Kara McCullough and Feminism

Kara McCulloughA nuclear scientist by the name of Kara McCullough is in the news because of the answer she gave to a question about feminism while on her way to winning the Miss USA pageant. I think her answer, and the ensuing uproar, gives us interesting insight into what it is to be rationally moderate in this world. We are the majority but feel vastly outnumbered.

McCullough was asked if she considered herself a feminist. She answered that she preferred to use the term equalist. She went on to add she doesn’t consider herself one of those die-hards. By this she meant radicals who have made inflammatory statements.

She was immediately attacked on Social Media as mischaracterizing feminism as a man-hating movement. These attacks largely came from individuals who identify as left-wing.

The reaction to the reaction was swift, thanks Internet! Those on the opposite side of the spectrum quickly tried to associate every democrat, liberal, or feminist, as being part of the small group that was criticizing McCullough. And here we see the problem.

McCullough doesn’t want to associate herself with what are called radical feminists who have made any number of man-hating comments. And rightly so. This small group of people have hijacked the word feminism and given it a terrible connotation. Of course, the vast majority of feminists are more in line with McCullough. They want equality, they don’t see men as an obstacle or an enemy.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of people who are now attacking those making nasty comments about McCullough are actually pretty much equalist as well. They don’t think women are chattel to be owned. They don’t imagine that women are incapable of being lawyers, doctors, soldiers, or anything else.

If only those two groups could somehow be made to realize they are basically on the same side. We make up the majority. We outnumber the few man-haters and misogynists by enormous numbers.

Yet the vocal few taint the image of all the rest. Those screaming and yelling and refusing any compromise paint an entire group with the red brush of hate. They benefit from the duality of left and right. They profit because the majority are centrists, equalists. By splitting those in the center toward their wing, they bolster their numbers and impact.

Every time I read an article, I scroll down to the comments section. There is always someone making a moderate and rational point about the story in question. Every time this is immediately drowned out by the roar of the few. This roar gives the impression of many. It lures moderates into one camp or the other by portraying enemies as irrational, angry, and violent.

The opposite is true. If only we knew it, the vast majority of people would find they largely agree on issues.

I absolutely believe most people in this world are equalists, like McCullough. Yet the few who are not seem to drive a wedge between the nuanced many. Yes, people who are equalists differ in certain small factors of that equality.

The problem is that we get nowhere by yelling at each other, by refusing to compromise on minor points. And yet we seem to go further down this path every day, driven by those who gain from strife and rage. Those few.

Tom Liberman

Those in the Last Year of Life are not Aware of It

last year of lifeThe healthcare debate often focuses on the undeniable fact that people who are in the last year of  life spend a huge amount of money trying to stay alive. This is one of the primary driving forces in the cost of healthcare. While it is true, I find the point being made, and the people making it, quite disturbing.

Someone in their last year of life does not know they are going to die. They want to stay alive. There are plenty of cases where people are given medical care and survive for many years if not decades. When you argue that these people are going to die anyway, just let them, you are engaging in, essentially, murder.

When I read one article or another making this argument it seems to me the person so writing is promoting Death Panels. Basically, a group of people on a panel needs to examine the prognosis of a patient and if it determines the outcome is likely death, withhold treatment.

I would think the vast majority of people would reject this out of hand. And yet I see it suggested in a veiled fashion almost every day. I read an article talking about how people who are very sick are the problem. Again, it’s true that these people use a much larger share of the money designated for healthcare. I don’t pretend it is false. I just don’t like the implication of the argument.

The demographics of our country are absolutely the driving force of the healthcare crisis. We have an aging and increasingly unhealthy population. There is nothing we can do about the passage of time. People get older. We can focus on proper diet and exercise to prevent a huge chunk of our healthcare issues. That’s a problem with a solution. So, why aren’t we doing so? I’ll save that discussion for another day.

I just want you to be aware of what you are really saying when you talk about the last year of a person’s life being a problem. There are those who actually argue for death panels. There are those who think people over a certain age should voluntarily turn themselves into the disintegration chambers. I have a bit of respect for those who so advocate. At least they are being honest about their intentions. Those who lament about the last year of life but pretend they are not proposing Death Panels don’t fool me. I find them disgusting.

I hope we will never reach a point in this country where we value treating sick people less than we value money. I hope people will never feel the need to rid our society of those who they deem less worthy of life. We’ve seen that before, and I’m fully aware that it can happen again.

So, when I see article after article reiterating the problem of people in the last year of their life, I grow concerned. I hope you do as well.

Tom Liberman

Is Satanic Patriotism as Good as any Other?

satanic patriotismA satanic monument is scheduled to be placed in the Veteran’s Memorial Park of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The entire episode came about because a Christian monument was placed in the same location and the Satanic Temple decided they wanted to honor the fallen with their own memorial. So, is Satanic Patriotism as good as any other kind of patriotism?

There’s a lot of talk about separation of church and state and the Constitution of the United States but I wanted to examine the more personal issue of how we feel when someone we despise does something ostensibly good. When we see Satanic Patriotism.

The monument the Satanic Temple plans to place can only be described as poignant. If it had Christian or non-denominational symbols on the side rather than Satanic, I feel confident in saying it would receive universal acclaim. The sentiment to honor fallen soldiers is also something that would normally be applauded. It’s the people placing the monument who are raising ire.

It should be noted the organization that manages the park, including many veterans, has apparently been very open and welcoming to the monument. That’s pretty cool, but the reality is a lot of people are quite opposed to it and vocally so.

Before we leap on those angry people, take a moment to examine how much you like that Ku Klux Klan sign sponsoring the highway you drive by on a regular basis.

Is someone all bad? Is anyone all good? If Satanists want to honor fallen veterans isn’t that a good thing? If the KKK wants to clean up a section of the highway or a river, isn’t that a good thing? I think this is an important question that has ramifications far beyond one monument.

One of the ways organizations like ISIS succeed is when they help people. They provide jobs and medical services to those in worn-torn nations. We certainly don’t like ISIS, they clearly engage in many horrific activities. But when they sponsor medical care to wounded children, isn’t that a good thing?

We have this tendency to put people and organizations into categories and that can be extremely damaging. When we decide Republicans are all good or President Trump is all bad, we miss out on opportunity and acquiesce to damaging legislation. If you are a Republican and support any piece of legislation from those you generally support, it is certain you are promoting some bad laws. If you hate President Trump and oppose every idea he puts forward, you are clearly working against some good legislation.

Not only are you promoting bad or failing to support good, but you are creating a world of black and white. Good or evil. This sort of categorization is what allows group like ISIS to thrive. When we as a nation refuse to admit our enemies engage in some very reasonable activities, we are making a mistake.

I ask anyone who is opposed to this monument, anyone who plans to vandalize this tribute to our veterans, anyone who would be opposed to the same monument if it was sponsored by White Nationalists; why?

Would the world be a better place if we simply encouraged people and organizations who performed good deeds? If we discouraged those who do wrong?

Certainly, we can debate what is a good deed or what is a bad. We can say people do good things for the wrong reason, but does that make it less of a noble deed?

If you denounce a good thing because you don’t like the person who did it, well, who is the bad person?

Tom Liberman

What Constitutes Disruption and the Slide Toward Totalitarianism

disruptionThere’s an interesting case making its way through the courts about a woman who laughed during a Congressional hearing and is now facing charges of disruption. This is not an isolated incident. Authorities seem to be finding a plethora of creative ways to arrest protestors. Many of the arrests made at the Dakota Pipeline Protest were of this ilk.

The right of people to assemble and protest is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and when law enforcement agencies attempt to curtail this right, we must be wary. A totalitarian state does not brook vocal opposition. I’m certainly not suggesting we live in such a state, but every time I hear about dissent being squashed I take note.

Often times what we see in cases like this is that charges are completely dropped before the case gets to court or the charge is dismissed by a sympathetic judge. I think what is necessary to curb this tendency to bring charges against protesters under the flimsiest of circumstances is simply fines. For every such charge in which the case is dismissed, the person so arrested should be financial remunerated by the agent who made the arrest. It’s a relatively simple solution that inhibits those making the arrests and compensates the person so incarcerated.

I’d be particularly pleased if the arresting officer paid the fine out of her or his personal salary. When we fine the agency itself, the officer doesn’t feel any real pain. An agency might think it worthwhile to arrest a bunch of protestors and pay for it out of tax dollars some years down the road. It seems to me anyone looking at even a moderate fine for arresting a protestor on flimsy charges is going to think twice before moving forward.

As I stated at the top of this article, this is not an issue to be taken lightly. Our constitutional rights are at stake. If government agents are allowed to arrest people on ridiculous charges which are dismissed at a later date without penalty, well, there is nothing to stop such law enforcement groups from doing so in ever increasing numbers.

I take the right to protest quite seriously and so did the Founding Fathers. This is a right people on all sides of the political spectrum should embrace. It is almost certain at some time in the future you will want to protest some policy or person and the party in power will not want you to do so.

I’m well aware that some protestors are violent, angry, and disruptive. Such demonstrators should be subject to legal remedies, but I think it’s important to err on the side of caution. Our liberty is at stake. I’m willing to put up with some rudeness in order to be free. If someone yells out in a hearing or puts a foot beyond the barrier; we must accept her or his right to do so.

When we stop allowing people to protest peacefully, they will find other ways to express themselves. None of us want to live in a nation where the only method available to criticize your government is violence. When we justify arrests on the flimsiest of charges, we move our nation incrementally toward that end.

Tom Liberman

Fyre Festival and the F35

fyre festivalWhen things go wrong in the private sector we have lawsuits available to redress the problem. When things go wrong in government, not so much. I’d like to take a moment to compare the Fyre Festival and the F35 Lighting II.

First the Fyre Festival. A couple of fellows named Ja Rule and Billy McFarland came up with an idea to have a music festival on an island in the Bahamas. The plan involved popular music artists and supermodels, ticket prices were extremely high. Everything went wrong.

Many people might say that the entire plan was a mistake but I’d disagree. One of the reason things went so badly is the number of people who paid to attend were far greater than the venue could accommodate. That clearly means people were quite interested in going to the festival.

A similar thing happened with the F35. It’s easy to say let’s build a single jet that does everything three other jets can do. We’ll save tons of money by having one plane with interchangeable parts. It seems like a good idea.

After the good plan is arrived upon, it is vital to hire pragmatic people who understand the details necessary to complete the project. People who understand the practicalities of organizing a complex festival or a technically challenging weapon’s platform.

That’s the problem with dreamers. They stop their ruminations seconds after telling everyone what a great idea it is. And it might well be a great idea, but without a plan and realistic implementation therein, it cannot come to fruition.

What happened with the Fyre Festival and the F35 is no one was willing or able to do the necessary hard work to pull either off in a timely fashion. There are two important differences. The first is the festival could actually fail whereas the F35 was going to continue on no matter how far delayed and how much money it cost.

The second is there is redress for those who suffered or lost money at the festival. For the taxpayers, there is no redress. Our money is gone. It is spent. There is no way to sue and get it back.

All the warning signs were there for both the event and the plane. The venue was horribly inadequate and it was apparently suggested to the organizers the festival simply be cancelled until next year. They chose to go on with it and now must suffer the consequences of the disaster. That’s a good thing, that’s what happens in the business world.

The technology to create the F35 really just didn’t exist and no one had ever done anything like it before. It relied on inventing technological solutions where none existed. It became clear fairly early on the three versions would not be nearly as interchangeable as hoped, the entire purpose of building the single plane. Costs skyrocketed as the plane’s deployment became delayed by years. Congress decided to go on with the project despite these problems.

This contrast of the private sector and government is stark. When someone shoots for the moon and ends up falling short, there must be consequences. Instead, we are the ones punished by being forced to foot the bill for their folly. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting awfully tired of politicians spewing out wild dreams and foregoing all practical planning. When things go awry, they just throw more money at the problem.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could file lawsuits against our politicians when projects they mismanage go hugely overbudget and even fail entirely? It seems like a nonsensical idea but we live in a nation where we get to elect our representatives. We can do whatever we want if we just vote for like-minded people.

Not that I’m holding my breath.

Tom Liberman

Brigitte Macron and Opinion and the Law

brigitte macronOne of the leading candidates to become the President of France is married to Brigitte Macron and their relationship brings up a number of interesting legal and societal questions. Emmanuel Macron met Brigitte when he was her fifteen-year-old student at La Providence High School in Amiens. She was thirty-nine at the time. They official announced they were dating when he turned seventeen.

The two eventually married when Emmanuel reached the age of thirty, shortly after she divorced her husband. He is the step-father to her three children, the oldest of whom is older than Emmanuel. All of this came to my attention thanks to a Facebook post expressing disgust at the relationship. Let the comments begin.

Some people are horrified by the age difference, while others don’t think it is anyone’s business. I’m certainly in the latter group. If people want to carry on affairs outside of marriage, I don’t much care. If a young man falls in love with an older woman, I don’t care. If an older woman has a relationship with a younger man, I don’t care. If a teacher and a fifteen-year-old student have an affair, I don’t really care. I know that last one is going to raise some ire.

The teacher is in a position of responsibility over a student and such an affair raises all sorts of questions about coercion. In the United States, if such a relationship occurred and was proven, Brigitte would have been tried and likely put in prison.

What’s important is that some people do care, and they have every right to their opinion. If they are outraged by this marriage, that’s their business to be disgusted. I don’t much care they are revolted. I think people are way too concerned about how other people carry on with their lives, but I’d be a hypocrite if I told them they shouldn’t be disgusted. That’s their choice.

If the laws in France allow for teachers and students to carry on sexual relationships then those are the laws of that country. I live in the United States and I have no more right to legislate in France than a French person has a right to pass laws in the United States.

If someone refuses to vote against Emmanuel because of this relationship, that is his or her right. If someone chooses to ignore the relationship and vote for him, that is also her or his decision to make.

The fact the two are now married leads me to believe their love was best for them, despite the age difference and the circumstances of their meeting. Certainly, you might disagree.

As a Libertarian I think it’s extraordinarily important people be allowed to their opinions and nations keep laws to a minimum. One of the first thing Totalitarian leaders do is attempt to force people to behave in certain ways. They do this primarily through legislation and personal attacks. The more power we vest in the state, the greater its ability to force us into a particular version of moral right.

Emmanuel and Brigitte have a relationship many might find disturbing. The fact they are legally allowed to do so is a good thing, and so is the right of some to withhold support for Emmanuel based on that relationship.

Tom Liberman

Tad Cummins and the Runaway Girl

tad-cumminsYes, I’m saying runaway rather than Tad Cummins kidnap victim. I’ve waited to comment on this story because it seemed like there was more to it than we original knew, and now we find out the girl’s mother was a serial abuser. The girl was fleeing a terrible situation.

I’m not excusing Cummins for his behavior. He is the adult and he should never have allowed the situation with the girl to become so personal and certainly not intimate. He deserves what he has coming to him. That being said, the girl was fleeing a terrible situation with the one person who showed her any kindness. If this had occurred three years into the future, when she was eighteen, things would likely have turned out differently.

It doesn’t take much imagination to believe she might have been better off with Cummins. Again, I’ll state for a second time to head off the criticism I know is headed my way, Cummins was way out of line. He failed as a teacher, as an adult, and as someone who was trying to help the girl.

That being said, I think it’s clear they were love. The girl was one of ten children, all who apparently suffered horrific physical and likely mental abuse from their mother. The father left the situation about a year and a half ago and took custody of the children. It’s likely the abuse didn’t suddenly start in 2014 when it was first reported. It’s probable the girl and her siblings suffered from decades of abuse.

The girl was subject to serious physical abuse and looking for a way out. She found it in Cummins. It’s not completely impossible to rule out the idea that she was the instigator in all of this, although this certainly does not excuse his behavior. He had other options. He could have arranged for the girl to get away from the abuse and then waited the three years required for them to be together. He chose not to do that.

It all comes back to child abuse. If the girl’s mother hadn’t brutally beaten her children, if the girl’s father hadn’t sat back and watched it for years before finally leaving, if the state was allowed to take the children away; it’s likely none of this would have happened. It’s also quite probable the girl’s mother was abused herself as a child.

There aren’t easy answers to all of this. It’s not easy for the state to take children away from their parents and that’s a good thing. I think parents should have a fairly large amount of leeway in how they choose to raise their children.

The next question is what to do now? As it stands, what will happen is the girl will likely be returned to her father, which may or may not solve the abuse problem. Cummins will go to jail. Will the girl be better off with her father than with Cummins? Is Cummins a threat to general society? Is the father part of the abuse? I don’t know the answers and that’s unpleasant. There might not be a good solution.

The length of time this story captivated the public proves how much cases like this fascinate us.

I don’t have any great revelations or epiphanies about this situation. It would be nice if there weren’t people abusing children out there.

That’s about it.

How Counterculture Changes the World with Goth Ice Cream

countercultureTeens rebel against their parents, people rebel against the norms. For every cultural norm, we see people embracing counterculture. You’ll laugh when I talk about the latest counterculture movement. Goth ice cream.

Lately a lot of unicorns and rainbows have shown up in various places around the internet and in the physical world. We see Unicorn Frappuccino at Starbucks, rainbow sneakers from Nike, and many other combinations of the two just about everywhere you look.

There is nothing wrong with unicorns or rainbows. Anyone who takes delight in adorning themselves, gulping down, or otherwise enjoying colorful and single horned things is perfectly fine. What happens is that some people; contrarians, skeptics, whatever you want to call them, are willing to challenge things just for the sheer enjoyment of testing the normal. Some people get sick of seeing popular trends and lash out with things like Goth ice cream. Good for them!

I must admit a strong tendency to cut off my nose to spite my face. What this indicates is someone who behaves in self-destructive ways in an overreaction to something else.

It is in the very nature of rebellion to ultimately defeat the enemy. Eventually Goth ice cream might well become the normal and then people will rebel against it, perhaps even the same people who are currently promoting it as they fight against the rainbow and unicorn trend.

The important thing is what counterculture brings us. Without counterculture, we have stagnation. Without counterculture, we miss out on all sorts things. Music is constantly subject to this phenomenon with Nirvana being one of the most outstanding examples. That band came up with a new style of music and we all benefited. Well, many of us at least.

All of this is a good and natural thing. It is part of human nature to want to rebel against the standards of the time. While some people enjoy marching to the beat of a particular drum, there will always be others who refuse. The only way to completely stamp out such counterculture is with a totalitarian government. Counterculture is what authoritarians fear the most, they attempt to arrest, imprison, and execute anyone who dares speak out against their way of life.

When people are free to sell Goth ice cream on every corner it means we are free to do largely as we desire. People like to compare things to the Nazi regime in Germany and it’s not always valid. But to give you an example of a real totalitarian state; when you called the operator in Nazi Germany to give them a phone number, it was required you say D as in Dora, not D as in David. So, don’t underestimate Goth ice cream, my friends.

The ability to do as we please without interference from the government is important. Remember that right now people are trying to pass laws about what you can wear, what music you can listen to, what items you can purchase, what chemicals you can put in your body. Each time we pass laws limiting the ability of people to freely express themselves, to do as they please, we make the world a less wonderful place.

In conclusion, Goth ice cream is a beautiful thing.

Tom Liberman

Race, Religion, Geography and Chris Soules

chris soulesNot long ago a fellow by the name of Chris Soules smashed his truck into the rear end of a tractor and killed the driver. He then fled the scene and was arrested later that evening after refusing to come in voluntarily. Soules is a minor celebrity having participated in the television show, The Bachelor. He was a man of strong Christian faith. He is a Caucasian. He lived in a rural community in Iowa.

While reading the comments from a relative of the victim, it struck me how willing people were to find an excuse for Soules. He didn’t flee the scene, was merely driving away to go get help. That sort of thing. It’s clear to me people would not have been fooling themselves with irrational explanations if Soules had been of a darker skin color, from a city rather than rural environment, and if he didn’t express belief in Jesus as his savior.

I’m not pulling the racism card, the religion card, or the geography card. I’m just stating what I think is obvious fact. If Soules was black, a city dweller, and a Muslim; most people would not be looking to exonerate him. They would be laying down the blame, insisting on putting him in jail, throwing away the key.

We have perceptions of people in our minds because of these external things that, while not valid, drive our reaction to their deeds.

Let’s imagine we are going to a movie that received rave review. We’re excited, we think it’s going to be great, and our expectations are high. The movie is merely good. We come away disappointed. On the other hand, if the movie got awful reviews and we expected it to be bad; we come away elated. That wasn’t bad at all. I enjoyed it. That’s the affect expectations have upon us and there is nothing wrong with that. That’s reality.

However, this is where critical thinking, pragmatism, and being a decent human being come into play. Yes, we have expectations but it’s important to overcome those expectations and treat each situation as the facts dictate. If the movie was fairly entertaining but not great, then that’s what it was. That’s how you should describe it to friends when they ask you about it.

It’s not looking great for Soules. He wasn’t seeking help when he drove away from the crime. The police had to seek him out and execute a warrant on him. One of the main reasons people flee a vehicular accident is to cleanse their system of alcohol or other capacity diminishing drugs. Some five hours passed after the accident before Soules was arrested.

The accident was almost certainly just that. However, if he was driving under the influence when it happened and fled to avoid testing, then he is guilty of a terrible crime, regardless of race, religion, and geography.

Check your expectations at the door.

Tom Liberman

Clown Ban in Kemper County Mississippi

creepy-clown-sightingsSometimes it’s just too much and a Libertarian wants to throw his arms up in the air and scream, “Take it. Take this country and do what you will. You’ll be begging for help not long after I get out of your way and let you have what you want. Take it! Take it all.

Clowns. Clowns! For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Clowns!!

I suppose not everyone has heard about the rash of clown sightings sweeping the western world. People dressed in clown costumes have apparently committed a few crimes and sightings of many more scary clowns have been reported although not substantiated.

Salem Witch Trials?

Mindless fear?

Legislation that prevents people from wearing a costume?

Sheer idiocy replacing any sense of rational thought, reason, the Constitution of the United States.

Freedom. Anyone heard of it?

Target has the right to stop selling clown suits, it’s their business, it’s stupid but they can do as they want. When there are actual laws against dressing in a clown suit then something is seriously wrong with this world.

Rant, rant, rant, rant, rant. Who cares. No one is listening. Safety has surpassed freedom. People will give up big freedoms and little ones for the illusion of safety. We’ll see how safe you are when you get what you want. Don’t come crying to me.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

 

Schlitterbahn Waterslides are Dangerous but will Federal Regulation Help?

the-verruckt-schlitterbahn

The terrible news from Kansas City about Caleb Schwab dying while riding one of the waterslides at the Schlitterbahn water park has hit a nerve with the public. The story is at the top of news feeds across the country and spurred calls for more regulations at such parks.

Currently there are no federal inspections of amusement parks at fixed locations. Carnivals and the like are subject to such rules. It is up to each state to inspect as often or as little as they think pertinent. Kansas has pretty lax regulations and the park in question hasn’t been inspected by anyone other than the owners in about four years which is before the slide in question went into service.

A Personal Interlude

First a personal story. I’ve got a friend in Austin and go to visit him pretty regularly. On one of those trips we headed to New Braunfels and spent an afternoon at the Schlitterbahn water park. We hung out and eventually climbed a large tower and went plummeting down the water slide. As we sloshed from side to side and I held on it became obvious to me the slide was quite dangerous; that if I wasn’t paying attention or was being a bit rambunctious I could easily cause myself serious injury or death. When we got to the bottom we just sort of looked at each other and neither of us suggested riding again.

I’ve had no desire to visit a water park or ride on a slide since then. I grew up going to Six Flags over Mid-America and in all that time I never felt anywhere near as concerned on any ride as I did on that water slide.

Unenforceable Rules at Waterslides

The ride that resulted in the death of Caleb has difficult if not impossible to enforce requirements. There must be two or three people in the raft with a total weight of between 400 and 550 pounds. The shortest anyone can be is 54 inches (4′ 6″) tall.

Now to the point of my blog. The terrible tragedy has a lot of people calling for Federal oversight at amusement parks and waterslides. Even with all that I’ve mentioned above, I’m of the opinion such regulations will do nothing to make rides safer.

Schlitterbahn has the most vested interest in keeping the park safe. This tragedy is costing them huge sums of money and I’m certain much personal grief as well.

Carnivals Are Not Safe Despite Federal Regulations

I’ve been to carnivals where the rides were filthy and likely unsafe. Many people are injured and killed each year on such rides despite supposed Federal inspections. Frankly, I’m highly skeptical such inspections take place regularly in any case. There isn’t enough time or personnel to make it happen.

Conclusion

So what’s the solution? While I oppose federal regulation on such rides as being both unworkable and ineffective; I’m completely for a national database to document all accidents, injuries, and deaths. The government should publish the results on an easily accessible website paid for with my tax dollars. Then it is up to the consumer to decide if they want to go or not. Vendors who operate unsafe rides will surely feel the pinch quickly.

This obviously doesn’t help those already injured or killed but the reality is nothing does.

What do you think?

What do think is the best solution to unsafe amusement park rides?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Allowing Yourself to Be Bullied?

bullying-and-harassment-minThe presidential election in the United States this year has plenty of “scandals” rearing their head seemingly more than once a day but the one swirling around Eric Trump and his statement that his sister, Ivanka, would not allow herself to be harassed interests me.

The basic premise is that a person should not allow themselves to be bullied, harassed, sexually abused, physically abused, mentally abused, taken advantage of, or otherwise treated poorly by another person.

I think there is a small amount of merit to that idea on a basic level. If a person is subject to any of those things they should immediately stand up for themselves. However, the reality is standing up for yourself can have serious negative consequences. Often times the bully is physically stronger or in a superior position within the organization. People want jobs, a marriage, an education, they are not in a position to just leave as Trump suggests.

Saying no can mean losing your job. It can mean putting yourself in danger of serious physical damage. It can mean losing your friends. It can mean losing your family.

To suggest anyone who is willing to put up with some sort of bullying is complicit in the bullying is largely mistaken.

I’m going to tell you a personal story on this subject. In my high school I worked for the yearbook staff. We had a teacher supervisor but it was mostly us putting together the yearbook. The last quarter of the semester was largely sitting around doing very little because the yearbook was mostly complete and there wasn’t much to do. The supervisor was one of those teachers who hates students. She was a bully. She would make up stuff to do and intimidate the straight A students with threats of a bad grade. I was a straight C student so I didn’t much care. One day she gave us a test. It was an incredibly stupid test with dumb questions about the yearbook. Who knows where she got it. We all seethed but the other students, top honor students who needed a good grade for the most part, sat down and took the test. So did I. But, in a fit of independence I wrote some choice words on the test. “This test is bullshit”.

I got suspended for three days. Barely a blip to what others risk and yet it took some courage to make the stand I made.

For a rising young journalist who is sexually harassed the choice might have been between accepting it or ending his or her career. For a spouse being physically abused the choice might be to accept it or lose her or his marriage, children, or even life. For a young student it might mean the loss of a degree and years from his or her life starting fresh in a new place. For an athlete it might mean losing her or his position on the team.

Yes, you can stand up to the bully but there can be terrible consequences for doing it. The idea that people allow themselves to be bullied has a ring of truth to it but doesn’t stand up to examination. We all put up with things in order to get along with our lives. We do it everyday, anyone who says otherwise is living in an ideological fantasy realm. The more we want something, the more power the bully has over us because we are willing to accept more abuse.

The real problem, it goes without saying, is the sicko who takes advantage of a superior position and gets their jollies harassing those beneath them.

When you grow up rich, with every advantage, with many options; it’s easy to think you can’t be bullied, it’s just not true.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Pokemon Go Shaming and Fear

pokemon-go-memeAs if you didn’t already know, a game called Pokemon Go has become hugely popular in the last week.

Along with its popularity I’ve seen a huge spike of news stories and comments in social media attacking the game and its players. The question I want to try and examine today is why is there all this hate and fear?

The object of Pokemon Go is to physically wander around in public places and collect virtual Pokemon. These are little creatures that do battle with one another. A player who has stronger Pokemon can defeat players with weaker Pokemon. Thus it becomes necessary to collect ever stronger Pokemon to win battles. Players can join teams where groups battle one another. What makes Pokemon Go different is that you have to venture out into the physical world to find and collect your combatants. And people are doing it by the millions.

People are getting out of their houses and wandering the world at strange hours and visiting places they might not have visited before. They are getting exercise they would not normally get. They are meeting strangers whom they would not normally meet. Social boundaries are crumbling as people who would never so much as give each other the time of day because of their jobs, race, religion, sexual orientation, or physical locations are now meeting and finding common ground.

That, my devoted readers, is causing abject fear in the establishment. I know it sounds like I’m making way too much out of this but the plethora of news stories about the dangers of playing Pokemon and the social shaming I’m seeing everywhere must have an explanation. People of all religions, colors, nationalities, ages, sexes, and sexual orientations are finding out they have something in common besides our traditional way of separating ourselves. They enjoy playing the same game.

And, by golly, that’s with whom we should be associating! We should hang out with the people who love the same things we love regardless of all those other factors. Factors which are often merely the circumstances of our birth.

Look at that forty year old, white computer programmer sitting on the bench with those two young black men in baggy trousers teaching the police officer how to play. (That’s one of the few positive stories on Pokemon Go I’ve seen). You’re fooling yourself if you think images like that don’t frighten the authorities. What would the world be like if people with the same interests hung out with each other and didn’t worry about what everyone else was doing?

What would happen to nations? To boundaries? To government?

I know, I know, I’m making way too much out of this. Still, my friends, go play Pokemon Go and make some friends you otherwise would never have met.

Be afraid, authority. Change is coming and it comes from unexpected sources.

Is Pokemon Go just a game or something more?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Topless Photos of Little Girls a Problem or not?

kids-play

*Small Correction, the girls were his daughters, not nieces*

I just read a Dear Abby question in which a young woman was upset by a man who had a picture taken with his six and two year old daughters who were topless. He posted the photo on his Facebook page. The letter writer claimed to be concerned that pedophiles might now have access to the pictures although it seemed clear to me that she thought a man posting a photo with topless young girls was somehow wrong.

Abby replied that the writer should talk to other relatives about approaching the man and telling him what he did was inadvisable. What? What? What?

The problem here isn’t with the father. It’s with a society that thinks there is something wrong with six and two year old girls being topless. There isn’t anything wrong with it. Yes, there are pedophiles but the problem is with them, not the father and not the girls.

I am unaware of evidence that pedophiles browse the internet looking for victims. Every case I’ve ever heard about involved a pedophile exploiting a young boy or girl who they were in contact with in their daily affairs. A neighbor, a family member, a member of the church, or something of that nature.

That’s not really my point here. My point is that if we make taking a non-sexual, family, friendly, fun, picture with a couple of topless young girls a sexual thing, we are feeding the idea that girls of that age should be viewed as sexual. They shouldn’t. Girls and boys of that age running around topless is not sexual. It is simply girls and boys running around topless. Little kids used to be allowed to run around naked all the time and nobody much thought anything of it.

I’d like to find a link to prove that point but I’m afraid to do an internet search about naked little kids. That’s a problem! I’m afraid to take pictures of kids at birthday parties. That’s a problem. The problem isn’t the kids. It’s not the uncle, aunt, family friend, mother, father, brother, or sister. It’s a society that allows criminals to guide our behavior.

A criminal might buy a gun. Ban guns.

A person might abuse drugs. Ban drugs.

A person might gamble away all their money. Ban gambling.

A person might get drunk at work. No drinking at work ever.

A person might drink too much soda and get fat. Ban large drinks.

A person might be sexually attracted to a child. Ban pictures of young children.

Responsible people should do what they want and face the consequences if they are irresponsible. They shouldn’t have to modify their behavior because someone else is a criminal or an idiot.

Is an Uncle Posting Pictures on Facebook of his Nieces Topless a Problem?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Online Poker is a Life of Hard Work and Little Money – so Why do it?

jason-sommerville-pokerI’ve been watching people play poker on twitch.tv lately it’s got me thinking about some things.

I started watching a fellow named Jason Somerville and then also began to follow two other players, Lex Veldhuis and Parker Talbot. All three are extraordinarily good players and also entertaining personalities who explain their decisions in an informative way. Somerville in particular is a highly watched streamer who does an exceptional job teaching the game and also entertaining the audience.

So why the blog? Good question. After watching all three of these very strong poker players play for many hours I realized they aren’t winning much money and on many days losing money. That’s not to say they aren’t making money by the end of the year but what I saw was them playing for many, many hours in long tournaments with thousands of players (called Grinding in poker vernacular) for a small return on their hours of investment.

Then, for a change, I watched a few other plays who clearly did not possess the skill or temperament of Somerville, Veldhuis, and Talbot. Not only were they spending hours and hours playing, they were largely losing money! And quite happily I might add.

The first lesson I took from all this is that I have no business sitting at an online poker table. Even if I’m at a small stake tournament, some can be entered for as little as a dime, I’d merely be spending a lot of time and losing money. I have literally no chance to win against more skilled opponents. The more I would play, the more I would lose.

It quickly became clear to me that the vast majority of people playing poker online are either losing money or earning money at a rate far below any minimum wage job. So why are tens of thousands, if not more, people gleefully doing so?

I think it can be argued that the allure of riches plays a part but I don’t think that’s the primary reason so many people are attracted to online poker. While the riches are certainly there it is not the same as purchasing a lottery ticket. In order to get the riches hard work is required.

What I think is going on is much deeper. It taps into why I’m a Libertarian and also into very nature of what it is to be human. We want to be free. We want to work hard at something we enjoy and be rewarded for doing so. Those things bring us happiness and joy.

After watching Somerville, Veldhuis, and Talbot for many hours some things became very clear to me. All three are not simply dolts who happen to be good at poker. All three are highly intelligent and thoughtful. They spoke of subjects beyond poker with strong words and rational logic. It is clear to me that all three would be successful in whatever endeavor they chose, they just happened to have picked a field they enjoy and at which they excel. Wise choices, my friends.

And a shining example for the rest of us.

Do what you love. Work hard at it. Be pragmatic in your decisions. You’ll be happy, perhaps rich or perhaps not.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Wisconsin Prison Bans Dungeons and Dragons

Dungeons_and_Dragons_MiniaturesA story that hits me in my proverbial breadbasket just came across the wires. The Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin banned playing Dungeons and Dragons (no word on Pathfinder) by inmates.

I’m a role-playing game enthusiast to say the least. I love playing such games. I think it’s ridiculous that those in power think playing the game might encourage escape fantasies among the inmates. I imagine the escape fantasies are already on their mind. A fellow named Kevin T. Singer is incarcerated at that institution and had a regular Dungeons and Dragons game with fellow inmates.

Let’s cut to the chase. Prison officials do not believe that playing Dungeons and Dragons constitutes an escape or violence risk. They just wanted to make life more difficult for Singer. They found a ridiculous rational for doing so, implemented it, and laughed as they took away his books and homemade material. Ha, they said, we’re in charge and we get to tell you what to do.

The courts agreed. Even though there is no evidence that such games cause troubles in prisons (because they don’t), the court sided with the prison.

Sadly, I agree with the courts. The removal of role-playing games is something the prison can enforce. The inmates have been duly convicted of a crime. A particularly brutal murder in this case. The authorities run the prison and unless they are taking away a Constitutionally guaranteed right, they can do as they will.

My message today is for the prison officials. You are not making Wisconsin or this nation any safer. By using your power to bully and punish a prisoner, for the simple reason that you can, you actually increase the chance said prisoner will learn to hate authority figures all the more. The prison should run the damned game, if you’ll pardon my choice language. They should encourage inmates to work as a team and learn to appreciate those in authority don’t have to be jackbooted thugs. That they can actually be interested in the well-being of their charges.

Being in a position of authority is a tremendous responsibility. You can influence people in a good way and make this world a better place or you satisfy your sadistic urges to hurt and demean people.

I’m certainly not saying Singer is a wonderful person. The fact remains that he and other prisoners may someday return to society. Isn’t it in our best interest to make sure they return better than they went in, not worse?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Harambe the Gorilla and Lessons to be Learned

harambe-GorillaA tragic incident occurred recently in Cincinnati that is making headlines and evoking passionate debate among many people.

A young boy willfully climbed into the gorilla pen at the Cincinnati zoo and when a male gorilla named Harambe started to become more aggressive, the zoo’s Dangerous Animal Response team shot and killed the gorilla.

Passions are running high among those who think the zoo did the right thing and those who think the zoo handled the situation improperly. One of the positions I see being taken is that the zoo is responsible for the enclosure not being secure enough to prevent entry and they are to blame. That all the enclosures must be designed to prevent anyone from entering. That’s the argument I’d like to look at today.

What I want to talk about today, Memorial Day, is the commonly stated belief that Freedom isn’t Free. I disagree with that idea. I think Freedom is Free. There is nothing more free in this world than freedom. Don’t get me wrong. I well understand that other people desire to take away my freedom. Those other people include both foreign and domestic enemies and my own government. I understand that to protect my freedom people must make sacrifices. I do not disregard the sacrifices made in order to protect me and others.

That being said, Freedom is mostly certainly free. It’s just quite dangerous. It might be possible to make every zoo enclosure more difficult to penetrate but there is no way to have a zoo and also have it so that a determined visitor cannot gain access to an exhibit. It is in the nature of a zoo where wild and dangerous animals are kept that there will be danger. Certainly the zoo should make efforts to keep the enclosures and wild animals separate from the visitors but if we want to have zoos at all, we must face that fact that a determined child or adult might be able to put themselves in danger. That’s freedom.

We could make it more safe, certainly. We could make zoos illegal altogether. We could insist that zoos spend astronomical sums of money to enclose every exhibit in bullet proof glass.

We could remove all traffic signals and thus be more free to drive as we will without restrictions. Or we could pass more and more traffic laws. We could put monitors in cars to prevent any sort of dangerous driving. The choice between freedom and safety is a serious one.

Those who wish to take our freedom often guise their desires with soothing words about only doing it to protect us.

My point is that we must accept danger if we love freedom. We must understand that terrible things can happen. That the government and the zoo cannot completely prevent horrible outcomes. We must mourn the death of Harambe. We must accept the danger if we are to remain free.

The alternative is to be perfectly safe at all times … in our locked and hermetically sealed chamber.

What will you choose?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
Next Release: For the Gray

Two Games for One Date

male-and-female-tinderLately I’ve been using Tinder, without a lot of success, to meet women but I have noticed an interesting sociological interplay. I’m working on a pretty small sample size and if everything I mention in this blog is horribly wrong, please don’t hesitate to eviscerate me in the comments.

What I’ve noticed is the women with whom I make an initial connection ask me a lot of questions. A lot. I, on the other hand, ask a few questions but pretty much spend all my time telling the prospective date about me and my peculiarities. It seems like both of us are playing the same game, for lack of a better word, but we are playing by completely different rules.

Basically I’m hoping to meet the woman for perhaps a drink and a bite to eat. If it turns out we’re incompatible, I’m simply out the price of her preferred drink and a few appetizers. If it turns out she’s an absolute nut, I have a great story for my friends later.

But what about her? What does she have to lose? A quick perusal of any news channel indicates that she has to fear bodily harm, rape, kidnapping, and murder. Those are pretty high stakes indeed.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not asserting that women are completely non-violent and are incapable of meeting a man for a date and doing him harm. I’m just saying that the possibility is so low on my radar that I don’t even consider it when texting on Tinder. I imagine that it’s pretty much the opposite for a woman.

I don’t have any deep philosophical revelations based on this observation. No meaningful insights. Just something I noticed. It gives me a small window into the world of being a woman. An unpleasant reality in some ways.

Maybe I’m wrong. It’s certainly possible.

What do you think?

Are my observation on Tinder interactions accurate?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Life Ain’t Fair – Just ask Hikaru Nakamura

gary-kasparovI wrote a blog post about a chess player named Hikaru Nakamura who was penalized for breaking a rule in chess a few weeks back and something happened yesterday that painfully illustrates the old adage that life just ain’t fair.

In that case Nakamura moved his piece, took his hand off of it, and then tried to further move it. His opponent, Levon Aronian, immediately called this a violation and Nakamura was forced to put his piece on the original square. This cost him the game.

Tough but fair. Them’s the rules. Or are they?

Nakamura just finished playing in the United States Chess Championship where he finished in a tie for second place. After the match the tournament scheduled a special Blitz Chess match between the top three players in the tournament and legendary chess player Gary Kasparov.

Kasparov is 53 years old and has been largely retired from chess competitions for the last ten years. He is considered one of the greatest players in the history of the game and some consider him the clear best. That, of course, is debatable.

Well, why today’s blog? Because in a Blitz matchup against Nakamura; Kasparov did exactly the same thing as Nakamura did in his match against Aronian. Nakamura saw him do it and a wry expression came across his face. Why? Because he was totally screwed.

If Nakamura called the legendary Kasparov for the rules violation, everyone is going to consider Nakamura a bad guy. While there is a fairly large amount of money available to the winner of the Blitz tournament, it is largely an exhibition for fans to watch one of the all time greats take on some of the best United States players of today. If Nakamura doesn’t call Kasparov then he is throwing away an important advantage.

Well, Hikaru, I don’t have to tell you, life ain’t fair.

That is today’s lesson people. Sometimes you have to give life a wry smile and move on. I feel for you Hikaru. At least this one blogger thinks you made the right call, however, if it happens again, throw down the hammer!!

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

Is it Okay to Root for Nazi?

Nazi-Paikidze

Nazi Paikidze, that is.

The annual United States Chess Championships, both men’s and women’s divisions, are being held at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center in St. Louis for the next few days and the aforementioned woman is a leading contender for the title.

Let’s all admit it, when we see the word Nazi certain things come to mind. We cannot deny this bias against the word. It has a meaning far beyond her name. When I heard her name at last year’s championship the first thought I had was: She would be wise to change it. I’m not proud of that thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that she should use her name proudly. She has nothing to do with the definition we generally associate with that word. She is a young woman who is an excellent chess player and, by all accounts, a great role-model for young girls everywhere.

It does get me to thinking about the unconscious biases we have in our daily lives. If I was robbed by a person who wore a red shirt then when I see someone in a same colored shirt I become slightly afraid. If I was in a car accident caused by a someone driving a particular make and model of car then when I see a similar car I immediately become more alert. It’s certainly not fair to the person in the red shirt or the driver of the other car but it is unquestionably true, much as we might like to pretend it is not.

We cannot avoid such biases for we are human and we have lived. Things have happened to us. Events and people harmed us and we associate said events with what the person was wearing, the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, and any myriad of other things.

The reality is that we must judge people by their actions, not the color of their shirts, their names, or any other superficial feature. Such a world is the one we Libertarians yearn to live upon and yet I am as susceptible to such biases as anyone else.

My point? I’m not sure. I guess I’m saying that I’ll be trying to overcome such thoughts and I hope you will as well.

P.S. Go Nazi!

Tom Liberman