Tag Archives: News

Instant News and the Issues it Creates

Posted on by

MistakesI just read an update on an ongoing crime story that reminded me that this instant news society we now live in thanks to the internet sometimes carries with it significant issues.

There is such a rush to get a particular news story distributed that the news outlets don’t wait to get a complete story. They immediately publish the story even with only partial information. Even if the main news outlets waited there are a plethora of bloggers like me who want to jump ahead with a story. More than once I’ve reported on news that later turned out to be at least partially inaccurate.

I do my best to immediately update any story which I’ve reported incorrectly but that doesn’t mean the people who read the story also read my correction. This is one price we pay for the luxury of getting immediate information.

People are clearly interested in news. That much is undeniable. People want to read about the story not as soon as it happened by while it is still happening. This being the case we can’t expect media outlets to wait on stories while their rivals go ahead. This, naturally, leads to errors. Stories are reported that are not true. Hoaxers take advantage of the immediacy of news to play games.

Sometimes honest mistakes happen. Sometimes people with agendas lie to reporters and mistakes make their way into the story. People like me unknowingly repeat those inaccuracies. People like you read the information and repeat it to your friends.

Where does that leave us?

It leaves us with a lot of misinformation out there. The amount of misinformation is growing and I don’t see any way to stem the tide. With so much misinformation out there the burden falls to each of us to verify the original the story as best as is possible. We must continue to follow the story and evaluate new information with a critical eye.

The tendency to leap to judgment must be tempered. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with looking at the facts as they are currently understood and making a decision based upon them. What’s important is a willingness to reexamine the situation when new facts arise or old facts prove to be false. This is what is difficult. People do not like to admit mistakes and will defend an original opinion in the face of facts that no longer indicate as much.

In short, we must avoid being defensive about our positions and listen to opposing opinions, evaluate facts with an open mind, be willing to admit errors, and not to gloat when we prove to be right and our opponent wrong.

Anyway, something I was thinking about.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Stadium Collapse or Misleading Headline?

Posted on by

Stadium Collapse BrazilI’m tempted to create a series of posts entitled “Misleading Headlines” as the practice of putting headlines on stories that sensationalize articles to the point where they are misleading is becoming all the more common. I could write a daily post about ridiculous, attention promoting headlines from the online financial adviser Motley Fool.

In this case there was a story about a stadium collapse that caught my eye because of a comment a friend made over lunch the other day.

I’m a football fan and by that I mean a soccer fan. The World Cup is approaching and it is being held in the football mad nation of Brazil. The Brazilians are arguably the most successful national team in the history of soccer and having the World Cup played in their nation is a matter of tremendous local pride.

Back to that lunch. My friend heard that there were pollution problems in Brazil associated with upcoming 2016 Olympics and a bit of research on my part showed that they do have considerable issues in regards to fecal matter in the various waterways that will serve as venues for some sports in the game.

When I read about the “Stadium Collapse” I thought to myself that this was another example of problems within Brazil associated with upcoming sporting events.

The article was updated and in reading it I learned that a construction crane fell. This then caused a chain reaction that tore down part of the roof and a scoreboard in the stadium. While the incident is horrible and two people were killed it’s hardly what I would call a “Stadium Collapse”.

A crane fell on a building and caused some damage. That’s what happened.

Anyway, for those of you who thought, as I did, that a stadium had actually collapses, that’s the real story.

Stay tuned for more misleading headlines!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Offended by a License Plate

Posted on by

Offensive License PlateI just read a story that isn’t that big of a deal except that it happens to have taken place here in my beloved Show Me state of Missouri. A woman was offended by her state issued license plate.

Take a look at the image and see if you can figure it out and then read on.

According to the offended Missourian it reads – Whore Eight Times.

I thought it read Who Rate X?

I’m on record as saying words have power and I will not deny that there are combinations of randomly generated letters and numbers that could and should cause offense. Not many people want a license plate that has truly offensive words on it. The state attempts to avoid this and even refuses to allow relatively innocuous license plates because they might be misconstrued.

In this case the woman could have paid $17 to get a replacement plate but instead, over the principle of the matter, took it to the local news station. The bad publicity eventually got the state to waive the fee and issue a new plate.

The woman claims that people were yelling offensive terms at her when they saw the plate and therefore it was up to the state to replace it. Again, I don’t think this is that big a deal but why should I have to pay for the cost of replacement over something that isn’t blatantly offensive? Someone’s $17 in taxes for the state of Missouri went to cover that replacement.

In addition I’d like to address people who make fun of other people over a license plate. It’s like when you’re a kid and someone makes fun of your name. It’s a state issued license plate. It’s the name you have. When I was ten years old a fellow who happened to have the name Lipschitz provided short-lived amusement. By the time I got to High School it was pretty clear to me and everyone I knew that making fun of a person’s name was juvenile.

So what can we take from all this? People who make fun of random letters on a license plate aren’t worth worrying about. People who tease you because of your name aren’t worth thinking about. They’ve got their own problems. In addition, people who worry about non-offensive things in their life have bigger problems.

Don’t sweat the small stuff.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Privately Funded Mars Mission from Dennis Tito – Not so Private

Posted on by

Inspiration MarsNot that long ago a fellow by the name of Dennis Tito proposed a privately financed mission to send a pair of travelers to Mars and back. I was opposed to the project in principle because I prefer robotic missions to manned missions for a number of reason.

My opposition stopped short of saying he shouldn’t go ahead with the project. I felt that if Tito wanted to spend his own money or raise said money from Crowd Sourcing then it was his to spend. That the publicity of the mission might do some good.

Well, the truth comes out. Tito now admits without NASA technology and government money the mission will not go forward. He tries to shame the government into funding his mission and pretty much tries to shift any blame for the mission not taking place to a reluctance by the government to spend your tax dollars.

Tito claims that without the government money he will go ahead with another plan that will launch in 2021. I’m not holding my breath.

The reason I’m posting this update is for those who were greatly enthusiastic about the original story but will not have followed subsequent events closely. It’s a good lesson for all of us. When we hear grandiose schemes we are naturally excited. The idea of doing great things, of participating in such events, is very attractive. I’m not opposed to dreamers and those who support them.

That being said, I’m a pragmatist at heart. It’s great to dream big but it’s vital to work out the details.

A vast quantity of our tax dollars were wasted when President George W. Bush laid out a scheme for a manned mission to Mars and a Lunar Base that was completely unrealistic. At least in this case it’s Tito’s money, not mine.

It seems to me that one of the major problems that we face in the United States is not lack of dreamers, we have more of those than ever, but lack of practical doers. Everyone offers up amazing plans to fix everything and no one does any of the real work necessary to make them happen, or even takes the time to come up with a realistic plan of action. It’s enough merely to promulgate an idea. If that idea doesn’t come to fruition then it’s easy enough to blame someone else.

The next time you hear some amazing story from Tito, Elon Musk, your neighbor, your representative in Congress, or your favorite talking news head, well, take a few minutes to do some research and find out what it will take to make such a plan become reality.

Just a suggestion.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Taxed by Miles Driven – An Oregon Proposal

Posted on by

Gasoline TaxThere’s an interesting idea being tested in the Beaver state of Oregon and it has the potential to have a negative impact on me. The state has started a pilot program wherein drivers will pay a tax of 1.5 cents per mile driven instead of the 49.5 cents/gallon they currently pay in taxes. This includes the 18.5 cents/gallon federal tax.

The reason for this idea is that cars have become significantly more fuel-efficient in the last twenty years and that has greatly reduced the revenue generated by gasoline taxes. Adjusting for inflation it seems as if the revenue stream has dropped by about 40%. The money from such taxes are supposed to be used to pay for both the upkeep on existing roads and bridges and any new construction.

According to most surveys, the roads and bridges in the United States are in abysmal condition and that is a dangerous situation for anyone who travels on them.

The reason this method of taxation has a negative effect on me is because I own a Prius and get about 45 miles to the gallon. This means I fill up my tank about half as much as someone getting 23 miles to the gallon. Thus I pay about half the Missouri gasoline tax (35.7 cents/gallon) as my fellow Show Me state brethren.

The new system means that I would pay exactly the same amount as someone who drove an equal number of miles in a year.

As a Libertarian I’m often criticized for not wanting any government but that is an over-generalization. I think roads are one of the most important services the government provides and I think it is only equitable that I pay for the use I get from them. Not only my own driving but that of goods that are shipped over them to the stores I frequent.

However, this new per mile method doesn’t take into account the weight of the car which is a hugely important factor in damage to the roads. Lighter cars do far less damage to the roads than do heavier vehicles, particularly trucks. Now, roads are damaged not only by heavy vehicles but also by weathering and even the government is going to be hard pressed to find  a way to tax the weather (although I wouldn’t put it past them).

So, what is an equitable solution? I think Oregon is going in the right direction but it could easily be a multiple of the miles driven by the weight of the car. It seems like a formula would not be difficult to derive.

We all like our roads and benefit from them in many ways. The lifestyle we lead is in no small part based upon the transportation system in the United States. It is in our best interest to maintain it at peak efficiency.

All taxes should be based upon the service that government provides. If my Prius does X amount of damage to the road then I should be taxed X with Y added for the general weathering damage. People who drive more, who use heavier vehicles, should be taxed more than those who drive less or not at all.

This is an important argument in the Libertarian arsenal. We are not against taxes but we think that taxes must be justified by expenses. If the gasoline taxes, if all taxes, are designed to generate exactly the revenue necessary to maintain that particular service I will gladly pay them.

I applaud Oregon’s effort, which faces a number of tests including how to determine the number of miles driven and miles driven by out-of-state visitors. The idea is a move in the right direction, let’s see how the implementation goes.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Carlsen v. Anand – The King is dead, Long Live the King

Posted on by

Carlsen Anand chess matchI’m a chess player so recent events in the world of chess have captured my attention. Perhaps most of the people who read my blog will be less interested. The World Chess Championship between former champion Viswanathan Anand and the  new champion Magnus Carlsen just completed and it was an interesting match for a number of reasons that go beyond the world of chess.

Carlsen is the epitome of the young challenger while Anand filled the role of the aging champion of diminishing skills. Age is a factor in all sports including chess which is physically as well as mentally demanding. It is not easy to keep your focus during the entirety of a six-hour chess match. One moment of exhaustion can lead to a miscalculation and at the level of chess that Anand and Carlsen play this mistake is the difference between victory and defeat.

Going into the match Carlsen was the huge favorite. Not only is he twenty-plus years younger than Anand, 22/43, but he has also been the best chess player in the world for the last few years. His tournament play has him ranked first in the world and his rating is the highest in the history of chess. Anand, as he has grown older, has seen his play slip and is currently ranked 8th in the world.

The final score of the match was 6.5/3.5 with Carlsen winning three of the ten games played and the other seven ending in draws. The format was for a twelve-game match but the player who scores 6.5 achieves an unassailable position and Carlsen managed this after the tenth game, thus ending the match.

What I really love about a match of this nature, and of sport in general, is the competition between equals. Here we have two players, competing directly against one another, and one proves to be better than the other. There are no excuses, no controversies, no blown calls, no charges of cheating, just a pair of competitors doing their best. We can say Carlsen won and Anand lost but the reality is that when we have this sort of competition there are no real losers. The chess world wins, Carlsen ascends to the throne where he will in all likelihood reign for many years, Anand bookends a great career by losing to arguably the two best chess players the world has ever known. Anand lost his first bid at championship to Garry Kasparov who, until Carlsen, had the highest rating in the history of chess.

It’s a great time to be a chess player as well. Computers have opened up new lines of thought and play and there are a bevy of young competitors who will doubtlessly challenge Carlsen in the coming years.

The nature of life is that we have champions, that said victors grow older and make way, reluctantly with fangs bared and claws unsheathed certainly, to the young challengers. This test of fire hardens the new champion. This lesson in life is not just for champions but for each of us. We do our best at everything we try. We play by the rules and sometimes emerge the victor sometimes the defeated.

The only real losers are those who cannot be magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat. Those who equate victory more highly than sportsmanship and simply doing their best. When we do our best; we have won.

Hail to you Viswanathan Anand, the vanquished champion.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

What’s in a Name? The Redskin Controvery

Posted on by

Redskin NicknameThere’s been a lot of talk in recent years about the use of Native American nicknames for sports teams. Many people think some of these names are derogatory in nature and would like to see changes.

The most prominent case is the Washington Redskins who are under moderate pressure to change the team nickname. Meanwhile throughout the country there are many schools and teams that use the word Redskins to reference their mascot. The origin of Redskin is somewhat in dispute but it is generally recognized as a pejorative term. Not everyone feels this way though. The name Redskin is almost always used with pride when in reference to the school mascot or team.

There are certainly any number of Native American names used within the English language with fully 26 states having such names. Professional sports teams include the Chicago Blackhawks named after Sauk leader Black Hawk.

We also see the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Hawks, the Golden State Warriors, and countless colleges and high schools with such monikers. My own high school, University City, changed their nickname from Indians to Lions in response to such pressure. The Stanford Cardinals were once the Stanford Indians.

The question is if teams with such names should change them to be less offensive.

There is a lot of passion on the subject. People who have cheered for their teams for many years certainly do not consider the names to be derogatory or negative. They take great pride in the names. Likewise there will always be those who consider certain words to be negative in meaning; Redskin, in general use, is a far more derogatory term than Chief, Seminole, or Brave.

What’s my opinion?

I’m going to take the middle-ground on this controversy. If a team, writer, college, or person wants to use the term, particular when they use it in a positive way, then they absolutely can do so. Likewise, if the owner or college or whatever decides to change the name because they feel it is a net negative then they can do that as well. It’s up to them and it’s their decision to make, not mine.

If Dan Snyder and the Washington Redskin’s organization says they won’t change the name then I support that decision. If the Neshaminy high school Redskin’s editorial staff chooses not to allow the use of the word then that’s their business. Students that feel differently can get on the editorial staff next year and reverse the ban.

There is no doubt that words carry power and I’ve written on that subject a number of times. If I say something offensive then I might suffer consequences but it’s my decision to say it, not yours.

Go Rams! Let’s Go Blues! Cardinals! M-I-Z ….

Tom Liberman

A ‘D’ Student on the Honor Roll?

Posted on by

Honor RollThere’s an interesting story making the rounds that is the sort that inflames passions. A student in Pasco Middle School of Dade County in the Sunshine state of Florida got 4 A’s, 1 C, and 1 D on his report card which was good enough for a 3.1667 Grade Point Average.

The Pasco Middle School has the cutoff for honor roll students at 3.15, thus young Douglas Tillack received the honor. This apparently upset his mother who thought any student getting a D on their report card could hardly be called an honor student.

It is prominently mentioned early in the article that nearly 50% of all students at the school are on the honor roll. I expected there to be a firestorm of anger in the comments about the lowering of standards in U.S. school. Certainly the article prominently featured a woman with that complaint. There was some of that to be sure but I was surprised by how many people came to the same conclusion as did I. If the cutoff is at 3.15 and the score was 3.16 then he rightfully deserves a place on the honor roll.

If the system was that in addition to the 3.15 you could have no single grade lower than a B then Douglas would have been left off the list. We have to draw lines and it’s important to follow the rules.

I am in agreement with Mrs. Tillack in that the qualifications to be on the honor roll probably need to be increased. She was also upset that on his report card it was written, “Good job“. Upon her complaint this was changed to “Work on civics. Ask for help.” Civics apparently being the subject in which Douglas received a D. This is a reasonable outcome.

This story doesn’t really rouse my passions. I think Mrs. Tillack basically did the right thing except the interviews with the media. She went to the school board and asked for a change.

What I don’t like is the opportunistic outcry from people who think this is symptomatic of the lowering of our standards. Of the “feel good” movement to encourage kids even when they are doing poorly. I don’t see this case as such an example. In this case I see a School Board, duly elected by voters, who decided what was going to qualify a student for the honor roll. I see them following the rules they set out.

If the people of that school district don’t like the qualification being at 3.15 or at including students with D’s and F’s then they have recourse. They vote for the School Board members. They can petition them to change the rules.

Don’t go to the media and air your complaints. Don’t use it as an excuse to attack ideology with which you disagree. It’s your school district and your rules that allowed it to happen. Get out there and make change!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

The Public Perception of Being Overweight

Posted on by

Hating Fat PeoplePerhaps I’m not the best person in the world to be talking about overweight people and the public perception they face in the United States. I’m 5′ 7″ and about 165 pounds. I work out five days a week and come from a family of relatively thin people. Still, the pure mean-spirited nastiness I see directed towards overweight people sometimes stuns me.

I just finished reading a story about a Frenchman who was denied a flight back to France because he weighs over 500 pounds. The airline couldn’t accommodate him because of his weight. In the article it was mentioned that he was in the United States receiving medical treatment for a hormone disorder at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. This is in all likelihood at least partially responsible for his weight gain while in the U.S.

The family made alternate plans and will now take a train to the coast and liner to Europe. I understand the airline and their policy and certainly the family itself does not seem to have an issue with happened, or at least nothing of that sort was mentioned in the article.

What prompted me to write this blog was the avalanche of horrible comments below the article itself. I’ve a number of friends who battle weight problems and, even though I’m relatively thin, I’m trying to get a little more fit and drop some weight.

The thing about losing weight that is so difficult is that eating is something we do every day. Eating can be an incredible joyful and sensual experience. I love to eat good food. I’ve been accused by dining mates of having sex with a particular good order of oysters. Drool … oysters on the half-shell.

If you are a drug addict, or a cigarette smoker, or an alcoholic the best method of removing the addiction from your life is to completely end the habit, cold-turkey as they call it. That’s just not possible with food. We must eat and it is generally healthy to eat multiple times each day. There is temptation at every turn. To lose weight and keep it off you must be strong for not a week or a month but for the rest of your life.

In addition it is not just eating better but you must exercise. You must find time in an already busy day to get to the gym and do cardiovascular and weight work. That is the only true path to fitness and anyone who tells you it’s easy is lying.

I’m single, I have no pets, I work at most 40 hours a week so it’s not that hard for me to get to the gym almost every day, but even then it’s not easy. I have to make myself do it. I shop only for myself so if I refrain from buying fatty foods at the grocery store then I’m not tempted by having them nearby.

Losing weight and keeping it off is one of the most difficult things you will ever have to do. It’s not easy, it requires effort every day, multiple times a day.

What bothers me the most is all the hate towards overweight people. It’s not like I’m covering exciting new ground here. The vast majority of people know that it is difficult to keep off weight. The diet industry is huge. The exercise industry is huge. Food is cheap and abundant. It is designed to be tasty so that we overeat. Human nature is to eat while the eating is good.

So, why all the hate? Why the nasty comments? If almost everyone realizes how difficult it is to lose weight and get fit why do we see so many spiteful comments?

When my overweight friends take steps to solve the problem I encourage them. I help in any way I can. I don’t make nasty comments about them to their face or behind their back. What’s the difference between me and the people making those nasty comments?

I’m at a point in my life where I’m increasingly less inclined to be cruel to other people in order to feel better about myself. In fact, being cruel makes me feel worse about myself. If you’ll forgive my smug self-satisfaction, I’m simply the better person.

Are you?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Hazing Can Be a Good Thing

Posted on by
Rite of Passage

Hazing is in the news lately with a plethora of stories about the Miami Dolphins football team and in particular the incidents between Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin.

There are a lot of opinions about who is in the wrong in that particular case. What I want to talk about is the real purpose of hazing and how it clearly got out of control with the Dolphins.

What is Hazing?

One of the major issues is that people confuse the term hazing with the idea of Rite of Passage. Most hazing is really just Rite of Passage ceremonies gone out of control. When hazing is done properly as a Rite of Passage it serves a useful and productive purpose.

When someone joins an organization there are already established veterans of that group in positions of leadership. There is a clear delineation between those who have already worked for an organization and those who are newcomers. This is most clearly seen in groups that are exposed to dangerous situations, particularly the military.

These Rites of Passage tend to be modestly painful and somewhat humiliating but are on the whole affirming in nature. It means that a newcomer to an organization has successfully joined and is welcome as a full-fledged member.

When does it go Wrong?

So, where does it all go wrong and become hazing? How does a bully and sadistic person like Incognito get into a position where he can satisfy his sick urges by hurting other people? I’m not here to argue about who is right and who is wrong in the Dolphins situation, there are no winners there. Incognito is a sick man and his history of behavior throughout life shows it. Martin was too timid and let things get out of hand. What I want to talk about is how Incognito and men like him are allowed to live out their violent pseudo-sexual fantasies without being curbed by rational men.

The Rite of Passage is a good thing but it attracts bad people. People who enjoy hurting others. People who enjoy humiliating others. People who get a perverse sexual satisfaction from being in a position of power and abusing those under them. People like Incognito. If you’ve ever seen the movie Dazed and Confused the opening scenes illustrate the difference starkly and the entire movie studies this subject with great clarity.

The sociopath and borderline personalities of the world are attracted to the hazing process; of this there is no question. However, as long as veteran leadership is alert to such individuals and takes active steps to curb them, then the Rite of Passage will remain a positive experience. When leadership fails then disaster follows.

How to Stop it going Wrong

Leadership, or coaches and veterans, on the Dolphins bear the brunt of the responsibility for what happened. They willfully chose to allow it to happen. They can claim ignorance all they want, it’s their job to be leaders. It’s their duty to help the rookies and young players become better men. It’s their responsibility to curb men like Incognito who are what they are and always will be so.

This failure of leadership, this utter abrogation of responsibility, this moral and ethical indifference is what allowed everything else to happen. Good people must always stand up when they see abuses of power. Good soldiers, good police officers, good football players, good college students. When this happens the sick people who relish in pain and abuse cannot succeed. The police officers who abuse suspects, the military officers who torture prisoners, the prison guards who abuse inmates, the teachers who abuse students, and all of their ilk cannot destroy the lives of those under their control.

If you are a leader, be a leader. A lot of people’s lives depend on you.

Tom Liberman

Is Donning and Doffing clothes for Work part of the Job?

Posted on by

Protective GearThere’s an absolutely fascinating case before the Supreme Court and the oral arguments brought out the best in our nine Justices.

The question before the court is whether employees should be paid for the time it takes to change into and out of clothes required for their jobs. In this case it is steel workers and we’re talking about heavy-duty protective equipment.

The fact that the federal government has gone back and forth on this issue a number of times hasn’t helped solve the problem. Believe it or not, the big question is over the definition of clothes. According to the existing statute things that are clothes don’t count but protective gear does. In other words if you have to put on protective gear to do your job then you should be paid for the time it takes to put it on and take it off.

The company says any wearable item is clothes while the union disagrees.

Justice Kagan suggested that the entire thing was really just a statute interpretation issue that should be left to the agency involved and wondered why the court had to make a ruling at all. Justice Scalia quickly quipped; “Too complicated is why”, generating much laughter. It seems simple but Justice Scalia is correct, it is quite complex. Justice Kagan was right as well, it doesn’t really belong in the courts, but no one else can come up with a satisfactory resolution.

For some jobs it takes half-an-hour or more to suit up and I think most people would agree that you shouldn’t have to arrive at work thirty-minutes early, change clothes, perform your job for eight hours, and then spend thirty more minutes on your own time changing back to your clothes. You would be working for nine hours and being paid for eight.

The other side of the coin is putting on an apron and non-scuff shoes for the grocery store which takes a couple of minutes. Calling the apron and shoes protective gear would mean that every employee at the store gets paid for that time, every day. That adds up. Basically they would clock in before donning the apron and clock out after.

The court appears to be trying to find a long-term solution that answers questions broadly rather than giving a ruling for this single case.

The problem of course is defining protective gear. Technically an apron is protective although not in the same way as safety goggles or a fireproof vest. The employer is always going to call it clothes and the employee or their union protective gear.

The court is going to have to find a litmus test solution. Personally I think it’s a matter of time. If you can put on your work clothes in less than five minutes then I don’t think they really qualify as protective gear although certainly a pair of safety glasses and a fireproof vest can be slipped on in that amount of time.

If it was me, and I’m no lawyer, I’d put some sort of time limit on dressing, say ten minutes. Some average amount of changing time must be calculated for each job. So, you arrive at work, change clothes, and punch in. You then punch out and change back to street clothes. If is determined your job requires fourteen minutes donning/doffing time then four minutes are added to your time card each day you work.

It’s certainly not a perfect solution but it’s a complex problem. And remember, it’s not just me that thinks so!

Do you have a better solution?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Phony Herbal Supplements

Posted on by

Phony Herbal SupplementsThere is an item making the rounds on the major news outlets that probably comes as a surprise to many people but is something about which I’ve been aware for many years. Those herbal supplements you’ve been taking … are not what they purport to be.

Researchers tested products from twelve companies and found only two that were listing correct ingredients while the rest were selling “shoddy” product. These companies were putting in cheap and often toxic ingredients instead of the purported herbs in an attempt to increase their profit margin.

These herbal supplements are part of a $5 billion industry, an unregulated industry. People swear by them with the same fervor they swear that copper bracelets alleviate the pain of their arthritis and Power Bracelets boosting athletic performance.

The Food and Drug Administration estimates that there are about 50,000 “adverse events” a year caused by herbal supplements although most are not reported.

The real reason for my blog post is not to lambaste those who believe herbal supplements are healthy but to address what is certain to become a call for the government to regulate this “out-of-control” industry. The FDA already oversees a great deal but because these herbal supplements don’t fit into either the food or the drug category they have thus far escaped supervision. With this new data there are sure to be calls for regulation.

I have no issue with holding companies to their word. If a supplement company claims their product is Echinacea then it should be so. If it is not there are legal remedies available to consumers. Local, State, and Federal government can and should hand out fines. What I don’t see as being helpful is the government stepping in to tell supplement companies how to make their product.

Anyone who doesn’t realize there is a potential problem with the supplements they purchase simply hasn’t bothered to do the requisite research. Information is available and readily found on the internet.

I’d like to examine what I think would be the result of government regulation as opposed to vigilant consumer action. The supplement companies would spend money on various political campaign via contributions and lobbyist. The laws that eventually came down from Washington would be designed to benefit the largest of these companies while hindering the smallest.

If, on the other hand, consumers paid attention to the supplements they were putting in their body and only purchased from the two companies that actually did what they claimed they were doing, those two companies would thrive while the shoddy operations failed. That’s capitalism in action and that is good for consumers and business owners who operate ethically.

When the government gets involved we largely end up with the illusion of safety where little actually exists. Organic foods are not organic. They meet the government definition of organic but that has become largely meaningless thanks to lobbyists convincing politicians to pervert the laws.

We live in the burgeoning information age and with it comes the ability to change the world for the better. If you are putting supplements into your body and don’t know the readily available information about the reputation of the provider then I don’t have a lot of sympathy for you.

I don’t much like the way factory farms treat chickens and I buy eggs from sources that have “pastured” animals. That’s my decision to make. If enough people make it then the industry changes. Government regulation is unlikely to bring about such a change.

If the supplement article shocks you then you have recourse, your purchasing habits.

To paraphrase a pretty wise fellow; Don’t ask what the government can do for you, ask what you can do for you.

Tom Liberman

Jerky Treats from China and Pet Illness

Posted on by

China Jerky TreatsThere has been a story in the news off and on over the last five years but it seems to be getting headlines again. There have been about 4,200 reported cases of pets getting sick after eating jerky treats made in China in the last five years. About 600 of those pets died.

I suspect what I’m about to write is not going to be popular and might infuriate a few people.

That works out to about 120 dead animals and 700 sick animals a year from a sampling of millions. Let go with two million as a sample size. As far as percentages go that amounts to about .035% of animals that eat the treats.

By contrast 1 million human beings in the United States are sickened by Salmonella each year, 19,000 are hospitalized, and 300 or more die.

I’m not saying it isn’t the treats but each year animals do get kidney disease and in the story a veterinarian who treated three cases is cited as having “far more” than should be seen. How can 3 be far more than anything?

Also, the article says the cases “plummeted” after Nestle Purina and Del Monte issued a voluntary recall but then reports that 1,500 new cases were reported right after the FDA released their latest statistics. Which is it?

I’m for the testing. We should find out what’s going on but if the testing doesn’t support a conclusion should we allow the government to put people out of business? Because that is what is being demanding. People want all jerky treats made in China pulled from the shelves. If the treats are causing the illnesses then I support that idea but if the evidence says otherwise, is it right for the government to make such decisions?

Millions of treats, very small number of illnesses. Passionate and heartfelt anecdotal evidence but so far not supported by medical science.

The passion that I read in comments in these stories is not dissimilar from those I saw during the vaccine scare where symptoms of autism coincidentally followed inoculations. It also reminds me of the Sudden Acceleration panic which I wrote about not long ago.

I’m merely suggesting we go where the scientific evidence takes us, not where our heart pulls us.

I’ve had pets my whole life, I love my pets.

Please be gentle with me!

Tom

I Hate the NFL Blackout Rule – But I hate the FCC More

Posted on by

NFL Blackout RulesI just read an interesting story about how the Federal Communication Commission thinks they need to be involved in deciding when the National Football League broadcasts its games.

The NFL has a series of rules in which if the home team does not sell a certain number of tickets then the game cannot be broadcast in the home team’s market. This blackout includes fans who paid for the NFL Season Package either through their cable provider or internet provider.

I’m of the opinion that the NFL policy is misguided because they should desire to expand their audience, not decrease it. Even when most games were not televised on multiple outlets I think the rule was a mistake. The idea of the blackouts are to promote ticket sales by forcing people to attend the game. In the modern age the NFL is essentially shutting out a large segment of potential viewers when they do this.

The NFL is coming around to my way of thinking and has reduced the sellout rule down to 85% sales of what are called non-premium seats. They also now allow the selling of blocks of tickets at discounted rates to avoid the blackout. These new rules have meant that not a single game in the NFL has been blacked out this season. This is capitalism at work.

So now the government is getting involved. A year ago Senator John McCain of the Grand Canyon state of Arizona originally proposed a bill to force the NFL to televise all games and now the FCC is getting involved. The FCC’s argument is that those who cannot afford tickets should not be punished. What, what, what?

Those who cannot afford tickets don’t attend games, that’s the law of economics. If the NFL wants to prevent people from watching the game on television then that’s their own, misguided, business decision to make.

If a person can’t afford to see a first run movie should the studio be forced to televise it? If I can’t afford to get HBO should the network be forced to show the program over the airwaves? This is government nonsense at its worst.

Don’t mistake me, I think the NFL is better off showcasing its game on as many outlets as possible. I think content providers should release their media as broadly as possible so as to have more people watch it. This builds a loyal fan base who will watch content, buy merchandise, and see advertisements. The only reason I know about Australian Rules Football, Archer, and 20/20 Cricket is because they were released on Hulu and ESPN3.

When content providers practice to limit their audience they hurt only themselves. That being said, it’s not the government’s job to prevent a company from making stupid business decisions. When the AFL pulled their games from ESPN3 they lost me as viewer. Likewise when FX pulled Archer from Hulu. That’s their decision to make.

We Libertarians often get criticized for hating government meanwhile happily enjoying roads, appreciating teachers, police officers, firemen, parks department employees, electricity, plumbing, and many of the other things governments provides.

We don’t hate government, we just want to see it limited to the areas of its purview. When it gets involved in things like this the end result is usually bad for everyone. This NFL Blackout/FCC story isn’t the most egregious of violations but it is typical of an overreaching government that tries to right all wrongs.

Maybe they’ve got better things to do?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Banning Boobies at School

Posted on by

I love boobiesThere was an interesting case a while back that is slowly making its way through the courts and is now one step short of the Supreme Court.

One of the various methods in which people support breast cancer research these days is a bracelet with the words I (heart) Boobies on it. It’s mainly designed for younger girls who wear that sort of thing and the Easton Area school district in the Keystone State of Pennsylvania decided that it was sexual in nature and banned students from wearing the bracelet.

A pair of girls defied the ban on Breast Cancer Awareness day in 2010 and were suspended for their defiance. Multiple courts have ruled that the district did not prove the bracelets were disruptive with the most recent being a federal appeals court. The district voted to continue the case which means it now heads to the Supreme Court.

The reason I find the case interesting is that it is a clash of my Libertarian ideals. On one hand I think the school has every right to have a dress code and enforce it. On the other hand I think individuals have the right to wear what they choose as long as it is not particularly disruptive.

The school board banned the bracelets originally because the term boobies was determined to be lewd and designed around sexual themes. This violated the dress code restricting sexual suggestive language or images. Several other schools have banned the bracelets as well.

So, where does a Libertarian land on this issue?

The bracelets are clearly not sexually suggestive and I reject that argument out of hand. It’s a bit humorous and certainly mentions the word boobies but it just doesn’t rise to the level of being sexual in my opinion. Likewise there seems to be no evidence that the bracelets were causing disruption in the school.

On the other hand, if the school wants to ban, say, black socks, then that’s their right. They pass a rule and any student who violates it should expect the punishment they get. It’s a stupid rule to be certain but the school has the right to make rules about dress codes. This is clear.

In the end I’m going to side with the district although not because I think the bracelets are lewd or disruptive but simply because the district board has the right to create whatever dress code they desire. If the students and parents of that district object they can elect new representation next time around.

That’s the way representative republics work.

I think what would have been best is if the girls followed the rule that year but started a political campaign to remove those who voted for the ban from office. Getting board members elected who see the stupidity of the rule and reverse it. That’s government by the people for the people.

That’s what we want. The courts have their place to be certain but I think every time we resort to them rather than creating a real political solution we get further away from what the Founding Fathers desired.

If you don’t like the decisions your representative makes; be it local, state, or federal, you have the power of the vote. When we hold people responsible for their decisions, not the rhetoric they spew during the election cycle, we make the country a better place.

Not to say that I don’t love boobies, I do.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

The Will of the People and other Nonsense

Posted on by

Democracy is badI wrote months and months ago that in the United States our form of government is called a Representative Republic not a Democracy. I laid out several reasons why I thought we were becoming a Democracy, why the voters of the nation increasingly think we are a Democracy, and how the politicians, elected by the voters, would eventually presume the same thing.

Here it is. A state representative from Nevada clearly believes he lives in a Democracy. He believes it is his job to enforce the will of the people even when he is diametrically opposed to that will. He thinks that if his constituents wanted to institute slavery in Nevada it would be his duty to do so.

I’ve got news for you, State Assemblyman Jim Wheeler, your job is make decisions on your own.

The job of the voters is to decide if they like those decisions and cast their vote accordingly.

I guess I’m saying that no politician, under any circumstances, is required to enforce what the people want. Politicians are simply tasked with doing what they think best for the nation, their state, and their district. It is our job to vote for the ones who do that properly.

When voters elect politicians who bow to no one, to no amount of money, to no union, to no corporation; when we elect politicians who fearlessly state their true beliefs to the voters without an eye towards winning elections. Then the wrongs will be righted.

When we vote for people who tell despicable lies to get elected, who will do as their masters with the money tell them, who do what the people want them to do because it wins them the election, we get, well we’ve got it.

Your vote, your country.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Can You Apologize for Someone Else’s Mistake?

Posted on by

ApologyThere was an interesting article in the news which was put, mistakenly in my opinion, in the science section and thus I stumbled across it.

The nation of Cameroon issued an apology for their ancestor’s involvement in trading slaves to Europeans thus beginning the long chain that brought those slaves to plantations in the southern United States. The apology was issued specifically to genetically identified relatives of those still living in Cameroon but was extended to include anyone affected by the policies.

The genetic tracing part of the story is why it ended up in the science section I suspect. In any case, as I was perusing the comments I noted that there was a fairly heavy leaning towards the idea that it was wrong to apologize for something for which you are not responsible.

Clearly the people in power in Cameroon today had nothing to do with the slave trade of past centuries. The argument suggested that it was ridiculous to make the apology. That it was meaningless. That a the best remedy was to act with ethics and morality in the future.

I’m not unsympathetic to this point of view. I do think the apology is being made by people who did nothing wrong in the first place. That it doesn’t help those directly or indirectly effected by those misdeeds. It can even be said that such apologies can be used to excuse bad behavior.

On the other hand I do think an apology has the ability to heal hurt feelings. While apologies are just words that do not affect any physical change they can set the path towards a better future. It is probably true that an apology, even when for something you personally did, doesn’t really do anything to redress the original harm. It is merely an indication of your acknowledgement of wrong-doing. Of your intention to do better in the future.

Slavery was wrong. My ancestors weren’t even in the United States during slavery so should I apologize for it? What’s my responsibility?

Slavery wasn’t my fault. I didn’t do anything to promote its cause. If I don’t want to apologize for the actions of people who died long before I was born then I have no obligation to do so. However, I am more than willing to denounce slavery. To admit that the United States, my country, engaged in this despicable practice for generations. I’m sorry that it happened. I’m sorry my country did such a thing.

Let’s dial it down a notch. Let’s say I’m at an event and one of my friends does something boorish. Gets drunk and makes inappropriate comments.

I can handle it by talking to my friend and trying to get him to restrain himself. I can handle it by watching it happen and then apologizing to people later. I can do neither or I can do both.

In the end, I guess I’m a proponent of both. It doesn’t hurt to apologize for my friend’s behavior. It’s better that I try to stop it before anything else happens. That I take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again. But, why not all of the above? Everyone knows I didn’t do it but they appreciate my apology nonetheless.

Must you apologize for someone else’s behavior? No.

Should you? It’s up to you.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length novel)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (Out very, very soon!)

A Whiskey Tale – Jack Daniels v. Popcorn Sutton

Posted on by

Whiskey LabelsThere’s a little news story out today that makes me sad for a couple of reasons.

A fellow named Marvin “Popcorn” Sutton was driven to suicide by the government over his illegal activities and now his wife is being sued out of existence by Jack Daniels. It’s a sad story, pull up a chair and see what our country has become.

A fellow by the name of Marvin Sutton brewed his own Tennessee Whiskey for many years. He didn’t bother to get a license for his stills or pay taxes on his sales so he was considered a Moonshiner and Bootlegger. The reason we require a distillery to be licensed is that poorly produced alcohol has the potential to kill and cause serious harm. The reason we require taxes is to fund the government.

Sutton produced his illegal whiskey for many years and became prominent for his videos showing how to make whiskey. He sold to a small but dedicated group of buyers for many years until the federal government gathered enough evidence to try him for his crimes. He was found guilty an sentenced to 18 months in prison. At about that time he was also diagnosed with cancer and rather than serve his time he committed suicide.

I’m not opposed to the government making sure our food supply is safe and I do think they have the right to force licensing on production of things like alcohol. I’m also not opposed to taxes on alcohol. The taxes are justified by the distribution required. The roads necessary for supplies required to manufacture the whiskey and for the finished product to be shipped.

I’m not completely sympathetic to Sutton. He knew the rules and many other liquor companies manage to follow the regulations and turn a nice profit. He broke the law and chose suicide rather than prison. It’s sad, as I said, but he certainly bears the responsibility for the decisions he made.

Now, onto the next part of this story. His liquor had a small but loyal following and some of those backers had some money. They decided to form a company with his widow and began to produce and distribute, legally, Popcorn Sutton’s Tennessee White Whiskey. Initially they used mason jars as a tribute to Sutton but as popularity grew redesigned the bottle and label. That’s where Jack Daniel’s comes in.

The bottles of both products are squarish and have black and white labels. The labels are not similar except color pattern. For Jack Daniel’s this was enough to suspect that consumers would think that Sutton’s whiskey was actually a new brand from Jack Daniel’s. They’ve filed a lawsuit demanding that Sutton destroy all existing bottles and turn over all profits from sales.

This lawsuit will be difficult to fight and will certainly cost Sutton’s company a lot of money. They might not be able to stand-up under the pressure. We’ll see. On the other hand, it might be that the publicity generated from the lawsuit will spur Sutton’s whiskey to new heights. I’m certainly curious about it now and I do purchase whiskey.

Still, I find the entire story somewhat disheartening. A fellow who wanted to make a quality whiskey. A widow who wanted to start a company. The massive forces arrayed against them.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not writing that it’s unfair. The government has the right to regulate. Jack Daniel’s has the right to sue. It’s just a little sad that it’s so much trouble for a fellow to make and sell a nice whiskey.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length novel)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (Out very, very soon!)

Douglas Gansler and the Teen Party

Posted on by

Douglas GanslerThere’s a story just now hitting the mainstream news and it falls right into my wheelhouse.

The attorney general of the Old Line state of Maryland, Douglas Gansler, had his picture taken at a house-party at which a number of underage teenagers were drinking alcohol. Gansler is running for governor in Maryland and his political opponents are using this story against him. The event happened back in June during graduation season but, because of his political ambitions, is getting airplay now.

Let’s first get some background. Parents of the teenagers in question rented the house in Delaware and acted as chaperons during what is commonly called “Senior Week”. The idea being that the seniors are going to be out celebrating their graduation from high school and by providing a controlled environment the parents hope to keep the seniors from drinking and driving and other excesses.

Gansler knew that his son was at the party and entered the house for a short time to talk to him. He found his son, spoke with him briefly, and then left.

Gansler’s political opponents and the moral police are upset because he was clearly aware of underage drinking and did nothing to stop it. He is an official representative of the state of Maryland and as the attorney general his job involves prosecuting criminal activity. Gansler has also publicly campaigned against  underage drinking.

Gansler says that he has no moral authority to tell other people’s children whether to drink or not and has no legal authority to do so in the state of Delaware.

In my opinion what Gansler did was absolutely reasonable, prudent, and correct. Even if the party was in Maryland and even if the party wasn’t condoned by parents of the kids; it’s not his job to arrest people. I would argue that under those circumstances if he saw drunken people getting into cars he should have reported it to the police.

It is illegal in Delaware for anyone under the age of 21 to drink alcohol but it’s also illegal to go faster than the speed limit. It’s illegal to cross against the light. It’s illegal to do a lot of things we see people doing all the time. It’s not the job of the Attorney General to arrest people. That’s for the police.

Getting beyond legal niceties, the culture of character assassination that pervades our political system is extremely damaging. As soon as we note that someone has done something moderately questionable the attacks dogs are released.

We have become a nation of sanctimonious, self-righteous, egotists. When it comes to a person from the party we support we put up with anything but the same behavior from someone of the other party makes them a monstrous human being.

Most kids are going to drink when they graduate from high school. To pretend otherwise is to be a complete fool. The parents who provided a safe environment for it to happen are to be applauded. If another parent rushed to the house and started scolding someone else’s kids they’d rightly be told to mind their own damn business.

When we lambaste Gansler we are saying loudly and clearly that everyone should tell everyone else how to lead their lives. That if you don’t tell other people how to lead their lives you’re derelict in your responsibilities as an adult.

If Gansler saw a drunken teen getting into a car to drive it away I do think there is a responsibility to attempt to stop it. In this case it’s just not his business.

We cannot expect people to be responsible if we never give them responsibility. These teens are soon to be adults. They need to learn how to drink responsibly. To behave responsibly.

Let’s say this story becomes a huge issue and Gansler loses the election because of it. What message have we delivered? That parents should intervene at any party at which they see underage drinking? Ha. Never going to happen.

What’s we’ve accomplished is to make sure anyone thinking about political office never goes to a party attended by their child in which there might be underage drinking. Gansler went to the party with concerns about his son. He checked in and left. Good job, dad. Don’t let the witch-hunters shame you into being a bad father, afraid to check in on your son because it will hurt your political ambitions.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length novel)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (Out very, very soon!)

 

Is a Lopsided Score Bullying?

Posted on by
Football Bully Charge

There’s an interesting case in the news and it’s really not something I’d normally write a blog post about because everyone is pretty much in agreement.

However, I do want to make a point about something in this story that bothers me. First the details.

A powerhouse Texas high school football team defeated another school 91 – 0 in a recent game. The teams play in a division which is the second highest in the state so there are no mercy rules. Usually such rules are designed to stop or shorten the game to prevent such blowouts.

The coach seems to have taken any number of steps to keep the score down but rightly refused to tell his backup players to ease off. I was a backup most of my sports career and when I got in the game I wanted to impress the coaches with my play. By all accounts there was absolutely no attempt to run up the score or to get personal records for the players involved.

Everyone seems to agree the charge of bullying, which came from an email, is unwarranted. So, why the blog?

State law requires an investigation after any charge of bullying. Coach Tim Buchanan of Aledo in the great state of Texas had to go to the superintendent’s office and explain his actions. The school is performing a mandatory investigation and a written report is required within a certain period of time.

The reason these sorts of laws come into existence is because when real bullying occurs, no one takes responsibility. If a responsible person who witnessed the bullying took immediate action there would be no need for laws of this nature. If parents stepped up and disciplined the bully there would be no need for laws of this nature. If the person being bullied socked the bully in the nose there would be no need for these laws.

The problem is that administrators are afraid to step in because parents will file lawsuits. Parents refuse to critically examine their precious child’s actions. Children cannot sock one another in the nose without risk of imprisonment.So, we end up with a state sponsored attempt to prevent bullying.

We have all these laws to prevent bullying which get the state, the school district, and the coaches involved even when the charge is clearly ridiculous. After witnessing the turmoil caused by this one report what will stop agitators from filing bullying claims constantly? It’s quite possible the claim in this story was an example of trolling or a joke gone awry.

Don’t mistake my intention. Bullying is wrong. Running up a score for personal glory is wrong. I’m just not of the opinion that getting the state involved solves much of anything, and generally ends up doing more harm than good.

I’m certain from what little I’ve read that I can call Coach Buchanan a “stand-up guy” without any chance of being mistaken. If he thought one of his players was taunting a badly over-matched opponent, well, I wouldn’t want to be that player. He’s not the sort of man who causes these problems.

Let’s pretend for a moment we have raised a society of critical thinkers who stand-up and do the right thing all the time. When a bully picks on a helpless opponent someone immediately steps in and explains that what the bully is doing is wrong. Generally we’ve stopped the problem right then and there. Let’s say the bully continues and now faces punishment from the school and the parent agrees, extending the punishment to the home. The bullying generally stops. But, let’s say it continues. Now is the time to look for legal and state sponsored remedies.

There’s a case here in Missouri where a girl was allegedly raped but the charges were dropped apparently because the school administration sided with football players. It was a fight but the case has been reopened. The Trayvon Martin case was originally dropped. I’m not suggesting that bullies don’t exist. That discipline sometimes fails to work. That bad people get away with crimes. I’m just saying that with critical thinking and personal responsibility there is need for only limited state sponsored action.

When we become a nanny-state we absolve people of responsibility and open ourselves up to institutionalized corruption. We’re better off leaving these sorts of things in the hands of those closest to the problem. If they fail in their duties then there is a responsibility for the district, county, state, and federal government to become involved.

Greater power to the state means less to the individual. Small problems become big problems. Everyone becomes paralyzed with fear.

There are no easy solutions here. People must learn personal responsibility. Lawsuits against people exhibiting such responsibility must be dismissed by a jury of their peers. People who act responsibly must be praised. The weak must be taught to stand up for themselves. The strong must be taught to behave politely. People must learn to disagree with civility and come up with compromise solutions.

Eat moderately of healthy foods and exercise and you’ll lose weight. No one wants to hear it, but the real solutions don’t fit into sound bytes.

Tom Liberman