Strict Rules at the Masters a Good Thing?

The-MastersThe Masters golf tournament just finished up with Sergio Garcia winning an epic battle with Justin Rose. Sergio has had a long and successful career but always fallen short in the Majors so it was quite wonderful to see him win and the emotion of the triumph. However, that’s not what I’m writing about today. As a Libertarian I want to examine the nature of the stringent rules for spectators at The Masters.

There are rules against using cell phones, rules against running, and plenty more. Spectators who violate the rules not only risk being removed from the grounds that day, but also losing their ticket forever. That’s right. Forever. The Masters tickets are strictly limited and the only way to get new ones is if someone else gives up their own. Thus breaking the rules carries serious consequences and most people do not do so.

Now that we know the consequences are serious I’ll turn my attention to the rules. Said regulations are certainly the purview of the people who run the Masters. They can make whatever rules they want.

In other, less popular, events such rules would likely drive away their audience and cut into their ticket sales.

Watching the Masters on television is rather pleasant because there are not as many spectators yelling banal encouragements or trying to distract the actual competitors.

The lesson to be learned here is important from a Libertarian perspective. Those who run the Masters created in environment in which many people want to participate. Television networks pay huge sums of money to broadcast the even. Advertisers pay even more money for the right to run commercials during the event. Spectators hope against hope to even have the possibility of getting tickets.

But there is something else to discuss as well. Prior to 1990 the club where the Masters is held, Augusta National Golf Club, did not allow black members. Prior to 2012 they did not allow women members. These policies threatened their audience. People were rightfully upset about such racist and misogynistic rules. Fewer people wanted tickets to the event. Fewer people wanted to watch on television. The event itself, if they continued such policies, risked serious reduction of revenue. Even players began to at least think about not attending in protest over such rules.

The government did not force Augusta to change their policies. Several members resigned. Corporate sponsors faced heavy criticism from those who consumed their products and put pressure on August as well. It became in Augusta’s self-interest to change their rules and they did.

We often rely on the government to right social wrongs but it is generally unreliable in such matters. There will always be those who hold racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and other vile views. They are often in positions where they can discriminate. People can effect change where the government is powerless. Something to keep in mind.

Tom Liberman

Jordan Spieth – Tiger Woods Misleading Headline

spieth-woodsThis one is a doozy! Jordan Spieth tees off on Tiger Woods in Epic Shade Throwing reads the completely false and malicious headline from Sportsnaught and Vincent Frank.

Clickbait at its absolute worst. Not only does the headline make it appear as if Spieth said something nasty about Tiger Woods but the article pretty much matches the headline. It talks about how Spieth was throwing a “whole heck of a lot of shade.”

Give me a break. Spieth pointed out his game is not based on hitting the ball long but on accurate approach shots and strong putting. Thus the methods used at the Masters to lengthen the golf course for Woods and other long hitters wouldn’t be effective against Spieth.

It was not shade. It was not even directed at Woods. It was simply a comment on his style of play.

Congratulations Sportsnaught and Vincent Frank, you win Misleading Headline of the Week!

Tom Liberman

Self-Refereeing and North Carolina vs Gonzaga

don-denkinger-bad-callI did not watch the NCAA Basketball Championship game between Gonzaga and North Carolina but the articles in the various sports websites I visit seemed to indicate that the referees intruded fairly heavily. This usually means they called a lot of fouls. There are two points of view on this.

One is that officials should let the players play the game. This means not calling many fouls. The problem there is when the players realize the officials aren’t going to call anything other than obvious fouls they start to play outside the rules of the game. Things can get ugly and out of control when that happens.

A second idea is that the officials are right to make the calls and the job is difficult. This sometimes means that the flow of the game is disturbed and it is less enjoyable for the audience. The audience essentially provides all the revenue and without them there isn’t nearly as much money to be made.

Is there a solution? It’s not easy but I harken back to my days of playing sports as a lad. In street games there was no one officiating at all and even in some organized sports like the high school tennis I played, it was up to you to perform self-refereeing.

I remember those days with fondness. When we called our own games. The general idea was that if you made a bad call your opponent had the ability to do the same thing. This meant that you generally called the game fairly. If you didn’t catch the ball in baseball you said you didn’t catch it.

I understand the stakes were considerably smaller on the playground than in the NCAA Championship and the temptation to make an unfair call is significantly greater. Still, there is part of me that imagines if we remove the officials from the game, players are going to be more likely to make accurate calls on themselves. It is the presence of officials that lead to more bad calls. I remember many games where an official made a horrible call and my opponent knew it but said nothing, or vice-versa. I think that in most cases we would never have made the bad call if left to our own devices.

What do you think?

How many bad calls would there be if we eliminated officials?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
May 2017 Release: For the Gray

NFL Referees Allowed in Vegas but why were they Banned?

Raiders_Stadium_artist_renderingThe National Football League owners just voted to allow the Oakland Raiders and owner Mark Davis to move the team to Las Vegas. I’m not surprised. There is more money to be made in Las Vegas than in Oakland in the same way there was more money to be had in Los Angeles than St. Louis.

I’m not here as a snowflake St. Louis Rams fan to condemn the greed of the NFL owners. What I want to talk about is the rule preventing league officials from entering the city of Las Vegas during the season. That’s right, prior to the move of the Raiders, league officials were not even allowed to visit Las Vegas during the season unless their regular job required it. Even then there were restrictions. Obviously this rule will have to change.

The reason for the rule was the league wanted to prevent referees from being influenced by gamblers. Well, that’s what they claim. That’s what I want to talk about. The league knows full well that gambling doesn’t happen only in Las Vegas. They know gamblers look to influence referees in every sport and in every league regardless of physical location. If they know this, why the ban?

The answer is simple and one that strikes to the very heart of problems we have in the United States and around the world. The ban of officials visiting Las Vegas gives the league the appearance of being concerned about gambling and of taking measures to prevent corruption of referees when, naturally, it does neither of those things. The league doesn’t care that the ban is stupid and useless. They care that it makes them look good. It makes it look like they are doing something about the problem. And that’s dangerous. That’s what I oppose.

I think the league has good reason to worry about gamblers corrupting their officials. I think all sports leagues have good reason to worry. The NBA certainly knows all about it. I strongly suspect any number of games in all sports, in all leagues, have been tainted by officials on the take from gamblers. Or in debt to gamblers. Or something along those lines.

I have no proof that it happens and yet I have absolutely no doubt it does. Gambling is not limited to the NFL or even professional sports leagues. Large amounts of money is wagered on high school football. Referees have enormous influence over games. They certainly give gamblers the best chance to influence outcomes. This fact has not slipped past the notice of such organizations.

I’m also not suggesting sports leagues don’t use other tactics to defeat gamblers. What I am saying is that employing useless measures to counter real threats simply for the illusion of safety is foolish. The illusion is safety is far more perilous than understanding you are in a dangerous situation. The reason being, if you understand you are in danger you take precautions. If you think you are safe, you do not.

The league is giving fans the illusion the game isn’t corrupt and therefore the fans are not necessarily looking for corruption. This means corruption can more easily occur. Now, in this case it’s gambling and some money but the same principle applies to pat-downs at the airport.

I say dispense with useless precautions designed simply to create an illusion of safety. When I see such rules in place I become concerned the people who made such rules perhaps do not understand the real threat. They might even be lulled into the same sense of complacency they hoped to foist off onto others.

We should be more concerned with passing laws that do good than passing laws that falsely make us look like we’re doing good. And if you don’t think that has correlation to what’s happening in Washington D.C., statehouses, and your local municipalities, well, you’ve been fooled.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
April 2017 Release: For the Gray

Nick Saban Rants about Summer Camps but it’s Really all about being a Libertarian

Nick-SabanI just read an interesting story at ESPN about how Nick Saban gave a press conference in which he is quite angry. The main rant seems to involve assumptions about his offensive plans for the upcoming season but later he gets to a topic that touches this Libertarian’s heartstrings. Rules created to prevent some perceived wrong that end up hurting far more people than they help.

At issue is my favorite target, the NCAA. College football teams like Alabama hold summer camps for young players. This allows said teams to gain personal relationships with players that often translate to scholarships at a later date. The NCAA just passed a rule that prevents high school coaches from helping at such camps.

Here’s why the rule was made. Coaches like Saban, and more particularly Jim Harbaugh at Michigan, held these camps and paid these high school coaches to help. The high school coaches have strong influence over their players. The hope being that said coach will recommend to their star players they take scholarship offers from Alabama and Michigan.

This example strikes directly to the heart of my problem with such rules. Yes, this system does curry favor from high school coaches to particular colleges. The question we must always ask is: What is the result of the proposed rule, law, or regulation. That is what Saban is talking about when he says:

And we pass some rule that everybody has to live with, or some law, where the consequences mess up a lot of other things. We do it all the time. We’re doing it right now. The NCAA is doing it. We’re going to change the way we have summer camps. We can’t have high school coaches working summer camps. I mean, it’s the most ridiculous thing that I’ve ever seen. It is what it is and whatever they do, they do.

In this case the high school coaches are still generally going to be favorable to local colleges because of ongoing relationships so the rule itself really doesn’t solve the problem.

Now the coaches won’t be able to bring their players to the camp so some third party is going to do it. Perhaps a family member, an agent, a want-to-be agent, a friend with dollar signs in their eyes, whatever. That issue isn’t solved, just shifted to a new source. In addition someone is going to have to coach those camps. They are happening regardless of the new rule. That someone is likely going to be less qualified than the coach, this hurts the young players. The coach loses as well because teaching at these camps gives them invaluable experience.

Perhaps this seems like a nothing issue to most people but it is a microcosm of Washington D.C., your statehouse, your municipality.

We pass laws with the best of intentions but end up hurting not only the very people such rules are intended to protect, but a host of other people as well.

Nick Saban in his rant is not just talking about these camps. He’s talking about the political world we endure today. And he’s right.

He’s absolutely right.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
April 2017 Release: For the Gray

In some Countries a Speeding Ticket for a Sports Star is a Big Deal

moana-hopeI’m fairly certain that most of my readers are aware that I love sports. I fell in love with Australian Rules football a few years back when it was broadcast on ESPN3. I still follow the sport and something happened this weekend that makes me think. Two players in the game, one a man and one a woman, were caught speeding.

If you say big deal then it’s likely you are much like me and completely inured to sports stars behaving badly here in the United States. In Australia it’s a big story. Both players are facing serious trouble and potential suspensions. The teams are issuing strong words about expecting better from their players, how they take road safety quite seriously.

There is all sorts of chatter on the Collingwood Facebook page about the incident.

It’s not easy to compare a country with a smaller population like Australia to a large one like the United States where we have far more sports stars in a wider variety of sports. The reaction in Australia to the incident, which would probably not even rise to the level of an actual news story in the United States, does raise an interesting question.

Do Australians hold athletes to a higher standard than we do here in the United States?

If so, why?

I certainly think the population of the two nations has something to do with it but perhaps there are cultural differences to account for as well. In Australia police are given wide latitude in interdictions on traffic violations. In Australia the police can stop you while driving at any time for no reason and check for intoxication or pretty much anything else, they have no Fourth Amendment restrictions.

Is this good? Bad? Does it effect how things like speeding are viewed by the general populace?

I’m not really sure I have any world altering conclusion here but I do find the entire thing quite interesting.

I’m a big fan of the Fourth Amendment. I think allow government officials to stop people for no reason is an extremely bad idea. I’m also not a huge fan of vilifying people for relatively minor transgressions. Who among us hasn’t driven faster than the speed limit?

What do you think? Is the culture for sports stars too forgiving in the United States? Too harsh in Australia? Somewhere in between?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Gray Horn
April 2017 Release: For the Gray

Why is Christian McCaffrey Skipping the Sun Bowl?

Christian-McCaffreyThere’s a big story in the sports world and it’s generating a lot of passion on both sides of the proverbial ball. One of the top college running backs, Christian McCaffrey of Stanford, has decided not to play in the Sun Bowl. People seem to be of two minds and both express their point of view with vigor.

One side seems to think that McCaffrey has betrayed his teammates, his fans, his coaches, and the people who will attend the game, for which he was a star attraction. The other expresses the idea that a large payday awaits him in the NFL and avoiding injury in the game could potentially save him a lot of money. I think both sides have their merits but what I’d like to discuss first is the reason McCaffrey has chosen this course of action.

The root of the issue is certainly money. Many players have been injured in such games in the past, this is fact. The position you are drafted when entering the NFL greatly effects the amount of money you make. A first five picks gets a contract worth approximately $8 million more than someone taken eight picks later. That’s a lot of money. That’s what is driving McCaffrey’s decision. If he gets even modestly hurt at the Sun Bowl he could easily drop that many places in the draft. If severely hurt it could be much more.

McCaffrey is enumerated nothing for his participation in the Sun Bowl which pays the participating schools over $4 million. That money comes from television contracts, ticket sales, sponsorship, and other sources. During the week of the game players for both sides will participate in many events which generate money for various establishments in the region. They will sit at tables where people have paid large amounts to be seated near them. They will sign memorabilia that is auctioned for more money. They will be paid nothing for all of this.

This stark contrast in the amount of money McCaffrey gets at college as compared to what he gets after college drives his decision; for good or ill. We cannot ignore the reality of the world. Whether we like these facts or not is irrelevant. Perhaps we think professional players get too much money. Maybe we think college players should get more.

I am not in disagreement with either side of this debate. Leaving his teammates, coaches, and fans without his services in this final game is not a nice thing to do. Risking $8 million or more to play in a game that gives you nothing except potentially negatives consequences seems like a darned bad idea.

What I know as a Libertarian is that McCaffrey is the one who gets to make the decision. Not me. He should do what is best for him. As should we all.

I leave with a final poll. Think about it for a moment before answering.

If the difference between playing and sitting was potentially more than $8 million. What would you do?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Tim Tebow and the Power of Self-Delusion

tim-tebow-patriotsThere’s an interesting story in the sports world about a fellow named Tim Tebow that is drawing a considerable amount of attention.

First a little background. Tebow was a star quarterback in college although his skills did not translate very well to the NFL. Many people predicted that, for various reasons, he would never make it as a quarterback in that league.

He was drafted in the first round by the Denver Broncos well above where scouts had rated him to be picked. His performance with the Broncos was statistically poor although the team won games with him at the helm and went to the playoffs. Eventually he was replaced by Peyton Manning and tried to gain employment with various other teams. It is this part of his story that garners my interest. Tebow was eventually signed by the New England Patriots who are quarterbacked by Tom Brady. Brady is considered by many as one of the greatest quarterbacks in league history.

In excerpts from his soon to be released novel Tebow expresses the idea that he thought he was going to be the quarterback of the future with New England. That he would learn from Brady, take over the team, and lead them to Super Bowl championships. Most people who watched Tebow play and practice consider this opinion delusional. By almost all standards of evidence they were correct. Tebow was cut by the Patriots in the preseason proving those doubters correct. But there’s more to it than that, I think. That’s what I want to examine. Is there something to be said for boundless optimism even if the evidence strongly negates hope?

It’s good to be confident in your abilities and to take on challenges that seem beyond your current skills. People who have this delusional belief in self often end up succeeding where those of a more grounded nature, me for example, would never even make the attempt. Of course, they end up failing spectacularly as well. That is the more general result of taking on a challenge that is beyond your skills.

It’s clear Tebow’s dreams of becoming a great quarterback and winning Super Bowls, just as his chances of being a major league baseball player, were and are extremely unlikely. But the idea of being a player in the NFL was not. He was a player in the NFL. He had high goals but went about achieving them by working at lower level goals. Making the team. Learning the offense. He’s a hard worker. He doesn’t quit easily.

I write my novels and I work hard at it. I’ve written nine. I dream of my books selling millions of copies. I dream of movies and television shows being fashioned from them. Those dreams are about as likely as Tebow’s Super Bowl dreams. But I won’t quite writing. I’ll keep trying to become a better writer. I’ll try to write better novels. I’ll try to promote my novels and my blog.

Dream high but act realistically. Work hard but have alternate plans in case of failure. People who have delusions about their own abilities often succeed beyond all realistic expectations.

You never know, sometimes that self-delusion might somehow result in amazing success. Some of the greatest stories in history were made by people who were more than a bit self-delusional about their abilities.

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

What is Locker Room Talk and What isn’t

locker-roomI don’t have to tell you what today’s blog is all about. Back in 2005 at the youthful age of 58, Donald Trump made some claims about how he behaves with women that are dominating the news cycle.

He has excused his words as Locker Room banter.

As many of my readers know I love sports but most are probably not aware that I played sports. I started at the age of 10 playing baseball and I was in locker rooms pretty consistently until I graduated college. I was no star but I can safely say I know a thing or two about locker rooms.

The following language is going to be harsh. If you are easily offended, triggered, or do not like vulgar talk then you should turn around and leave right now.

Locker room talk is largely men talking dirty about women. About what we’d like to do to a particular woman. I’m going to give some examples.

Example: “Did you see that bitch hanging out of her sweater in the front row? Tits as big as my head. I’d fuck her on the floor of a gas station bathroom.”

Response: “She was fine. Hellz ya.”

Example: “My wife is a dirty whore who sucks like a vacuum cleaner.”

Response: “Lucky bastard.” “Does she have any sisters?”

It is less often about actual activity but can be.

Example: “See that ho in green? I met her last night if you know what I mean.”

Response: “Damn, brother. You best be careful where you put your horse cock or that thing might fall off.”

If is often filthy jokes that have no basis in reality.

Example: “That bitch was so loose I fell in and got lost. Luckily I found a McDonald’s in there.”

Response: “Har har.”

Locker room talk is vulgar. It’s rude. It’s almost universally not meant to be taken seriously. The details of what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom.

What Donald Trump said is not the kind of Locker Room talk with which I’m familiar. The locker rooms I frequented did not tolerate talking about other people’s wives, girlfriends, or sisters. It did not include bragging about actual acts of physical aggression toward women. The lockers rooms I spent much of youth in did not take lightly talk of assaulting women. The men in there have mothers and sisters. Anyone making the statements that Trump made would likely have found their head in the toilet.

To be very clear here. Locker rooms are filled with good looking, charismatic men, they often had sexual encounters with beautiful women. Only rarely did I hear even vague details about actual encounters. “Yeah, I made out with Karen last night.” Even telling other guys that you had sex with a particular girl was generally considered out of line. A real man doesn’t kiss and tell.

There is an enormous difference between, “I’d like to get my head between those legs” and “I grabbed her pussy. Because I’m rich, ha ha, she couldn’t stop me.”

Maybe those were just the locker rooms I was in. Maybe Trump was in different ones although I can find no record of him playing athletics at all.

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

Mayor Raggi of Rome says No to Olympics

virginia-raggiMayor Raggi of Rome, Virginia Raggi, said no to the Olympics and that’s a brave thing to do.

To fully understand why this is a rather astonishing turn of events you should read my blog post on why the Olympics are so lucrative for certain groups of people. I’ll sum up quickly in case you aren’t interested in reading that post.

There are three groups of people who make huge sums of money from hosting such events. Olympic Committee members who are bribed by Politicians. Politicians who are in turn bribed by contractors. Contractors who are then paid to build and staff venues, and sell their wares during the event.

The money to pay the contractors comes from tax revenue.

What we must understand is in this situation Raggi is a member of one of those three groups. Not only is she a member of one of those groups but she associates with many other members. While it is certainly admirable of Raggi to forego the personal bribes she would receive from contractors it’s even more astonishing that she is willing to risk the wrath of her fellow politicians who will certainly attempt to punish her for essentially taking millions out of their pockets.

I don’t really have a lot to say about this that I haven’t said before in other posts. Just hearty praise for Mayor Raggi. Well done, ma’am. I’m afraid your political life might well be compromised. That you will face sabotage and backstabbing from your fellow politicians.

Politics is a tough game, even more so when you try to do what’s right rather than what’s profitable.

Buona fortuna, Mayor Raggi. You have at least one fan here in the states.

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

Rams Smashed but Does that Make Me Happy or Sad?

rams-smashedAs my faithful readers well know, I’m from St. Louis and a big sports fans. I find myself in strange state of mind about the Los Angeles Rams football team that was, for a few years, my hometown team.

The Rams moved to Los Angeles for the 2016 season after moving from Los Angeles to St. Louis back in 1995. During their time here in St. Louis I was a season ticket holder and I watched two NFC Championship games and soared in joy as they won the year 2000 Super Bowl.

The team was largely dreadful their last few years here in St. Louis reaching mediocrity a few times but never better. They left under rather acrimonious conditions. This, by the way, is the second time my hometown NFL team has left. The Arizona Cardinals were my boyhood team and they left back in 1988. I think that plays a factor in my emotions about the Rams. A lot of people in town hate the Rams and were quite happy to see them get destroyed in their first game back in Los Angeles.

I didn’t stay up to watch the game but I did check on the score first thing this morning. I saw that they lost 28 – 0 and a quick perusal of the box score showed they clearly were outclassed. I found myself somewhat happy about this. Yet not particularly happy. I’m certainly a little sad that they are no longer here.

I think a lot of my lack of strong feeling on the subject one way or the other is that the Rams were not my first rooting interest. It’s very nice when you can cheer for one team your entire life. When it comes to the NFL I will never have that opportunity. I relish in my love of the highly successful St. Louis Cardinals and also my love of the less successful St. Louis Blues. If either were to depart for another city I would most likely slowly lose interest in the same way I’ve lost my passion for the Arizona Cardinals over time.

With the Rams, it’s more of a meh situation. I’m sad their gone but they were never really “my” team to begin with. Maybe that’s why I’m not relishing their defeat or hoping for their success. I just don’t much care.

Too bad. I’d love to have a hometown NFL team again. If that ever happens, I’m skeptical, I don’t want someone else’s team. I’d love an expansion team. One to call my own.

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

Saban Blames USC for Problems Misleading Headline

alabama-sideline-argumentTechnically the headline from For the Win at USA Today was accurate but I’m going to go ahead and call it my Misleading Headline of the Week anyway.

Nick Saban blames USC for heated exchange between Alabama players reads the headline. The implication is that the head coach of Alabama was accusing the players of USC for starting some sort of incident. Saban actually went out of his way to make it clear he wasn’t blaming the USC players.

There was a lot of trash talking going on from the other side, that’s OK. That’s their choice. They can do whatever they want. I’m not being critical of that.

Basically what happened is two Alabama players were trying to calm down a teammate, Ronnie Harrison, who was reacting to the trash talking. That caused a heated argument between the players. Harrison has reportedly apologized to his teammates.

Now, technically the headline is correct. Saban did suggest that the incident started in reaction to some trash talking by the USC players. But his point was that his own player was at fault for letting it get to him.

I don’t think it’s the worst misleading headline I’ve ever read but the impression I got was that Saban was blaming USC for the problem which he was not.

Saban’s final quote really sums it up. When you have a teammate who cares about you and is trying to help you, the response should be ‘Thank you,’ not ‘Screw you.’

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

Kaepernick, Solo, and How to be Consistent

solo-kaepernickThere are two interesting stories in the sports world these days. A soccer player named Hope Solo said some nasty things after losing a soccer game and a football player named Colin Kaepernick is refusing to stand during the National Anthem.

People seem to have inconsistent viewpoints on these two things. Not about the actions themselves but about how the employers of these two athletes should treat said actions.

Many people think Solo has every right to say what she wants and the league should not be able suspend her because of freedom of speech. Many people think the United States Soccer Federation is well within their rights to suspend her.

Many people also think that Kaepernick has every right to say, or in this case not stand, and the league or team cannot suspend him. Others think the National Football League or the San Francisco 49ers have every reason to and should suspend or even fire him.

What I find interesting is that largely the people who are think Solo should not be suspended support suspending Kaepernick. Those who think Solo’s suspension is legitimate think that Kaepernick should be subject to no penalty.

My loyal readers, I’m here to tell you there is only one correct answer. Do not argue. Do not debate. Do not interrupt. Read.

Keapernick and Solo have every right to speak their mind. They can say nasty things about opponents and refuse to stand for the anthem. The government cannot and should not be able to arrest them for such actions or words. That’s what Freedom of Speech as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States means.

The USSF, the NFL, and the 49ers have every right to fire or suspend either of them. It’s their business and they can largely discipline employees as they see fit.

That’s it. There is no argument. Go home and have a nice meal with someone you love!

Peace.

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

Online Poker in California and Crony Capitalism

online-pokerI watch an extremely entertaining fellow by the name of Jason Somerville play poker on Twitch and if there is any subject that can rile up the mild mannered, friendly fellow, it’s the people who are trying to stop online poker from becoming legal. It was during one of his rants on the subject that I became aware of legislation that is pending in California.

The problem with this bill is that it allows only existing card clubs and the California Native American tribes to host the websites. This means that the established online poker sites would not be able to compete. In addition, the vast majority of the money taken in from such online gambling sites must be given to the horse racing industry. This to cover for the expected losses to that industry from wider gambling options.

That’s the very definition of crony capitalism. Basically the tribes now host the majority of gambling in the state of California and they don’t want competition. There is a huge amount of money involved.

You may not realize how much bigger California is than the rest of the country but the numbers are mind-boggling. California has the sixth largest economy in the world, tied with France. They produce fully 13% of the total agricultural output of the United States. They purchase enormous amounts of products produced in the other states who are quite dependent on them as a consumer.

I tell you all this not to brag about California but to give you the reality of the amount of money that is at stake. Those Native American Tribes want that money and they don’t want to share it with existing online poker sites.

If we lived in a society that actually valued real capitalism we would not consider such factors as who is to benefit from legislation. We’d simply decide if we thought gambling was something the state should allow or not allow. I’d argue against, but understand, someone who thinks the government should prevent people from gambling because it’s potentially harmful. The legislators would decide who they agreed with and pass laws.

This situation is not that. It is a product of the way government has come to have undue influence on business. Don’t get me wrong. I believe in anti-trust laws. That being said, I absolutely think the more power government has over the success or failure of a business, the more a practical business person must be involved in influencing politicians.

The more business gets involved with politics the more corrupt it becomes. Business operators become less interested in providing a quality product. They simply want to have legislators pass laws that favor their business at the expense of competitors.

What should happen in this case is simple. If California decides to legalize online gambling the horse racing operators need to work harder to get people to visit. The Native American Tribes need to either partner with the existing Online Poker sites or develop their own alternatives. That’s business.

It’s not up to government to decide who succeeds and who fails. When they do so we all lose.

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

Usain Bolt and How Our Nature Promotes Cheating

usain-bolt-victoryI was at the gym the other day when they were running the first heats of the 100 meter dash at the Olympics. I’m not a big Olympics fan for reasons I’ve laid out before more than once. As the heats went on the announcers kept talking about Usain Bolt and his upcoming appearance and I found myself hoping that my aerobic session on the exercise bike lasted long enough to see it.

A tremendous athletic feat is extraordinarily compelling. I’ll never forget Secretariat winning the 1973 Belmont Stakes. I’ll never forget watching the St. Louis Steamers indoor soccer team coming back from a six goal deficit in the finals against New York, I was there. Yes I was. I’ll cherish the memory of Ricky Proehl holding onto a Curt Warner pass, I was there also, to win the NFC Championship game against Tampa Bay.

This is why sport is such a powerful force in many of our lives. I have friends who were decidedly not sports fans who became fanatics after watching David Freese hit a home run in the 11th inning to win game six of the 2011 World Series, I was not there sadly.

So what’s the point of my blog today? I think the chance that Bolt and every other 100 meter sprinter in the Olympics is using Performance Enhancing Drugs is about 100 percent.

The science behind using PEDs is far ahead of the science of catching users. I think there are a number of reasons for this disparity but one of the important ones is that we largely don’t want to catch those using such techniques. We love the amazing performances. We fool ourselves into thinking only the hated opponent is using such methods. Our heroes, of course not.

Ratings go up for tremendous performances. The people who manage the sports leagues, the Olympics, the World Cup, and your local high school volleyball tournament are all aware of this. They see the revenue go up when star performers excel. It’s incontrovertible.

We love the astounding. We revel in the amazing. We encourage the cheating. We pretend it’s not happening. It is.

I offer no solutions. I just prefer to be honest with myself. Do you?

Oh, yeah, Bolt was on the track getting ready to get into the starting blocks when I finished my workout. I could have waited a few minutes and watched the race.

I took a shower.

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

USGA and Anna Nordqvist Grounding Club Rule

Optimized-nordqvist-grounded-clubThe United States Women’s Open golf tournament was held this weekend and it was shaping up as a very exciting finish before something terrible happened.

Two players were involved in a three-hole playoff to determine the champion and one of the players, Anna Nordqvist, hit her ball into a sand bunker. This is in golf parlance a hazard. When in a hazard it is against the rules to ground your club. This rule exists for a very good reason. It is entirely possible to altar the condition of the hazard by pushing down with your club and easing the eventual path to the ball.

Nordqvist took her shot and grounded her club every so slightly dislodging the smallest of clumps of sand. No one noticed it at the time. The two women parred the hole leaving them tied going to the third and last hole of the playoff. Both women hit their first and second shots to the par 5. That is when a video review noted the infraction. Both women were ready to hit their third shots but Nordqvist was further away so she hit hers without the knowledge that she was actually two shots behind. Her competitor, Brittany Lang, was informed of the infraction before hitting her third shot.

I’ve written about golf infractions in which the penalty was assessed after the fact in regards to Tiger Woods and Dustin Johnson if you wish to see my earlier thoughts.

This latest incident brings into even greater clarity the problem of reviews after the fact. Everything that happens after the incident in question is subject to change. Both Nordqvist and Lang would not have played the remainder the 17th hole and the start of the 18th hole in the same fashion if they knew about the infraction. The fact the USGA informed Lang of the penalty before her third shot but not Nordqvist until after her third shot makes it even more egregious.

In all other sports replays must be adjudicated before play continues. It is clear this is necessary. Everything after the incident is subject to change.

It’s my opinion that once the next shot is taken, even if a penalty has occurred, it must not be enforced. If the player does not call themselves on the infraction, their fellow competitor does not call it, and the official charged with watching the group does not call it, then it cannot be enforced; no matter how obvious the violation.

I know people won’t like that. You will say, “But Tom, what if the player knew they broke the rule but rushes to make the next shot before anyone notices?”

I say that is exactly what happens to replays in the NFL and NCAA all the time.

I also completely understand wanting to get the call correct in the end. I’m a big believer in replay and getting the call right. But it’s vital to stop the match immediately if there is a question. It’s just unfair to everyone else if you allow people to continue playing with the actual result subject to change.

Nordqvist is showing great sporting spirit by not blaming anyone or complaining but the reality is this win is unfortunately tainted. Lang did nothing wrong and is a deserving winner but if both players knew of the infraction before continuing the result might well have been different. What happened is unfair to both.

For my knowledgeable golf fans I know you are going to mention the Craig Stadler towel incident. In light of recent events I now think he should not have been penalized.

Tom Liberman

Zack Hample and the Baseball Game at Fort Bragg

Fort-Bragg-BaseballThere are a lot of people angry at a man named Zack Hample this morning because he attended a baseball game held at Fort Bragg.

The game was held on July 3rd as a tribute to military personnel and they and their families were given tickets. Hample is an avid, to understate it, collector of baseballs. He’s traveled all over the United States and collected over 9,000 of them from various different stadiums. He was eager to get a ball from this unique event and presumably paid someone to get their ticket. He was offering $1,000 for such a ticket.

People are angry that Hample got a ticket, attended the game, and collected a ball. They argue that he “stole” the seat from a military person and thus the ball as well.

I disagree. Whoever sold their ticket to Hample got something more valuable than a souvenir, $1,000 presumably. We don’t know what Hample ended up paying but we do know that whomever sold him the ticket wasn’t much interested in baseball or the souvenir. I understand that there was a child somewhere who is interested in baseball and would have loved to get a ball. But there was also someone interested in a thousand bucks.

No one forced the soldier to sell his ticket. From reading the comments on Twitter the soldiers were told not to give or sell the tickets to anyone except active duty military personnel and family. Yeah, good luck with that. There are going to be plenty of soldiers who got tickets who have no interest in baseball. There are going to be plenty of them, like me, who have no interest in souvenirs. They should be able to sell their ticket to the highest bidder. I’m willing to bet that many soldiers will sell tickets and other items they got at the game. That’s their business.

That’s life.

I certainly understand people don’t like it. I’m just suggesting that such people are living in a fantasy world.

Hample wanted a ball and was willing to pay for the opportunity to get one. A soldier wasn’t much interested in a ball or the game and sold him the seat. Two adults completing a transaction.

Was there anything wrong with Hample attending the game and getting a ball?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Dustin Johnson and the Fear of Making a Mistake

Dustin-Johnson-US-Open-putt-minThere is a huge controversy going on right now in the U.S. Open.

The Rules of Golf state that if you cause a ball to move you are assessed a penalty. If the ball moved through some other agent it is not a penalty. Dustin Johnson was leading the U.S. Open when his ball moved. It was determined he did not cause it to move and thus he played it from the new position. Then, after watching some video, someone at the USGA, the organization that runs the U.S. Open got scared. What if Johnson did cause it to move? People will blame us!

Fear then ran through the organization much like poop through the proverbial goose. We have to make sure we’re not blamed if that happens. Panic spread like wildfire. In that panic someone made a very, very bad decision. They decided to inform Johnson that he might be assessed a penalty. This while he is still on the course!

His competitors know nothing of this although it’s likely word has filtered to them through the crowd. It changes the way everyone plays their remaining holes. It changes everything. It’s a disaster.

Would we expect any other sporting event to do as much? Well, St. Louis Cardinals. It looks like that run you scored may not count but go on and keep playing anyway. We’ll tell you what we decided after the game? Idiocy!

I’ll lay it out for the cowards at the USGA. Make a decision and stick with it. If it turns out to be wrong later, take the heat.

Today is Father’s Day and the USGA is acting like a scared child. Shameful!

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

Jordan Spieth and Professional Autograph Sellers

Jordan-Spieth-signing-autographs-PGA-ChampionshipThere was an interesting story from the United States Golf Open this morning that I think gives us a fairly keen insight into the nature of capitalism, both good and bad.

A professional golfer by the name of Jordan Spieth refused to sign autographs for two adults while signing for a child who was being “smooshed” by said adults. Spieth determined, and I absolutely believe he was correct, that the adults were what are called Professional Autograph Seekers. Such people collect autographs for resale at such outlets as eBay.

This practice has angered quite a number of celebrities from politicians to athletes to actors and beyond. Many of them have instituted policies to try and ensure their autographs only go to those who want them as a souvenir rather than as a money generator.

There are several thoughts behind this line of thinking.

One of the main arguments is that the celebrities can and do make a great deal of money by selling their own signature. That professionals are simply stealing profits that are legitimately the celebrity’s.

Another is that time spent signing for professionals takes away from available time to sign for legitimate fans who want a personal souvenir.

Both reasons are legitimate and I certainly don’t have a problem with Spieth, or any other celebrity, who tries to limit their signature when it comes to professionals.

But now I’ll come to the point of today’s blog. The economic reality is that there is a ready-market of people willing to pay fairly significant sums for those signatures. Where there is a market there will be suppliers. Suppliers will find a way to meet demand. Professional Autograph Seekers pay children to collect signatures. They seek autographs through the mail. There really isn’t much a celebrity can do except stop signing altogether. That, of course, deprives those who want a souvenir both at live events and at auction sites.

It’s a situation that brings to light the full gamut of capitalism. Good and bad.

The selling of signatures makes money for the celebrity and the Professional Autograph Seeker. It means that many people who want a signature as a souvenir get it despite never being in close proximity to the celebrity. Those are both good things.

It also means that the amateur is often pushed out of the way. That a child who wants an autograph is smooshed. Let’s not mince words. Celebrities don’t sit and sign until the last person is gone. They have limited time and every professional means one less signature for an actual fan.

There really is no villain here. Spieth wants to give his signature to people who value it for personal significance. Professional Autograph Seekers are simply making money from a ready market. Those buying on eBay or other outlets are spending their money freely knowing full well who is selling the autograph.

A politicians might try to outlaw selling signatures that are not your own and thus create a giant black-market with all the violence and fraud such illicit underground situations always bring.

The world ain’t always pretty and many times there just isn’t an equitable fix. Striving to find political fixes for things that cannot be fixed leads to bigger problems than the original issues. Don’t do it!

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