problem is the lurid pictures of Hill that appeared in various outlets, generally from those of an opposing political philosophy. Some think Hill showed bad judgement in taking the pictures.

As a Libertarian I don’t have a problem with anything Hill did and I have a problem with anyone who does, although that is certainly their right. If Hill wants to have sexual relations with a staffer then she should do so, as should anyone who works with anyone else. I understand that someone in a supervisory position can coerce an underling with various threats and I understand why members of Congress passed such rules. That being said, I think consenting adults should have as much sex in as many positions as possible. It’s no one else’s business.

If someone behaves in an illegal way; firing the underling for cutting off the relationship, blackmailing someone into having sex, that should be pursued with due diligence. The problem isn’t people having consensual sex, it’s that the legal establishment has long ignored those who were coerced or lost their jobs because they refused such advances. The rules preventing such behavior are clearly being selectively applied, every member of Congress, male and female, is aware of other members having consensual relationships with staffers and does nothing because everyone is happy as rabbits, as well they should be.

As for Hill having sex with a man ten years her junior. Good for both of them! I wrote an article about a woman having sex with an eighteen-year-old friend of her daughter some years back and my opinion has not changed. We have decided, for whatever reason, eighteen is the age of consent. Perhaps we find a fifty-year-old man dating an eighteen-year-old woman distasteful but that’s their business, not mine, and not yours.

Finally, as to the naked photos, I have a very strong opinion on that. If Hill or anyone else wants to take lurid pictures of themselves that is their business. The despicable people in this are those who chose to publish the pictures without Hill’s consent. Their behavior is both criminal and immoral from where I’m sitting. Posting lurid pictures of another person without getting permission first? Sick, disgusting. Doing so for political gain? I’d honestly like to put a bullet in the head of whoever made that decision but I’ll restrain myself because I know doing so is illegal.

Hill should not have resigned, she did, as far as I’m concerned, nothing wrong.

Tom Liberman

The Wealth Gap between Poor and Rich in Athletics

Posted on by
Wealth Gap High School Football

The wealth gap in our nation is something that a lot of people are interested in and a new dynamic, in the form of athletics, brings an interesting perspective to the debate. Essentially, wealthy schools are absolutely crushing poor schools in high school football across the country. I just read an interesting article illustrating how the various states are trying to handle the situation.

There are a number of factors driving the phenomenon including better coaching, better nutrition, better practice facilities, better weight rooms, and the fact sometimes the best athletes from poor districts have to hold down jobs rather than play sports. What cannot be argued is the math behind the wealth gap problem. Teams from poor districts lose consistently to teams from rich districts, so much so that Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado have change the rules for scheduling matchups. More states are contemplating doing the same.

In the past it was relatively simple. The level of football was determined by the number of students in the high school. Schools with large student populations played against other schools with a similar number of students.

Here in my home town of St. Louis that plan was thoroughly upended by desegregation and private schools. The best athletes from poor districts were transferred to financially stable districts or given scholarships by private schools; destroying the balance that once existed. That’s not what’s going on here.

What’s happening is something that we should take note of as an overall trend. Kids from wealthy districts or kids with wealthy parents are gaining an advantage so steep it is becoming almost impossible to overcome. We’ve seen simple bribery in the College Admission Scandal which I wrote about before but this is something else again.

The reality of the problem is demonstrated in the final score of high school football game. It becomes impossible to deny this wealth gap issue when rich high schools absolutely crush poor high schools in a consistent and statistically irrefutable way. Count the wins. Look at the scores.

Solutions are difficult to say the least but it’s important to be willing to acknowledge the wealth gap in this country exists and is problematic. Just allowing the poor high schools to drop down in division, which is largely the various states’ solution, is not addressing the real problem. High school football is telling us something. Are we listening?

Tom Liberman

What to do about Useful Money from Bad People

Posted on by
Useful Money from Bad People

A rather despicable fellow named Jeffrey Epstein donated large amounts of useful money to any number of philanthropic causes and these gifts are now causing problems for those who received them. People are returning useful money and resigning from their positions, or being asked to do so. What I’d like to examine is the nature of philanthropic money in general.

Many of the people who donate to causes are not the greatest people in the world. Certainly, Epstein is viler than most but the question remains the same. As an example, let’s imagine you are the financial officer of a charitable organization and you have strong views on religion. Perhaps you are an Atheist or perhaps you are a Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, Jew, or Hindu. You are offered a large amount of useful money from someone who has a completely different belief system than you. Do you take that money knowing it will contribute to doing what you perceive to be good? What if the person has a criminal record? What if they are giving the money in order to improve their reputation because of some misdeeds in the past?

While my question is hypothetical the reality exists to the tune of billions of dollars in charitable donations. The events surrounding Epstein are forcing the financial operators of these organizations to ask themselves this very question. Should I refuse the donation because of the nature of the person who is giving it? Does the money, and the good that is done with it, override my concerns about the source? The money given by such a person intermingles with the money given by many better people and helps us fulfill our mission. Should I deny a child from Make a Wish their wish because I don’t like the person who is giving the money? Doesn’t that just hurt the child?

This is no idle question, if organizations turn down money from disreputable or unaligned donors, they will have less money to complete their mission. Those who would benefit instead go without. There are no easy answers here but I will not shirk from a conclusion simply because the question is complex and difficult.

I’ll happily tell you what I would do were I in charge of such a charity. Not that my decision is proper for anyone else, it is right for me and me alone.

I’d take the money from any source, even if Epstein were alive today in order to give it. I’d also be completely honest about my distaste for such a horrible person. I’d highlight the donation in my monthly and annual literature. I’d speak loudly to the stakeholders in the charity about why I took the money. About how the vile criminal Epstein was attempting to restore his reputation through the donation and that I wanted nothing to do with him other than cashing the check. I’d consider re-donating a goodly portion of it to help his many victims and organizations devoted to helping them and those like them.

Perhaps you disagree and I respect your right to do so. I can certainly understand why you would.

Tom Liberman

Why You Throw Like a Girl is both Wrong and Right

Posted on by
Throw like a Girl

I was watching a Reality Television show called Southern Charm when Chelsea Meissner erupted at a male cast member who was having a meltdown. She said something along the lines of check your pants for a vagina and I’ve got a bigger penis than you. Meissner, as you might imagine, has more than a bit of There’s Something About Mary in her. In any case, it got me thinking.

Meissner did not intend to denigrate women but the phrases she used most certainly did. On the baseball diamond it was not unheard of to say, and I’m as guilty as anyone: You throw like a girl. What is meant is not that girls throw badly but the person in question is not good at throwing. The reality is it insults women and makes negative assumptions about their throwing ability.

In the same way Meissner was subtly, although I’m sure unconsciously, suggesting men are better adults than women. Her point was the male cast member was throwing a temper tantrum like a small child and that he couldn’t handle even the slightest bit of adversity without falling apart. This was absolutely true. She was accurate in her assessment but the phrase she used is clearly denigrating toward women in general. That’s the problem.

We have a culture of terminologies that make clearly false gender assumptions, particularly in this modern day and age when women, in progressive countries at least, are finally being given all the same opportunities as men and proving, over and over again, they are equally capable.

What’s to be done about it? I think it’s important to come up with new phrases that will, hopefully, slowly enter the culture. We can easily find ways to make our point without insulting one gender or the other. Instead of you throw like a girl we can simply say you don’t throw well. If we want a bit of color, I’m sure there are ways to make the phrases both appealing and gender neutral. You throw like a penguin perhaps. I’m sure someone else can do better.

It’s got to be a conscious effort. I have to stop complimenting a person’s boldness by tying it to the size of her or his testicles, non-existent though they may be. You have to do the same. It takes time, these changes, but it can be done with a concerted and honest effort. When you say something that denigrates a gender unfairly, you are setting an example. Try to be better, I am.

Tom Liberman

Government Bans Vaping for Teens Because it is Popular

Posted on by
Vaping

The various states and municipalities across the country are quite busy enacting laws to ban vaping for people under the age of 21. The federal government has gotten involved as well, regulating it as if it was a tobacco product. These laws are largely being enacted because of the rise in popularity of vaping among teenagers.

Let’s be very clear about what municipalities, states, and the federal government are doing: vaping is popular and therefore we are making it a crime to do. We’re not yet willing to start yet another War on Drugs by banning it for adults but we must protect the poor, deluded and innocent children. It is our job as politicians to tell parents they can’t let their children vape. It is our job as politicians to tell nineteen and twenty-year old, legal adults, we know better for them then they do themselves.

Is vaping bad for you? The evidence is still out for non-tobacco products but the use of tobacco is clearly unhealthy as is the use of alcohol. The question becomes if it is acceptable for the various levels of government to decide for your children what they should and shouldn’t be doing in that regard.

As you might be able guess, in general I’m opposed to such bans from an ideological point of view. I’m for the legalization of all drugs but the question becomes a little bit stickier when we are talking about people not legally competent, children in this case. I’m clearly and unreservedly against laws preventing adults from knowingly and eagerly ingesting whatever substance they want, even if it is unhealthy.

The government does have some responsibility to protect children but that largely should be invoked when parents are abusive or irresponsible. It is largely a parent’s responsibility to ensure their child behaves in particular ways. When we involve law enforcement officers, we are making an enormous problem for ourselves, one that dwarfs the issue it is designed to prevent.

Imagine, fanciful as it might seem, a nineteen-year-old wants to vape and her or his parents have no problem with it. We are now making that person a criminal. Law enforcement must now arrest and steal from, that is to say fine, that person.

In addition, we are potentially legislating a business into bankruptcy with all its attendant casualties. We don’t like vaping and therefore we shall attempt to remove a category of consumers from being able to purchase and use the product. This has an enormous impact on the vendors, suppliers, retail outlets, transporters, and varied other players.

All laws are not bad but we must balance the freedom they take from us and the harm they do against the benefit they promise. In this case I see some benefit, it is certain less teens will vape if there is a law against such. I also see harm in the criminality that will be spawned and the black markets that will certainly arise to sell such products to teens. I absolutely oppose the idea nineteen and twenty-year-old women and men are unable to make informed decisions about their vaping habits.

I shouldn’t be telling them to vape or not to vape and neither should the government.

Tom Liberman

Stormy Daniels Brings down the Vice Unit in Columbus

Posted on by
stormy daniels

Back in July of 2018 a woman with the stage name of Stormy Daniels was arrested for non-sexual touching in a strip club in Columbus, Ohio. I wrote an article at the time expressing my Libertarian outrage at the event and now the entire vice unit that ran the operation has been disbanded because of a series of events that sadly do not boggle the mind; frankly, it’s the sort of behavior I expect out of law enforcement agents these days, and that’s a tragic thing.

You can read about the incident with Stormy Daniels that caused the vice unit to come under scrutiny in my original blog so I won’t reiterate it here. The tragedy currently unfolding sadly reinforces my opinion of the continuing downfall of law enforcement to an agency of oppression.

Officer Andrew K. Mitchell is under indictment for any number of abuses he allegedly committed during his thirty-year career as an officer. He is accused of forcing women in custody to provide sexual services in exchange for release. Two other members of the former unit are under investigation for similar activities. The entire unit blatantly disregarded the prosecutor’s office that warned them specifically against the sort of behavior they engaged in during the arrest of Stormy Daniels.

Mitchell also apparently owns properties in which he extorted tenants for sex in exchange for a discount on their rent. In addition, he killed a woman in August 2018 in which he and a fellow officer claimed she attacked them.

This is police enforcement in the era of the War on Drugs. It’s the police versus the community rather than the police with the community. There was a time this wasn’t the case and I’m sure there are plenty of officers out there who don’t behave this way. The reality is tragic for communities and law enforcement.

The good news is that it doesn’t have to be this way. If we ended the War on Drugs, removed moronic laws from the books, and essentially allowed adults to do as they pleased within reason, the relationship between law enforcement and we the people would begin to be repaired. There is also good news in that more and more law enforcement agencies are recognizing the rift that exists and taking concrete steps to improve the situation.

Right here in my hometown of St. Louis, MO the police and local communities are engaged in a terrific program in which officers play chess with young students.

I recognize that my statements in these blogs can be misconstrued as anti-law enforcement. Nothing could be further from my intent. What I want is for law enforcement officers to be seen as a force of good in the communities they serve, not the enemy. Also, for such officers to view the citizens as people to befriend and protect, not as cash meat bags to be used and discarded.

The fact the vice squad is being dismantled is a good thing and the role Stormy Daniels had in it is to be applauded. It’s just a sad statement of fact that it took such a high-profile incident to expose the vile underbelly that has been consuming law enforcement for the last thirty plus years.

Reality often hurts but it is better to expose a painful truth than allow a lie to grow and fester.

Tom Liberman

Taking Offense is for Mockery and not Mimicry

Posted on by
Taking Offense

I’ve noticed a general trend in this world in Taking Offense all too quickly and with little, if any, provocation. The most egregious examples of this, to my mind at least, are people who mistake mimicry as a reason to be offended rather than as a form of flattery.

Let’s dispense with the partisan politics right away, devotees of both parties are equally offended by remarks made by people from the opposite party in equivalent amounts. The so-called snowflakes exist on the left, right and, sad to say, here in Libertarian Land as well.

It’s been said that taking offense is something you do to yourself, rather than others doing it to you; however, I will not pretend words can’t be vicious and painful. It is sometimes perfectly appropriate to be offended when someone says or does something particularly distasteful. What I’d like to address is the difference between mimicry and mockery.

Mimicry is a thing that seems to engender a great deal of taking offense when it should not. If a person of one culture wears the clothes of second culture or the hairstyle associated with another culture, or enjoys the music of yet another culture this is not offense worthy, it is mimicry. A white girl who wears a kimono to prom is not engaged in offensive behavior. An Asian boy in dreadlocks is not engaged in offensive behavior. A black girl listening to Ozzy Osbourn is doing so because she enjoys it, not because she is stealing anyone’s culture.

In this globalized world of ours we see this sort of mimicry in every walk of life. A trend catches on in Japan and soon enough teenagers the world over are imitating it. Some interesting historical style from Africa looks good and again, people from all over the world are soon wearing clothes attuned to that look. A phrase from Russia catches the fancy of people and soon enough people the world over, imitating thick Russian accents, are saying it everywhere. This is mimicry and it is flattery, not mockery.

Mockery is easy enough to spot as well. A person talking with the accent of a particular region of the United States and saying moronic and stereotypical things is an example of mocking and taking offense is reasonable. Painting your face black and making comments that portray black people in a bad light is mocking. Painting your face black and going to a Halloween party as Oprah Winfrey is mimicry and flattery. I realize this last one is going to trigger some people in this world of ours but that’s the way it goes.

If I’m not free to dress up as Lou Brock, one of my childhood heroes, because painting my face dark is reminiscent of people who dressed in blackface to mock and denigrate black people, then I can never honor Brock, no matter how honorable my intentions. No one can honor, through mimicry, someone of a different race or gender. I understand there is nuance but it seems generally obvious to see the difference between mockery and mimicry.

If we pretend to be unable to recognize the difference between the two and simply ban behavior, then we are not making the world a better place, we are making it worse.

Tom Liberman