Category Archives: Society

Without Audio who would you believe? Krzyzewski or Brooks

Posted on by

brooks-coachkIt’s March Madness and that means lots of hard fought basketball games. There was an incident after the Oregon v. Duke game that I think might give us all cause for reflection. We make many assumptions in life and, if we are honest with ourselves, sometimes these are completely incorrect.

Near the end of the game an Oregon player named Dillon Brooks took a very long shot as the clock was winding down even though his team had the game in hand. There were actually good reasons he did this including instructions from his coach. That’s not my topic for today though.

Coach Mike Krzyzewski approached Brooks after the game and said something to him. Afterwards people were wondering what was said in the exchange. Brooks responded that Krzyzewski told him, “You’re (Brooks) too good a player to be showing off at the end“.

Coach Krzyzewski, when asked, denied this and said that what he told Brooks was that he was a terrific player.

Brooks is a young man while Krzyzewski is a well-respected and older coach.

When I heard about the exchange I immediately and without much thought believed Krzyzewski. Why would a coach with such a distinguished record lie? Brooks was coming off an emotional win, perhaps he misunderstood, I thought charitably.

Then audio of the exchange was released.

Coach Krzyzewski has now apologized both for his original denial and for lecturing a player from another team.

My point is straight-forward. In a he-said/she-said situation how many times do we believe the person who appears to have more credibility. I think this is natural. The person who has more credibility has achieved that status for a reason. But the reality is far more nuanced. Sometimes the more credible person has more to lose. Sometimes the more credible person knows they can get away with a lie because the other party is less trustworthy. I think we see this situation far more often than we realize.

I’m of the opinion a lot of times the less credible person is not believed and suffers consequences, sometimes severe.

What I hope you take from this incident is while believing the person who appears to have more credibility might be natural, it’s often wrong. We should always dig a little deeper, if possible.

I’m curious. Without the conclusive audio evidence would you have believed Coach Krzyzewski? Would you have labeled Brooks a liar and lost respect for him?

Without Audio what would you have thought?

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

CDC, Pregnancy, and Alcohol

Posted on by

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

The warning is specific and terrifying:

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

The danger is called Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Everyone was a Millionaire what would Happen?

Posted on by

powerball-meme-failThere’s been an interesting meme making the rounds about the Powerball Jackpot of $1.4 billion and how it could be divided up among all the people living in the United States. It’s fundamentally wrong in that the amount posted, $4.33 million, is an error. It would actually be on $4.33. That aside, I noted several of my friends on Facebook suggesting that if everyone was a millionaire economic ruin would follow.

That’s the idea I want to examine today.

What if everyone in the nation, perhaps even the world, had enough money to buy most of the things they need with the exception of luxury items.

The theory my friends on Facebook have is that these people would never work again. They’d simply invest the money and live off the interest while eating, sleeping, and otherwise occupying themselves. The problem being that if they wanted to play a round of golf all the people that work at the golf course wouldn’t be there. There would be no one to get out the carts, no one to take their payment, no one to mow the grass, no one to weed, no one to do anything. All those people would have retired as well.

What incentive is there to work if not to provide basic economic needs? If you have food, utilities, entertainment, and other things, why would you labor?

It’s a fair question and I think the answer lies within our nature. I’m of the opinion that we don’t do things simply to have enough food. There is a deeper yearning within and that is to achieve things. That is the underlying foundation of happiness. When we achieve we are happy. Certainly money allows us to purchase things that make life more comfortable and acts as an incentive but it is only a shadow of the real thing that drives us.

As modern, so-called Western, culture has made people wealthier it has not stopped that drive to achieve but in many ways fueled it. Poor people in poverty stricken nations have far less than their equivalents in wealthy nations. We’ve seen the definition of poor radically change as wealth has increased but we have not seen a drop in a desire to work.

But there is a danger and I think that it comes from our worship of money as opposed to achievement. When we place wealth on a golden pedestal we fool people into thinking that money is the goal. It is not. The goal is happiness and we get there by doing things well. We get paid because we do things well and thus can afford more luxuries, this is true, and I’m not arguing against giving achievers more money with which to buy things. I’m just arguing that the emphasis on which we often put the two is wrong.

Achievement is the goal. Happiness, money, comfort, and success are the results.

If we make achievement the first priority then wealth, for everyone, naturally follows.

As energy becomes cheap and readily available, soon enough everyone in the world will have their basic needs met without having to work. I’m of the opinion this will not lead to stagnation and ruin but to an age where humanity achieves things heretofore all but unimaginable.

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

Knowingly Sending Sexually Explicit Pictures of Yourself is a Crime Now

Posted on by

Cormega-Copening-and-Brianna-DensonI just learned of the case against Cormega Copening and Brianna Denson and, yet again, I shake my head in dismay.

Cormega and Brianna date. When they were both sixteen years old they sent one another sexually explicit photos. The police took Copening’s phone while investigating another incident and found the pictures. They then went to Denson and took her phone finding similar pictures on it. Denson reached a plea deal in which she was fined $200 and given a year’s probation. Copening is facing five counts of sexual exploitation each with the possibility of two years in prison and a lifetime listing as a sexual offender.

In an interesting side note, the state of North Carolina is of the opinion that Copening and Denson at sixteen were legally allowed to have sex with one another and be charged as adults, but were not old enough to send sexually explicit pictures of themselves to each other.

Let’s imagine we live in a grown up country instead of the great do-good, nanny nation the United States has become.

It shouldn’t be illegal for anyone, of any age, to willingly and without duress send a picture of themselves to someone else regardless of sexual content.

I get the moral outrage of we must protect the children! I understand that someone might well be tricked or coerced into sending a compromising photo of themselves to a second party. I don’t want to get into far ranging discussion today. We could talk about an adult tricking or manipulating a young person into sending such photos. I understand the possibility of third parties becoming involved in transferring such photos. I get the idea that demand for child pornography creates suppliers. But none of that is the case here.

The problem here is largely a horrible law. It’s illegal for a minor, under eighteen, to have sexually explicit photos on their phone. The most serious of all the charges Copening faces are third-degree felonies for having sexually explicit pictures of himself on the phone! I repeat, of himself. He took them with the intention of sending them to Denson and had them still on his phone when the police confiscated it. He is both the defendant and the victim!

If anyone under 18 does not own the right to their own images what else is left for the government to take?

I even understand the police and prosecutors who are merely applying the law as it is written in North Carolina. That’s their job. They might have decided to prosecute this case simply to point out the insanity of the legislation, hoping to get legislators to make changes.

Why do we care so much about people, even those under eighteen years of age, willingly sending sexual photos to each other? It’s their damned business!

Why are we so obsessed with everyone else’s private and personal business?

How on earth did we get to a place in this nation where a seventeen year old boy can be sent to prison for having naked pictures of himself on his phone?

How?

P.S. The picture I included at the top is an adorable image of the couple having fun for the camera, it was on their Facebook page but is now out and about on the internet.

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

Romancing the Apocalypse

Posted on by

ApocalypseHas anyone else noticed the romanticizing of an apocalypse?

Be it a Zombie Apocalypse, a Nuclear Apocalypse, a Government Meltdown Apocalypse, or any other sort of disaster, there are those who romanticize this state affairs.

Why is this? I say with absolute confidence that modern society with all its amenities is far better than any apocalyptic scenario. The modern world is amazing. Modern medicine. Modern dentistry. Modern plumbing. Modern communication. I play chess with people from all over the world thanks to the internet and computers. I talk with friends and family at will. I know almost immediately when things happen. We have a virtually endless supply of clean water, hot water, food, comfortable lodgings, transportation, comforts.

After the apocalypse all these things go away. Even if I was somehow lucky enough to survive I’d be living without hot water every day. I’d be hungry and sober most of the time. I wouldn’t get to play Dungeons and Dragons and board games with my friends. I wouldn’t get to travel. The world would be much less beautiful. It would be, in a word, awful. And that’s at best.

So what is this romanticizing all about?

I think it’s about two different things although they overlap.

One group of people is those who are dissatisfied with life but also relatively comfortable. They have plenty. In comparison with people throughout the history of the world they are more comfortable, wealthier, have better access to food and water, shelter, live longer and with less pain; and yet they yearn to have not these material things but instead control of their life. That’s what an apocalyptic fantasy yields. I am the controller of my destiny. I find my food. I kill my enemies. I lead my family and friends to freedom and survival.

The modern world gives us many nice things but we are increasingly dependent on others for these luxuries. My food delivery service is late on Tuesday night thus inconveniencing me. A driver cuts me off on the way to work thus frustrating me. We largely do not control our destiny in a modern world and this births discontent and yearning for more control, the control a apocalypse seems to promise.

The other group of people are those who use fear of such a catastrophe to fleece us of our money. They promise safety when the world collapses … for a fee. They are often also part of the first group in they think they will have control once disaster strikes.

The first group is understandable but incorrect. An apocalypse will not give them more control, but less. There is more immediate control of things like gathering food but much less control of life in general. Is there food to be found? Water? Is it safe to leave the house? Will I be able to communicate with my loved ones? The answer is mostly no. Life is more dangerous, more capricious, and less controllable despite the promise of such power. It is certainly without the amenities.

The second group is largely despicable. They hope for terrible tragedy and the countless loss of lives in order to inflate their massive egos in regards to their own capability and also to steal your money. They are not to be trusted.

My point in all of this? Life is very good for more people now than it has ever been in the history of the world. Work not to destroy this world but to make it better. Yearn not for an apocalypse but incremental improvements to a system that is already pretty amazing. Look not at the driver who cut you off but at your ability to safely get to the grocery store and purchase all you need. Do not be angry when an ambulance momentarily blocks your path but understand that such a vehicle will one day take you or a loved one to a hospital for medical care that far surpasses any in the history of the world.

Sure, life isn’t perfect. Life isn’t fair. The government isn’t without flaw. My advice, don’t destroy, instead build. This is the path to controlling your life and the path to happiness.

Tom Liberman

Pro Uncovered Breastfeeding, Strong Women, and Twitter Rage

Posted on by

Twitter-hateI made a post the other day about a woman who was proudly, without any covering, breastfeeding her child and angered by the woman at the next table who was glaring at her.

A self-declared feminist on Twitter retweeted my original post and attracted the attention of a group of people who strongly, and I do mean strongly, advocate breastfeeding in public without any covering.

I’ve gotten a large amount, well, a large amount for me, of Twitter hate. I’m being called misogynistic, ill-informed, perverted, male-privileged, and various other names. In the midst of it all a woman grabbed a screen capture of my Twitter image which shows the three main protagonists from my latest novel, The Girl in Glass I: Apparition. She asked if I liked the way the woman was dressed. It was Rhia the powerful swordswoman of the group.

I do like strong and powerful woman. I find them attractive and interesting in real life and I enjoy writing about them in my fictional universe. My mom and all of my sisters (five for those of you counting) certainly fall into that category and the women I date tend to as well.

A thought occurred to me as I was looking at this Tweet.

Are not the women who are so dedicatedly defending the act of uncovered breastfeeding also strong and passionate women? By golly, they are!

I personally don’t think we’re that far apart in our opinions of breastfeeding uncovered in public. I think a woman should make an effort to cover herself out of consideration to the other diners. My Twitter friends think otherwise.

I certainly agree women should be allowed to go without covering themselves and not fear arrest of indecency. I think if a woman wants to do so she has every right to do that. I would fight vigorously against making such illegal. I also think accommodations for breastfeeding women should be made much more readily available.

That being said, it is not me who thinks our opinions are widely divergent. It is the strong and vocal women. They are mad at me, not vice versa.

To that I say: Good for you. I admire your passion. Keep up the fight! We disagree but that’s not a reason to hate, at least not for me.

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

 

Nasty Glares for Breastfeeding in Restaurant

Posted on by

Ashley-KaidelThere’s apparently a big story making the rounds about a woman named Ashley Kaidel who posted a picture of herself breastfeeding in a restaurant.

Apparently a nearby woman was glaring at Kaidel for her display. Kaidel took exception and glared back which is when the picture was taken. Kaidel writes in her Facebook post: If a mother is more comfortable covering herself because SHE feels better doing so, then I totally support that.

She has accumulated almost 400,000 likes to the post as the image has gone viral.

She’s angry because the other woman in the restaurant is making an attempt to shame me and indirectly tell me without words that I am wrong and need to cover myself.

I’m a man. I’m not married. I’ve never had a child. Yell at me all you want, but Kaidel is in the wrong here. I’d be uncomfortable if a man pulled off his shirt and exposed himself this way, let alone a woman.

I’m upset when people a few tables over start yelling at each other. I think it’s rude when a man wears inappropriate clothes to a fine dining establishment. Why? Because it’s disrespectful to everyone else in that restaurant. It’s a ME-ME-ME attitude on display for the world to see.

Like it or not a female breast has a sexual aspect to it. It’s fine at a nudist beach, in the changing room, at home, or any other place where it won’t be intruding on the lives of others. Not to mention that it’s not that difficult to cover up. Yes, it’s a uniquely female problem but does that mean someone is sexist to suggest that perhaps you shouldn’t pull out your breast in public? Is it sexist to say a man shouldn’t expose his penis in public? Is it sexist to say a woman shouldn’t show her vagina in public? I think not.

Kaidel’s long rant makes it clear she has an agenda. Everyone should breastfeed everywhere so little girls learn to love it. You have to read the whole self-centered thing yourself to truly get her narcissism. She’s a crusader, make no doubt about that. Most laughable is her claim at the end that she didn’t make the Facebook post to get attention.

All that aside, it’s not a matter of disgust, intolerance, hatred, or shaming. It’s a matter of respecting the other diners at that restaurant. Kaidel is the guilty party in that regard.

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

Thanksgiving Shopping Backward Thinking

Posted on by

no-shopping-thursdayOn this Thanksgiving Day I see on my Facebook scroll many posts about how the evil, awful retailers have destroyed the day of family and made it all about consumerism and shopping.

The image I’ve posted it but one of many similarly themed posts. It’s not a big deal but it still rubs me the wrong way. Why you ask? I’ll tell you why!

It’s my opinion that the campaign to shame or even abolish Thanksgiving Day shopping is in reality a shameless attempt to capitalize on Thanksgiving Day shopping. Upworthy, the advertiser in this case, and yes it is an advertisement my deluded friends, is simply trying to get you to click on their site. They want you to share their post, watch their videos and the advertisements played during those videos, which makes them money … on Thanksgiving Day!

That hypocrisy is only the first thing that bothers me about this entire anti-shopping Thanksgiving trend.

The general theme of the movement is that the evil, awful retailers are destroying families by forcing them out of the house on this holiday. Well, golly, maybe people want to get out of the house and do some shopping. Maybe retailers are simply supplying a demand. Maybe if no one actually wanted to shop on Thanksgiving, retailers wouldn’t open their doors which in turn causes employees to work.

I’m not saying that people should shop on Thanksgiving or that workers should have to work on Thanksgiving. I worked Thanksgiving morning and early afternoon at the golf course every year. We generally closed around 2:00. My gym is open this morning. Thanksgiving is a day off and people generally like to get things done on that day off. That means people employed in service industries have to work. It’s the reality.

I get that you think it’s supposed to be for families. That’s great. Spend it with you family. But don’t try to shame other people for doing what they want to do. Shop. Play golf. Browse online. It’s not the retailers fault for giving people what they want.

It is, however, Upworthy and their ilk’s fault for trying to fool you with deceptive advertisements. Trust me, Upworthy’s marketing team doesn’t care about making sure Thanksgiving is a family holiday, they care about those clicks. Don’t be fooled.

Have a great Thanksgiving!

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

Syrian Refugees and the Threat they Pose

Posted on by

Syrian-refugeesThe Syrian Refugee crisis is in the news for a number of reasons but the one I am going to talk about today is the question of whether or not to allow them into various countries.

One of the main reasons this has become such an issue is that one of the murderous scum in the recent attacks in Paris was a refugee. This fact has caused a number of governors and other people in the United States and Europe to advocate refusing said refugees, send them back from whence they came. The fear being that more terrorists under the guise of being refugees will sneak into the country.

The danger of this is real. We cannot discount the fear espoused by those who do not want the refugees for this reason. Any terrorist who wanted to gain access to another country might well use the refugee crisis as a method to sneak in. Not only might they, at least one has.

So we admit there is a danger. By allowing refugees into the country we might allow a terrorist in. It’s also possible that the refugee might sometime in the future commit other crimes. Perhaps they will rob a store ten years from now. Again, this is not an idle fear. This is real. There is no doubt that some of the people who are allowed into the country will commit crimes at some point in their lives. By allowing such people into our country we certainly increase the danger we face. One cannot deny this is true.

The question I ask myself is what is the result of not allowing refugees into various countries? It’s important to understand the answer to that question before we can decide if we want to allow them in at all.

Up to four million people have fled the ongoing conflict in Syria into neighboring countries. What would happen to those people if they stayed in Syria?

Many would die, of that there is no question. The warring factions in Syria have little regard for human life. Those that survived would join one of the various warring factions. Some would join the Syrian government forces. Some would join ISIL. Some would form their own factions. Many of them would become radicalized. The children growing up in such an environment would learn death. They would grow up filled with hate. They would become the next generation of terrorists. We will create tens or even hundreds of thousands of hardened terrorists who hate the countries that refused them and caused the deaths of their families.

There is also the ethical point of view. By refusing refugees we condemn many of them to death, maiming, or miserable existences in order to procure a modicum of safety for ourselves.

One must remember that there is an upside to allowing in refugees. Here in my home town of St. Louis we embraced many Muslims from Bosnia during the civil disorder in that country. They have formed an amazing community here. Did some of them turn out to be criminals, certainly. Did some of their children grow up to be criminals, no doubt. But the vast majority are excellent citizens who not only contribute to the community but are grateful for our generosity. Who tell their family and friends who remained behind what a wonderful country they live in. A country where people of different religions, ethnic backgrounds, races, and skin color get along without murdering one another. A country where a more divisive question is if you root for the Cardinals or Cubs.

There are no simple answers to difficult questions. You must examine the reality of the situation. You must determine how much safety you are willing to give up to help those in need. You must ask yourself how many terrorists you wish to spawn upon future generations for your safety today.

I know what my decision would be but your life is your own to lead.

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

Truth or Compassion?

Posted on by

truth-or-liesThis weekend my step-mother missed a step resulting in a badly and gruesomely broken leg. As she lay there writhing in agony she said, “I think I my have broken my leg”.

I responded, “No, you broke your leg.”

Not exactly Mr. Compassion and Kindness. The incident is a window into me to some degree but it brought to my mind a question. Is it better to be brutally honest or skirt around honesty with compassion? I recall another incident while visiting the great state of Alaska where my young niece, perhaps ten or eleven at the time, and me were staying in a cabin and she asked me what would happen if a bear came in the windows. The Denali guides had given us a lesson on what to do if a bear attacks earlier in the day. I responded, “It would kill us.”

Tess was not particularly happy with my response, as might be expected.

Are we better off hearing the awful truth at all times or is it better to soften the blow occasionally?

In the case of my step-mother it was quite clear her leg was broken, she knew it as well as did I. One couldn’t come to any other conclusion. It was going to require an ambulance, a stay in the hospital, and likely surgery. There was nothing to do about it so perhaps I could have said something a little softer, perhaps, “It does look that way but you never know”. Would that have been a better answer at the time? I think it’s the answer a lot of people who actually have a heart might give, but my black and little used blood pumping organ doesn’t seem capable of such.

Likewise with my niece I could have easily said something like, “I’ll protect you.” It would have been true to some degree as I would have tried to protect her but the reality makes almost no difference as a bear was not going to break into the cabin in any case. Giving a softer answer would have reassured her and probably allowed her a more restful evening.

I’m not really asking if my answers were wrong or right in both cases but examining a more philosophic question. When the truth is unhelpful and won’t change anything is it better to lie a little bit?

I seem to find it almost impossible to lie in situations like that. I’m sure it has to do with my social awkwardness and likely autistic spectrum nature but it makes me wonder if I might have more friends if I was a little less direct, a bit less literal.

Oh well, as Popeye was want to say, “I ams what I ams.”

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

Corporal Punishment and Black America

Posted on by

baltimore-mom-slaps-rioting-sonI’ve been thinking about the many troubles black people have had successfully integrating with society in the United States. It occurs to me that perhaps one of the primary causes for this problem is the rampant use of corporal punishment by black parents.

I am certainly aware that there are other issues. The legacy of slavery. Racism still exists. Driving while Black. This is not a one issue problem nor do I claim that I offer a comprehensive solution.

I wrote a blog a while back about how the corporal punishment of children turns them into violent adults. The more punishment that is mete out, the less chance the child has of integrating peacefully into society. The less chance they have of becoming educated. The less chance they have of getting a good job. The less chance they have of maintaining stable relationships. Those who suffer severe and repeated corporal punishment have a much greater chance of struggling with society. They will more likely lash out violently against authority figures or just about anyone.

Does any of that sound like the story of black people in the United States?

There have been a number of cases in the news about using a switch or other implements to punish a child but the one that has been percolating in my mind for quite a while is the image of a woman repeatedly hitting her son as he joined protests in the street during the recent Baltimore riots. She was largely applauded for her efforts to raise her son right although more than a few people pointed out that she was merely teaching violence to violent rioters in order for them to be less violent. Yeah, not going to work.

When young black men are stopped and questioned by the police the argument is that they shouldn’t react violently because that just escalates the situation. Those who read my blog should be well aware that I have no sympathy for violent law enforcement officers who target young black men and escalate the violence. I certainly do not deny that police often profile young black men. Driving while black is no myth. The criminal justice system treats black inherently unfairly as can be seen in any study of punishment dolled out for similar offenses to whites and black. As can be seen in any study of the racial predominance of pullovers which are based on minor traffic infringements.

That being said, there is absolute truth to the argument that if you are polite to an officer who is doing his or her job the odds of it escalating into something terrible decrease dramatically. The majority of officers are out there doing a difficult job as best they can and should be treated with respect. Unfortunately, those raised in a violent home all too quickly resort to violence themselves.

So I say to all parents, stop hitting your kids but I say it especially to black parents. It’s my opinion this sort of violence is one of the major contributors to the difficulties black have faced in successfully integrating with society.

A new generation of young black men and women who learned to resolve conflict without violence will go a long way to establishing the fully integrated society that most of us strongly desire. I myself am a Libertarian and am convinced the merit of a person is in their actions; not the color of their skin, their race, their sexual identity, their religion, or any of the other ways people are pigeonholed.

What do you think?

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

What’s in an Oath? A Trump Tale

Posted on by

Donald-Trump-pledges-allegience-to-GOPPresidential candidate Donald Trump made a pledge today affirming that he will support whatever Republican candidate wins the primary election.

Blah. I’m no fan of pledges and oaths. It seems to me anyone who asks you to swear an oath is basically doing one thing:

Trying to get you to do what they want you to do. You can’t play with us until you swear your oath.

It generally involves an organization that wants you to be loyal to them. The oath has no binding influence on your decision to remain loyal to that organization. They are merely words to that effect. There are certainly no legal remedies should the pledge be broken.

Here’s what I find quite interesting about oaths. They are taken extremely seriously by the honorable and used to gain advantages by the dishonorable.

The person who swears an oath with all honesty and integrity is not going to break that oath easily, but they would never do something against their principles in any case. The honorable swear an oath to something they believe in. They are going to keep that oath regardless of whether they swore it or not. The words merely reinforce their own beliefs. The honorable person who swears to defend their country, or to protect and serve, or whatever else, wants to fulfill that pledge. The words have meaning to that person but not beyond what is in their own heart.

A dishonorable person who swears an oath is simply doing it to give the illusion they are something which they actually are not. They make the pledge with no intention of keeping it should circumstances warrant them breaking it. They are taking advantage of honorable people who assume the words have meaning. To the dishonorable such promises have no meaning.

I have little sympathy for an organization that wants me to swear an oath. I don’t Pledge Allegiance to the Flag, not because I’m planning on being a traitor to my nation, but because I’m confident in my patriotism, I do not need to put it on display for anyone else, nor do I need to prove my loyalty to myself. Nor is my loyalty unconditional.

I have respect for those who make pledges and oaths fully intending to keep them. These are the honorable among us. I say to you, don’t worry about the oath. Know your mind. Remain loyal to that which you believe. Your actions make all oaths unnecessary.

To those who make pledges with no intention of keeping them. You don’t have me fooled.

As to this ridiculous pledge Republicans are making to support any members of their party regardless of any other circumstance. Well, I’d never vote for a person who swears to support an as yet unknown candidate. It’s closing your eyes and signing a blank check. It’s a foolish decision and I, for one, don’t want a president willing to do such.

I do not see Libertarians pledging to support a phantom nor is anyone asking them to do so. Most Libertarians I know support Rand Paul. Certainly not because he has made the misguided decision to run as a Republican, but simply for the policies he espouses and has enacted in his time in office. We Libertarians like to make decisions on the facts before us, not the ghostly phantoms of possibility.

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

 

Infidelity Exposed by Strangers at Baseball Game

Posted on by

busybodyI just read a story about a pair of women who noted that the woman in front of them at an Atlanta Braves baseball game was sexting with a man all the while sitting with her husband. They took pictures of the texts, wrote a note to the man with their phone number, and sent him the incriminating photos when he replied.

It’s a story that is both of the modern age and one that is ages old. If you know someone is cheating on their spouse, or see some other perceived ethical failing, should you inform the presumed aggrieved party?

I may get a lot of heat for this but I think the women who wrote the note were in the wrong. It’s just not their business to inform the husband of the cheating.

One reason is there is some chance the couple has an open relationship wherein they have sex with others. It’s also possible that the man is having many affairs and the woman is having her revenge. It’s possible the man is abusive. Anything is possible but those aren’t really the reasons that I’m against exposing such things.

I’m just of the opinion that it’s not our business, even more so when the effected parties are complete strangers. People who meddle in the affairs of others claiming they are doing good generally cause far more harm than the ills the claim to be solving.

I know that people will ask me if I would want to know if my girlfriend or spouse was cheating on me. The answer is that I wouldn’t want someone else telling me. I wouldn’t be particularly grateful to the tattletale.

If I had witnessed the exchange I’m pretty sure I would have said nothing.

What would you have done?

Would you have Exposed the Cheating Spouse?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

 

 

 

Is Shaving Your Legs a Double Standard?

Posted on by

Suzannah WeissThanks to my Facebook friends I’ve been made aware of a story about women shaving their legs in the news. It’s really about one woman not shaving her legs and she uses the argument that women shaving their legs is a double standard.

Suzannah Weiss wrote the piece for Yahoo! Beauty and seems to think a couple of things. That women shaving their legs when men don’t is a double standard. Also that women largely shave their legs to please men. She mentions that some women shave their legs because they like the look and they should be able to make that choice without judgement.

I suppose Weiss is simply trying to be encouraging to other women out there who don’t want to shave their legs. Perhaps she is trying to shame men who prefer smooth legs on women. I can’t speak to her motivation but the idea that it is somehow a double standard seems wrong to me. If a woman shaving her legs is a double standard then so too must be a man wearing a tie, a woman in high heels, a man who shaves his face, either sex who shaves their genitalia.

Weiss then goes on to explain that a great barometer of a man’s respect for a woman is if he thinks a woman is obligated to look pleasing to him. If a man expects a woman to look nice for him, apparently he is a bad fellow. Likewise it seems that it’s at least a negative thing for a woman to want to look pleasing for a man. If she wants to do it for herself, that’s fine. But wanting to look nice for a man? No good.

I’m a Libertarian. I believe we should always do what’s in our best self-interest. But this doesn’t mean we should be isolated. What is often in our self-interest is doing things that are pleasing to those around us. This is how we form friendships, relationships, and manage to exist in society.

One thing I noticed in the picture to the article Weiss is wearing a flower in her hair. Did she do that to please herself? Could not someone argue using her exact same points that wearing a flower in her hair is misguided attempt to be pretty to those around her? That men don’t wear flowers in their hair. Are flowers in the hair a double standard? Are men who like women with flowers in their hair somehow worse men? Are women who put flowers in their hair to please men wrong to do so?

If a woman wants to shave her legs to please a man, to please herself, or because she’s a competitive swimmer, more power to her. If she doesn’t want to, for whatever reason, fine again. If men like shaved legs on a woman, good for them. If they don’t, fine and dandy.

For purposes of full disclosure, I love smooth legs on a woman.

Tom Liberman