Immigration Reform – Robot Style

Posted on July 14, 2013 by Tom Liberman

I just read a fascinating article about how a new generation of robots is being created to harvest the food we eat. There are actually a couple of reasons that I find the article so interesting. For one, I’m a total nerd and robot articles always attract my attention. The second is the economic factors that are driving this robot revolution.

First let’s take a quick stroll down history lane and then I’ll wax poetic about what this new generation of agricultural robots promises us and why it is something to be welcomed, not feared.

Robots have changed the nature of work in developed countries. There is no doubt this is true. Early in the era of mechanical labor the term Technological Unemployment began to make its way throughout literature largely promulgated by people called Luddites. The idea was that robots and machines would take labor away from people leading to massive unemployment.

This didn’t happen. What happened is that horrible, nasty, low-paying, dangerous, and boring jobs that nobody wanted to do anyway were eliminated. In the information age we have elite, intelligent, well-trained, and well-paid workers capable of contributing to business growth. This is not a good thing, this is a great thing. This, naturally, requires an elite and educated workforce. Thus people who are not educated risk losing their livelihoods and this is a problem that I discussed in two other posts about the Shrinking Middle Class and the Broken Social Contract.

What I want to discuss today is the connection between cheap, abundantly available labor and wealth. When industry can employ a large number of people at an extremely low wage it is not good for society. It appears good for the business owners but the reality is that people who have little or no hope for economic advancement drain society in a number of ways. They largely pay no taxes, require government subsidies, have way too many babies, and commit most of the crimes.

The United States until recently had a huge surplus of migrant farm workers. Food producing companies employed them often at below legal wages and had no need for innovative robots that could save time and money. A couple of factors changed this. The economic down-turn and stiffer laws against illegal immigration resulted in fewer workers being available to harvest our crops.

The result is an explosion of innovation in produce picking equipment that can do the job more quickly, better, cleaner, more safely, and cheaper than workers. This technology has been long stifled because of cheap labor. People doing backbreaking jobs for minimal wages. The robots aren’t quite ready yet; machines have difficulty picking ripe fruit, avoiding bruising, and otherwise replacing people but change is coming.

My father tells the story of the summer in St. Louis he was a weeder at the Forest Park Golf Course. Basically he went out and picked weeds. If we could still get away with paying hoards of kids almost nothing to do a miserable job then they would still be out there. It’s good that we have machines to do it for us. Good for kids who now get a better job at a better wage during their summer vacations and good for employers in that the weeding gets done more efficiently and cheaper, and good for society in that people have more disposable income.

Cheap labor is bad for everyone. If people aren’t forced to find a better way, they often don’t. The world is changing. The information age is just beginning. There is a bright future for humanity awaiting us. A future where educated people actively take part in their line of work contributing not just in menial ways. A future where productivity occurs at a phenomenal rate, where every employee is well paid and happy. Where we go home at the end of the day having accomplished something and we feel good about that. Where robots do all the nasty jobs that no one really wanted, they just did it to feed their families. This is a my vision of the future.

My favorite quote in the original article was from farm workers talking about how bad mechanization will be for consumers: The fundamental question for consumers is who and, now, what do you want picking your food; a machine or a human, who with the proper training and support, can take significant steps to ensure a safer, higher quality product.

My answer? Robots!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+pages of fantasy goodness)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Secession Chatter

Posted on July 13, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Today I want to talk about the idea secession. Part of a state seceding from the whole and becoming their own state. The main thrust of my talk is why I don’t approve. Why I think those making such suggestions are quitters and whiners. But first, a history lesson. Those wanting to get to my opinion can skip down a few paragraphs.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

That’s the Rule

That’s it. That’s the Constitution of the United States. That is the rule.

Basically, if you want to secede from your state you must have majority approval from the legislature of your state and you must have approval from the United States Congress. It’s happened, sort of, four times in the history of the United States.

Western Virginia counties successfully negotiated a secession deal with the rest of Virginia in 1790 and became a state, Kentucky, in 1792.
Eight counties of North Carolina were ceded, by the state itself, to the federal government and eventually became part of Tennessee in 1796.
Maine was legally but not geographically a part of Massachusetts. They seceded and became a state in 1820.
Finally western counties of Virginia illegally seceded from Virginia and were recognized as a state, West Virginia, during the civil war.

West Virginia

The last one is the one most interesting from a legal perspective because Virginia had already seceded from the Union on its own and didn’t vote to allow the western counties to leave, a necessary legal precursor. The U.S. government argued that because Virginia didn’t consider itself part of the Union that the Constitution didn’t apply. However, it was the policy of the U.S. government throughout the war that the secession of the southern states was illegal and they never really did leave the union. This, in my opinion, makes the entire state of West Virginia an illegal state.

When I’m in charge; back to Virginia with you!

My Point about Secession

Anyway, I’ll finally get to the point of my blog today. People become upset when their political views are not popular enough to win electoral victory. They lost an election. It happens. Rather than try to diligently spread their message, to convince people of the righteousness of their cause, they simply stomp off in a huff declaring they’re taking their toys and going home. Cry me a river. Little babies.

We live in a country with free elections. I’m tired of people trying to change the rules be it election reform laws (designed not to make elections fair but to disenfranchise voters who disagree with a particular party), gerrymandering (drawing up election maps designed simply to get more seats in congress that have no basis in geographical reality), talks of secession, or anything else.

We live in a time where anyone can get their message out. I’m an Atheist Libertarian. I feel trodden upon all the time. My party managed to convince a whopping one out of every one-hundred people to vote for us. Do you see me trying to change the laws so I can win? Trying to form my own state of Libertarians?

What you seeing me doing is writing my novels, writing this blog, talking to my friends, my family, and trying to explain my position. Trying to explain why I think the ideas I espouse are good for the world, good for the United States, good for my beloved Missouri. If I do a good enough job then Libertarians will start winning elections. If I don’t, I’ll continue to be in the minority.

I don’t blame Republicans and Democrats. I don’t think my friends who don’t vote Libertarian are Sheeple incapable of making a decision on their own. I think we are an educated electorate and we largely vote for the candidates who we best think will represent our point of view.

I lost the last election and the all the ones before that. I’m not holding my breath, whining, and taking my toys home. I’m out here trying to convince people I’m right, and I’ll continue to do so.

Conclusion

If you want to win an election; show people your ideas are better. It’s that simple.

Tom Liberman

Ten Years for Trolling

Posted on July 10, 2013 by Tom Liberman

There are a number of interesting cases making their way through the justice system in several countries that involve threatening words written during internet conversations. It’s interesting for a number of legal reasons and it’s not as clear-cut as people would like to imagine.

A person makes one crazy post in an internet chat room and now sits in prison awaiting trial and a possible sentence of ten years in jail. Another makes a series of threats on a memorial page for a slain teen, pleads guilty, and is sentenced to twenty-eight months in prison.

Most threats of this nature not only never amount to anything but they weren’t made with any intention of being carried out. Still, when you threaten to kill people the authorities have every right to come by and see if you have made any plans to carry out said attack.

Part of me feels bad for Justin Carter and Reece Elliot but another part of me thinks that their incarceration is not without merit. When you threaten to kill a classroom full of children, when you post disgusting and threatening remarks on a memorial page for “a laugh” then maybe you shouldn’t be surprised to hear a knock at the door. The police take their difficult job seriously and well they should.

As the A.C.L.U lawyer mentions in the first article that I linked, we don’t joke around about bombs in airports anymore. We know it can get us, should get us, a conversation with a large man in a small room. Insane people are out there planning such attacks and if you joke around about making one yourself, well, don’t come crying to me that is was all in fun, a joke, sarcasm.

I do think prosecutors should be able to separate real threats from people just saying incredibly stupid things. That people who say violent, angry things but have no weapons, no plans to actually carry out their threats, have taken no actions towards carrying out threats, should be treated more kindly.

In the United States you cannot be arrested for saying you hate President Obama. You wish he wasn’t president. Political speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and rightly so. When the government can arrest you for saying you don’t like a politician, that you dislike, say, the Evil Chicago Cubs, then we have lost our freedom. However, if you threaten to kill the president, expect a visit from the Secret Service. If you have purchased weapons and bought a plane ticket to Washington D.C., well, you get what you very well should get. A stint in the big house.

I’ve said it over and over on this blog. Words have meaning. Words hurt. You trolls out there; keep that in mind. There is a line and it can be crossed. When it is crossed you won’t get much sympathy, not even from Libertarians like me. Prison is not the place you want to end up because you wanted a few lulz.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+ pages of action packed excitement and moral lessons galore)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Aaron Hernandez and Urban Meyer

Posted on July 7, 2013 by Tom Liberman

For my followers who are not sports fans there is a terrible story making headlines in the National Football League (NFL) these days. A player in the league is accused of premeditated murder. That he killed one of his friends reportedly because that friend was talking to some other people.

The case is in its infancy and guilt or innocence will not be determined for a long time so I’m not going to get into the particulars of the incident. Likewise there is much talk about the violent tendencies of NFL players but statistical analysis seem to indicate that professional athletes, football players included, are no more criminally inclined than the rest of the nation, actually less so.

What I do want to talk about is the culture of winning that pervades college and pro athletics. The responsibility a coach has when one of their players commits crimes, particular violent crimes. In this case the player in question, Aaron Hernandez, was coached at the University of Florida by Urban Meyer. There were apparently a number of incidents at Florida that put a question to Hernandez’s character, and more importantly to the NFL, his potential to be a great player instead of a public relations nightmare.

Meyer told Coach Bill Belichick of the New England Patriots that Hernandez was worth drafting although he was drafted well below his ability level, likely because of his off-field problems. Meyer has said that it is wrong and irresponsible to connect either he or the University of Florida to the misbehavior of Hernandez.

I strongly disagree. I will not lay the blame squarely on Meyer, Belichick, Patriot’s owner Robert Kraft, the University of Florida, the NCAA, or the NFL but there is certainly a connection. People with special ability in the sporting world are given chance after chance that other people do not get. They are entitled, coddled, favored, and allowed to behave badly without consequence again and again.

Here in St. Louis we drafted an extremely talented cornerback named Janoris Jenkins with a troubled past including failed drug tests and an arrest in a nightclub fight.

It angers me when I hear Meyer instantly dismiss any responsibility in the situation. Not only dismiss responsibility but actually attack anyone who dares suggest that he might have done something to prevent the situation. Meyer could have kicked Hernandez off the team, as Meyer’s successor Will Muschamp did to Jenkins almost immediately upon taking over as head coach at Florida.

It can be argued that Jenkins was a far more talented player than Hernandez. That Muschamp’s decision to kick Jenkins off the team was a much more damaging move than would have been removing Hernandez.

So far Jenkins has been a relatively trouble-free in St. Louis. He missed a curfew and Coach Jeff Fisher suspended him for one game. That’s what I’m talking about here today. That’s my point. Muschamp made Jenkins responsible for his actions. Fisher made Jenkins responsible for his actions. Apparently Meyer and Belichick did not do the same for Hernandez.

Who is ultimately responsible for our own actions? We are. Hernandez is. Jenkins is. But so is Meyer. He allowed Hernandez to continue to play and recommended him to the NFL. Personal responsibility doesn’t mean blaming everyone else when you make a mistake in judgment.

Meyer could have said that he understood Hernandez had problems. He tried to help. He wanted the best for the young man and gave him chances with that in mind. Instead he chooses to deny all responsibility. To bury his head in the sand and avoid any consequences to his actions. A terrible role-model, a terrible person.

I’m not blaming Meyer for Hernandez, I’m blaming Meyer for Meyer. Taking responsibility doesn’t always mean taking the credit when things go well. Personal responsibility means accepting consequences, or at least scrutiny, when things go wrong.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for hours of reading pleasure)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Wages Paid via Fee Ridden Cards

Posted on July 2, 2013 by Tom Liberman

An increasingly large number of Americans do not have bank accounts. This number has grown by about ten percent in the last four years and is expected to climb. This presents what some view as a dilemma and others view as an opportunity.

In this internet age it is more expensive for an employer to print out checks and much cheaper to use direct deposit. This being the case, more and more employers are dropping the check option. Whether or not this effects you is dependent upon where you live as there are different rules in each state. It is a growing trend and one that will certainly continue to rise.

The problem end of the issue is how to pay employees who don’t have bank accounts of any sort and cannot accept direct deposits. To solve this issue banks began to allow employers to pay their employees onto what are called payroll cards. At this point all seems well and good. If people choose not to have a bank account that’s certainly their option. If companies choose to save money by using direct deposit that is also within their legal right, depending upon the state.

Banks incur some expenses in issuing these payroll cards and the plan was to recoup this amount through charges on the cards. There is a charge to deposit money on the card, a charge to withdraw money with the card, a charge to inquire on the balance of the card, a charge to receive a statement for the card, a charge to replace the card, and even an inactivity charge if you don’t use the card!

I think you can guess that the banking industry quickly realized that this service they were providing offered an opportunity to make a lot of money. They started to push the idea to the companies, some even give kick backs … er … rewards, to businesses that have their employees use payroll cards.

Companies enjoy these rewards and started to make it easier for employees to get the payroll cards and more difficult for them to use direct deposits. A woman sued because a McDonald’s refused to direct deposit into her Credit Union. That was, of course, illegal and they’ve agreed to start offering direct deposit to their employees now.

Other companies are simply making it very difficult to use direct deposits because banks are offering them major rewards for every employee then can get on the payroll card.

I’m not totally against the banks here. They are providing a service to people who choose not to have bank accounts and that service needs to be paid for with fees. However, it is clear that the banking industry sees this as not a way to provide a service but a way to steal money from people. Yes, I said steal. If the banks were charging some minimal fee and making a small profit on the cards I wouldn’t call it stealing but when they colluded with companies to provide no other option and charge far more than it costs to provide the service they are engaged in anti-trust practices.

This practice affects the poorest people the most as they are generally the ones without bank accounts and without other recourse. They need that minimum wage job and can’t easily go somewhere else. As the check payment method continues to decline their options will become even more limited.

What’s the solution? It’s not easy. The government could start to regulate these payroll cards for excessive fees like they do banks for other services but such efforts often end up with unintended consequences.

What I would love to see is a return to real competition. A group of people sees an opportunity to offer cards with lower fees and starts a Credit Union or Bank. This forces the existing banks to lower their fees until a competitive and fair level is reached. Right now the we don’t live in a capitalistic country anymore. We live in a country where if you tried to do that you’d be legislated out of business by the crony capitalist in your community, your state, and in Washington D.C. Anti-trust practices are ignored. The business that pays for the elections gets legislation passed that ensure their success and rival’s failure.

This system is so dangerous that it could potentially destroy our great nation. It is not the threat Ayn Rand warned us about in the communist dominated era when she wrote her novels but the effects are the same.

Rand warns us of the dangers of giving not what is earned but what is needed; communism.

If she was alive today I think she would have warned us that it is just as dangerous to allow success not to be derived through hard work, fair prices, and good ideas but instead through political connections; crony capitalism.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 is a fair price for 300+ pages of my hard work, if you disagree, don’t buy it!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Paula Deen and the word Nigger

Posted on June 29, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Yes, you see correctly. I don’t use the euphemism “n-word” when I mean to say nigger. Am I worse than every newscaster, magazine writer, blogger, and general person who says “n-word” when they mean nigger? Read this blog and then tell me what you think.

Paula Deen admits to using the word nigger when referencing black men. Nigger is a vile word with a vile meaning. Because she has used the word in conversation she is paying a significant price. Today I want to examine her use and understanding of the word, the public reaction to said use, and the lawsuit that brought it all to the public’s attention.

Paula runs a very successful restaurant that grew into a Food Network television show which spawned a number of food related books, magazines, and other endeavors. She has made a lot of money because of her hard work and apparently tasty food. I’m not sure I’ve ever eaten any of her recipes. We can be certain that people like it.

I’m sure you know the story by now but to recap for those of you who, like me, were largely ignoring it up to now, she is being sued by a woman who was offended by the fact that Paula used the word nigger in her restaurant. This employee has bi-racial nieces and nephews and is filing suit against Paula and the restaurant because the employee was personally offended. During the trial it was brought up that Paula planned a “plantation themed” wedding for her brother that would include black servers.

Because of these revelations Paula has lost her television show, her book deals, and many of her sponsors.

I think the word nigger is horrible. When Paula used it in front of the employee the person should have told Paula that it was offensive. Maybe she did, I don’t know the details of the case. Paula says the word was used commonly as she was growing up and I don’t doubt her for a moment. I’ve heard the word used in all its ugly connotations a number of times over the years and I always tell people I don’t like it, please don’t use it in my presence. If they continue, they continue, I can’t control them. I can stop being around them, an employee doesn’t have this luxury.

Is Paula an evil person for saying nigger? It certainly doesn’t reflect well on her. Does she discriminate against black people? Apparently not. Does she hate black people, the evidence seems to be no. Does the idea of a plantation themed wedding including all black servers seem in poor taste, you bet.

What bothers me most about the entire story is the prevalence of the “n-word”. If people didn’t say the “n-word” when they mean nigger then maybe Paula, and a lot of other people would have gotten the message.

Nigger is a nasty term meant to convey laziness, lack of trustworthiness, thieving character, and a no good lay about. It’s applied to black people because that is the stereotype associated with them, used to explain why they could be kept as slaves against all human decency. Paula, when you say nigger, that’s what you are saying. If someone had told Paula that twenty years ago I bet she would have stopped using it right at that moment. She seems like a pretty decent sort who just didn’t know the ugliness of the word she was using.

I know it seems strange to suggest that she didn’t understand the meaning but I think that’s often the case. When we say the “f-word” and the “c-word” and the “n-word” instead of “fuck”, “cunt”, and “nigger” we hide the ugliness of the word. We hide its true meaning. People say nigger who don’t mean nigger. Not to excuse Paula, she said it, she should have known what it meant.

If people want to remove themselves from Paula’s life; be they advertisers, networks, publishers, or just an average person, that’s their right. I don’t begrudge them for a moment.

However, from what I can make of this entire episode, Paula just didn’t understand how awful the word nigger truly is, and she’s not alone. If we in society would stop saying the “n-word” and start saying nigger, I think people like Paula would understand. When we say the “n-word” we are hiding behind semantics. We are saying nigger without saying it and it truly causes confusion.

What I would respect the most from Paula was if she stood up in her next interview and said nigger. Tell us she said nigger. Tell us she knows the meaning of the word nigger. Tell us she’s sorry for using the word nigger not only for the word itself but the meaning behind it. That she knows nigger is an awful word. That she understands why it’s a terrible thing to say.

And I would respect her advertisers, sponsors, and friends if they then all forgave her.

I don’t think it will happen. I think everyone will continue to say the “n-word” and I think that’s too bad. No one knows more than me that words have power. Do we not tell German children about the holocaust because it’s so awful? Just the opposite. Here is what happened. This is what a word means. We, as a nation, enslaved another group of people. We made them seem sub-human. We applied words like nigger to them. It was awful and terrible. We should be ashamed.

When you call someone a nigger you are saying you don’t think slavery and everything associated with it was a terrible thing. If you mean that, then go ahead and call a black person a nigger. If you know what it means and hate everything associated with it, then explain to other people what the word really means. Don’t hide the word. Bring it out into the bright sunshine. Expose it to the world for what it truly is.

Evil grows in hidden corners, away from plain sight. It shrinks when exposed, when ridiculed, when attacked by good people who are not afraid. Other people are encouraged to be good themselves, to not use vile words with terrible meanings. The world becomes a better place. I’m all for that.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (it’s honestly a fun and easy read, just ask my mother! $2.99)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Political Activism in the Internet Age – Your Click Counts

Posted on June 27, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Not long ago I wrote a post about a phony cancer treatment called Aura-Etheric Body-Chi. I wrote about it to expose what I thought was a dangerous fraud being perpetuated on sick and desperate people.

The way I determined it was a fraud was to do a search on Google and Bing and read about the company. The first three or so pages of search results revealed that it was simply a Facebook business with no real presence outside that arena.

Well, if you do a search today for aura-etheric body-chi, and I’m going to explain why you should a little later in this post, you will find my blog post intermingled on the first page of results. My arguments that it is a fraudulent product might be read by a cancer-stricken person tempted to plunk down a few dollars. After reading the post they might choose to spend their remaining time and money more wisely!

I feel very good about that. I can’t begin to describe the joy that fills my body at the thought that I’ve helped someone avoid such a scam. That some desperate, cancer stricken person might not become a victim yet again.

That’s not my point here today. What I’d like to talk about today is how important it is that accurate information make its way to the front of all Google Searches, to the front of all Bing Searches, to the front of all news outlets. There is plenty of inaccurate information out there. There is fraud galore. People with agendas who post anything and everything. The web is filled with lies, hate, and deceit.

If we get accurate information to the front of the web then we inform people accurately about events, about products, about news. If we can shove inaccurate information, lies, and hate to the fifth page of a search result then that information doesn’t have the chance to fool someone, to hurt someone.

In the past people marched on Washington. They boycotted products and had a say in their world. Those days are over. Anyone who organize a march or a boycott is wasting their time. Do you want your voice heard? Do you want people to know what you think? Here’s the strategy, search it, click it.

Do you think my message about aura-etheric body-chi is an important message? Do you think my blog about Good and Evil is worth passing on? Do you want to help me sell my books? Do a search and click, if not, don’t. A few hundred clicks on my post and I’ll be to the top, number one! Now, not every topic is so easily moved in search results but the process absolutely works. What comes to the top of search results is what people are clicking on. It’s all math. The good news (and bad news) is you can’t click repeatedly yourself. The search engine algorithms are too smart for that. But, if you and like-minded people out there do some clicking, your point of view rises. If smart people click then good rises to the top.

Don’t think for a moment that news providers aren’t keenly aware of what terms are being searched the most. Google, Yahoo, and Bing post that information.

What is hot is profitable. If you click it, it rises; if it rises, people see it; if people see it, it makes headlines.

You hold the keys! We hold the keys to real change.

At no time in the history of the world have the people held so much power. With great power, as Peter Parker would say, comes great responsibility. Your clicks matter, each and every one. Use them wisely.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (Search it, Click it, Buy it!!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Facebook Privacy and Chelsea Chaney

Posted on June 22, 2013 by Tom Liberman

There’s yet another Facebook Privacy story in the news lately and I thought in this case it was interesting enough, and different enough, to talk about.

In this situation a student in Georgia posted a family vacation picture of herself wearing a bikini. Somewhat surprisingly she posted on Facebook instead of Instagram because all the nerdy adults like me use Facebook whereas the cool kids have long since moved on. That aside, this is where things take a turn to the interesting.

Somehow a copy of the picture ended up in the hands of the school’s director of technology who used it during a presentation to demonstrate the permanency of social media information. The director of technology did not get, nor even seek, permission to use the photo in the presentation. The student is now suing the school district for $2 million.

There seems to be a lot of passion on both sides of the debate with one group calling Chelsea Chaney stupid for posting on Facebook and not expecting the picture to be displayed publicly, greedy because of the lawsuit, and apparently a slut because she wore a bikini. The other side seems to think the director of technology was likely a pervert and disgusting for using the photo.

To understand whether or not the picture was used legally we must examine something called Fair Use and Copyright.

Whoever took the picture had copyright ownership immediately. There is no need to register a work for it to be copyrighted. This right includes the right to perform or display the work publicly. So, the picture clearly falls into that category.

In this case the Fair Use doctrine falls under the education exception. Basically people can often use images of this nature if they are not for profit and for educational purposes. Clearly that is at least the intention in this case. The law gets pretty murky about the definition of educational and profit and the courts will eventually decide.

I see both sides of the story here. Chelsea is an attractive young woman and the picture was used at least partially because of this. The school claims the picture was chosen randomly but I strongly suspect that’s not the case. It was chosen specifically because she is attractive and the picture would garner attention. The fact that she posted it to Facebook really isn’t a factor from my perspective. Someone besides Chelsea was using her image in a way she did not intend. She was, at that time, not a public figure. She is now and that’s why I can get away with using her picture without the threat of a lawsuit. Also, the picture above is considered a thumbnail and generally avoids copyright restrictions.

On the other side I suspect the director of technology meant only to use it to make a point about the permanency of images posted to social media. It was not meant to make a profit or embarrass Chelsea.

That being said, it did embarrass Chelsea. I cannot tell her whether she should be embarrassed or horrified, that is her decision. If she says she was, then she was. That’s the law. You cannot prove mental pain and suffering. If the plaintiff claims it, then it exists. It’s up to the judge to decide on how big a settlement, if any, should be awarded.

What should be the resolution? Here’s my take. The director of technology should publicly apologize to Chelsea in front of as many people as were at that conference as can be reasonably gathered. A school official should publicly apologize to Chelsea in front of the entire student body. Chelsea should accept both apologies and drop her lawsuit. She should explain that she filed merely because she didn’t want to happen to others what happened to her.

Finally to the ugly undercurrent of the many comments I see. Chelsea is a pretty girl with a nice figure. Therefore people get their jollies calling her stupid, a slut, someone deserving of what she gets. Chelsea is a pretty girl with a nice figure so the school administrator must be a disgusting pervert because he was drooling over her pictures.

We are too quick to judge in this world. If we insist that cave dwellers are the only ones eligible to be president, to be co-workers, to be teachers, we are going to get the kind of people who live in caves. We don’t want them. We want people who have lived, who take fun pictures (Chelsea), who have made mistakes in life (the director of technology). The kind of people who are our friends, our family, our co-workers, the kind of people we are ourselves.

Stop judging and start living.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+ pages of sword and sorcery excitement)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Broken Social Contract – Who is to Blame?

Posted on June 21, 2013 by Tom Liberman

The other day there was a thought-provoking opinion piece in the New York Times written by Thomas B. Edsall suggesting the social contract in the United States is broken. This is not a new idea in itself but he even-handedly looked at two possible causal effects for the phenomenon.

I’m going to first examine the idea of the Social Contract and what it means in the U.S. and then I’ll talk about Edsall’s article, the factors involved, and my ideas for real solutions.

What is the Social Contract

The idea behind the Social Contract is fairly straightforward and the Wiki article, as usual, does an excellent job of explaining it in great detail. Basically, people give authority to the government in exchange for the protection of their remaining rights. We The People allow our various government agencies, Federal, State, and Local to pass laws limiting our freedom but gain protection of our rights in exchange. Strange but, I think, true. As a very small example, the humble stop sign. It limits my ability to freely travel from hither to yon. Yet, this restriction actually allows me to travel freely with greater ease.

When everyone in a society recognizes the governmental limitations of the stop sign we are all better off. When people begin to ignore the stop sign then society begins to break down. If one person runs a stop sign then another person does the same. When everyone ignores stop signs the government loses the ability to enforce penalties for the violation and we apparently have more freedom in that we don’t have to stop at stop signs, but in reality we have less freedom because driving is significantly more difficult.

The Social Contract.

In the context of Edsall’s blog it references the perceived financial and ethical decay in the United States and the long-term implications to our country. The blog quite nicely summarizes two possible causes of the decay. One blames unrestrained greed while the other blames single parent households and the inability of people to hold down a job. I’ve over-simplified to a large degree but the idea is that as the Middle Class shrinks the ability to transition from disadvantaged to wealthy vanishes as well. This is bad for our country.

I spoke about this subject in a blog blaming stupid and unhealthy people. I don’t want to reiterate my points here.

On one side we blame unrestrained corporate greed. Corporations no longer care about contributing to the general community and that making money is the only goal. There is truth to this argument as stock prices, rather than a quality product at a reasonable price, is the main factor in business decisions. On the other side we blame fewer fathers, single mothers, and lack of education. Fathers are seen as a driving force in social cohesion. A single man with no children has no real need to coach the little league team, to improve the school, to fight for a stop sign at a dangerous intersection. That a single mother has a difficult time raising the child and doing any of those things. Stupid and unhealthy people cannot hold down a job and become a drain on society.

I think all those ideas have merit. I don’t think they are opposing ideologies. I think corporations, driven by unsustainable modern business practices, are less involved in making sure society is equitable, that there is reasonable chance to improve one’s station in life. I also think that single parent families face significant difficulties that dual parent households do not. That as jobs require greater mental ability, stupid people are left behind. All these contribute to the decline of the social contract.

The Underlying Issue

However, I think the underlying problem is none of these things. All of these things are products of the lack of objectivism in the people of this country. When we examine a thing for its true nature without bias and presupposition, we can make good decisions. It’s a bad decision to run a company to the detriment of the society that makes business possible. It’s a bad decision to have a child when you are not prepared to support that child. It’s a bad decision to not study in school.

We look to a bowl of ice cream for happiness. Immediate, tasty, and gratifying. Make money, have sex, eat until we have heart disease, knee problems, diabetes. We do not examine a situation and make decisions with a long-term goal in mind. Immediate gratification is winning over delayed and long-lasting gratification. We do the things that make us immediately happy and find, much to our surprise, that our lives are miserable. We do not think through the consequences of our actions. This is the problem and it is solved by teaching people to think.

Conclusions

The uneducated, unprepared, and greedy are not the problem, they are symptoms of the problem. The fact that a larger and larger percentage of our society is made up of these people is what is driving the decay. Until we teach people to think clearly, to make decisions that are in their long-term benefit, we will continue in our current spiral.

When a business leader makes a decision that will result in long-term benefit for that company it generally means long-term benefit to the employees, to the region, and to the nation. When a person makes decisions that will result in their long-term benefit it generally means those around that person will also flourish. When I succeed those who associate with me often succeed as well.

It is when we make decisions based on immediate gratification that we, and those around us, suffer.

As Marcus Aurelius said quite a bit more succinctly, That which is not good for the bee-hive, cannot be good for the bees.

Tom Liberman

Second Grader Ostracized or Not?

Posted on June 18, 2013 by Tom Liberman

There is a highly emotional story making the rounds in the news world these days and I’m more than a little frightened to jump into the fray because I think I’m on the bad guy side.

The situation is that a second grader with spinal muscular atrophy was taking his class picture. They had the students set up on a bleacher and the kids didn’t quite fill the section leaving about one kid’s width room on the side. Miles Ambridge, confined to his wheelchair, was moved as close to the edge of the bleachers as possible but this left about a three-foot gap between him and the nearest child. The gap was the extra bit of bleacher along with the wheels of the wheelchair. The kids were also sitting up very straight with their hands in their laps adding to the perceived gap.

His mother saw the picture and decided that her son was being ostracized by the adults who organized the picture. Miles’ father is incensed because Miles seems so happy with his big smile in the picture. “He’s naive as to how people treat him” was the comment.

Some people commented that he should have been taken out of the wheelchair and placed with the other students but that seems to me to be an unlikely possibility. Moving someone with a severe spinal disease onto a bench with a bunch of other potentially squirmy kids? At best they could have sat in an off-center position to the edge of the bench and the gap would have been decreased by half but there still would have been a gap. Maybe they could have ditched the bleachers altogether but it’s likely the camera was setup with lighting designed for that position.

The picture I’ve included above is an example of being ostracized. When I was in sixth-grade they conducted an interesting exercise with us. They asked us a complex math problem and told us to figure it out in our heads. They wanted answers from two of us, me the nerd, and the pretty, popular girl. I had one answer. She had another. They asked us to move to opposite sides of the room and told everyone join the person they thought was right. I was alone and ostracized in the little game in the way I often felt in real life. It’s not fun to be ostracized. Kids can be very cruel. Adults can be awful as well.

Here’s my take, I just don’t think Miles was ostracized. Miles is different. He’s in a wheelchair and can’t sit on the bench. There’s no denying that fact. By making such a fuss the parents are not helping, they’re actually emphasizing that he’s different. It’s hard to tell from one picture but he looks like a pretty happy kid.

We can’t make other people be nice to us. We can’t stop kids from being cruel to one another over differences, real or perceived. Some kids will be mean to Miles but there are others who will not, particularly if Miles is happy with the way he is. We should teach kids to be themselves and accept their real limitations while striving to attain their maximum potential. To make good friends, do as well as they can, to have fun.

I’ve got some advice for you, Miles. If someone ostracizes you because of your disability, screw them. Keep smiling, be friends with the kids who like you for being you, wheelchair and all. Be good at what you’re good at, it won’t be sports or sitting in the bleachers. Your parents aren’t improving your life by forcing people to be “fair” to you. However, if you keep smiling like that you’ll end up with real friends and a great life.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (300+ pages of nerdy D&D inspired fun for $2.99)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Traitor or Patriot – a Matter of Conscience

Posted on June 9, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Benedict Arnold There are two stories in the headlines today that bring to mind an incredibly difficult dilemma that men and women of conscience must sometimes face. I will examine this question in great detail in my next novel, The Spear of the Hunt. Where is the line one crosses between being a patriot and being a traitor? At first glance the two seem diametrically opposed to one another but in these stories they are clearly linked.

A fellow named Bradley Manning leaked secret military information to an organization called WikiLeaks and is currently being tried for this transgression. Another man named Edward Snowden recently admitted to releasing secret government information about U.S. intelligence agency techniques used to monitor telephone conversations. He has fled to Hong Kong. Both of these issues are extremely complex and I’m not going to debate the right and wrong of them here today. What I do want to discuss is the decision that both men had to make. A decision that many people have had to make throughout history and, as I mentioned, that the protagonist of my next novel will have to make.

I don’t doubt for a moment that both Manning and Snowden believed they were doing the right thing. I don’t think either man meant to hurt the United States and both likely suffered tremendous mental anxiety before they decided to release their respective pieces of information. There is also no doubt that both men did compromise U.S. interests by revealing these secret. A fellow named Benedict Arnold faced a similar question in his time.

Let’s put ourselves in their situation for a moment. We love our country. We have information that causes us to doubt the path our leaders are taking us on. We make some sort of attempt to rectify the situation through accepted channels but our effort is rebuffed. What should we do? This decision defines us as either a traitor or a patriot. We want to do what’s right, to make our nation stronger. Perhaps we are naive, perhaps we are stupid, but our intentions are good. Do we expose what we consider to be dangerous activity by our government or do we keep the secret? Our parents taught us to do what’s right, not to be a mindless worker drone content to simply follow orders. There are plenty of those out there and that kind of person doesn’t build a nation. Men and women of courage, who stand up for what is right are the kind of people who make a nation strong.

One only has to read the commentary on Manning’s case to see the vitriol his decision has engendered. People want to hang him. People want to pin medals on his chest. I’m certain Snowden will likewise face such scrutiny. Their lives are forever changed because they had the courage to stand up for what they thought was right. Standing up for what is right is not the safe way to journey through life. You can suffer for doing it. It takes courage and leads to change. Whether that change is for the better or not is unclear.

My goal today isn’t to exonerate or eviscerate either Manning or Snowden, but simply to point out that their actions cannot easily be classified as right or wrong. As much as we’d like to sound bite judge I think a more careful examination is in order. History will eventually give them their place in the world.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not proclaiming them heroes. There are plenty of examples of people of courage standing up for what they think is right when it was completely wrong. There are many examples of murderous villains who stood up for their misguided principles. Lynch mobs, Islamic bombers, men who open fire on politicians, they all thought they were doing right, they weren’t.

I’m not sure where Manning and Snowden will eventually find themselves in the public eye. The fine line between Patriot and Traitor is worth examining because it can apply to even our lives. At work, at home, when is it best to stay quiet, when does our conscience insist we speak up?

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (300+ pages of adventure for $2.99)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (General Yumanar must decide between supporting the corrupt politicians or overthrowing them)

The Chicago Cubs vs the Rooftops

Posted on June 8, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Wrigely Rooftop View There’s an interesting situation brewing in Chicago-land between the evil, well, misguided, no, actually, pure evil Chicago Cubs and the owners of rooftop buildings around Wrigley Field. The rooftop buildings offer a view into Wrigley Field and there was a time when friends would gather there to watch the game and have a few beers. Those days are over.

The buildings are now valuable real-estate partially because the owners have built little venues on the roofs and sell game-day tickets to fans. They have comfortable seats, food service, beer service, and other amenities to provide for paying customers. The Cubs worked out a deal with the owners of the rooftops so that the team is paid 17% of the gross revenue taken in by the building owners. The Cubs now think they can generate more revenue by building large billboards in the outfield. These billboards will cut into the value of the buildings across the way because they might block the view from certain venues. The current contract between the Cubs and the building owners runs through 2023.

The Wrigley Rooftop Association is now threatening to sue the Cubs to prevent them from building the signs. The Cubs figure the revenue from the signs will far outweigh that gained from the buildings across the street and plan to go ahead with construction. The war of words is heating up.

When I first read this story I didn’t even think it worth talking about because it seems, at first glance, that the Cubs certainly can make any addition to their stadium they desire. The WRA doesn’t have a say in how the team operates. Then I started to think about the contract which provides the Cubs with 17% of the revenue from buildings, buildings over which they have no say in said operation. I haven’t read the contract so my focus here is going to be more on what both parties expected rather than the legal letter of the law.

Technically the buildings are under no obligation to pay the Cubs anything. There are large office buildings across the street from New Busch Stadium here in St. Louis that offer a view into the ballpark during the games. The Cardinals have asked for no money from the building owners nor have the building owners asked the Cardinals for anything in the way of construction demands.

In this case, the two sides came to a mutually satisfactory agreement. The nature of this agreement seems plain to me. The WRA is paying the Cubs not to build any obstructions to the view garnered from their rooftops. Otherwise what’s the point? The building owners are under no obligation to pay anything to the Cubs and the Cubs are under no obligation about their operations to the WRA. Again, I haven’t read the actual contract but it seems plain this is the reason it exists. If this is the implicit understanding of the agreement, the Cubs should not be allowed to build the signs, contrary to my first thought.

I’m fairly certain that some sort of buy-out can be arranged wherein the Cubs purchase the remaining years on the contract and go ahead with their signage. It’s possible the WRA won’t deal in which case it will end up in court. I suppose it depends on the metrics of the sign revenue, the current revenue from the buildings, and the cost of the buy-out.

Still, I found the story interesting because after examining the situation closely I completely changed my original opinion. I guess that’s my main point here. Always look at a problem fully because you never know what nuances might influence your opinion. Don’t make up your mind before you know the facts, and if the facts don’t support your original supposition, admit your error and move on.

Go Cardinals!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99, c’mon, pony up, it’s good, I promise)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

A Power Down Power Struggle

Posted on June 4, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Cell Phones Flights Please power down all electronic devices until we reach cruising altitude. Why do we have to do this? Because someone figured that electronic devices might interfere with avionics. Has an electronic device ever interfered with avionics? Not that anyone can prove. Have they done plenty of tests to try and prove that electronic devices interfere with avionics. They sure have and the results are not surprising. No correlation. Do pilots use their tablets in the cockpit? They sure do. Are we losing many hours of productivity (and game playing) because of the ban? That’s an affirmative. Are there anecdotal accounts of a device being correlated to a problem, yes, but they can’t be reproduced in the laboratory.

This is one of those situations where someone got an idea and it spread throughout an industry despite the complete lack of evidence that the idea had merit. Sometimes just because something sounds good doesn’t mean that it is right. I’m not opposed to being a little cautious when it comes to passenger plane service and the original supposition seems to have merit. However, when in study after study they cannot cause an electronic device to interfere with avionics I think the point has been reached where the ban needs to be rescinded.

While I do think that the FAA and the FCC are generally acting in what they think is the interest of safety I also suspect a more sinister motive. They just like telling me what to do. You can bet my Libertarian principles rail against that one. I really don’t mind a little crowd control to keep the unruly in line and I appreciate a traffic officer who keeps the cars moving when the lights are not working. I don’t like a petty dictator who tells me what to do not for the general welfare but because they enjoy the power trip. I think we’ve reached that point.

Originally the ban was all about money. Airlines used to make a lot of money from in-flight calls on their services. Nowadays we can call during flight so that little cash-cow is gone but old habits die hard. Europe is already starting to allow phone operation during takeoff and landing and there have been no incidents.

Basically, there used to be financial incentive to ban cellphones and there remains a bully mentality that forces people to turn them off. It needs to stop. This sort of behavior is a microcosm of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism. I’m not opposed to rules, to civility, but I am opposed to rules solely designed to inconvenience. Rules designed to part me from my money. Rules created by the small-minded so they can feel better about themselves.

I leave you with Mr. Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300 pages of swashbuckling adventure, that’s too good to pass up!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

DNA Collection from those Arrested

Posted on June 2, 2013 by Tom Liberman

There is a very interesting case at the Supreme Court this week and oral arguments took place the other day. At question is whether or not the police can take DNA samples from those they arrest. The Fourth Amendment makes it quite clear that law enforcement officials cannot conduct searches and seizures without reasonable cause. There are exceptions to this right for those who are arrested, fingerprinting being currently accepted as reasonable.

The particulars of this case are that the person arrested was swabbed for DNA and linked to, and eventually convicted in, a rape case from six years earlier. The DNA evidence was used in the conviction.

Those defending the right to swab arrested suspects argue that it helps solve crimes and puts offenders in prison. Justice Scalia points out that if the police went house to house searching everyone and everything that would also solve crimes and get convictions. This sort of unwarranted search is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Alito calls the case one of enormous importance. There are many people currently incarcerated who were swabbed in such a manner.

One argument that I hear frequently in favor of allowing law enforcement officers to use such tools is that only the guilty need be worried by these tactics. That if you are not guilty then why do you care? This argument completely fails to understand the point of the Fourth Amendment. The root of the law seems to be that in the colonies the government had the right to enter your house pretty much at will, largely under the rational of looking for customs violations. Imagine in today’s world if the police, sponsored by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), entered everyone’s home looking for pirated music, movies, and literature, and software. We are protected from such intrusions by the Fourth Amendment and I’m leery of weakening it, as are the justices. But, let’s examine the case in question.

To a large degree the case comes down to how invasive the justices consider a DNA swab. Is it equivalent to a fingerprint or a search of you home? If the former then it is permissible, if the latter, then it is not. Certainly the ease with which the sample is obtained is more akin to a fingerprint as it can be done in seconds. Opponents argue that a DNA sample holds far more information than a fingerprint and thus the two are not similar.

In the case in question the arrested man was being charged with assault and evidence of a much more serious crime was found in their search. If the police arrest me for failing to pay a parking ticket can they then enter my home looking for evidence of any crime and convict me with anything they find? The Fourth Amendment says no. The Fourth Amendment says the police must obtain a warrant from a judge after showing probable cause. In this case the police had no probable cause to suspect the arrested man of the rape six years earlier and thus, goes the argument, the evidence obtained by the DNA swab was illegal.

It is a difficult case and I find myself torn.

A DNA swab is simple, easy, not intrusive, and the man was arrested for a crime to begin with. On the other hand I’m not sure I like the idea of the police arresting me for a crime and being able to take my DNA. The police can arrest and hold you for up to 48 hours, depending on the state, without any justification. Perhaps an officers doesn’t like me, arrests me for some made up reason, swabs me, runs the results through the database, and finds a distant relative of mine committed murder thirty years ago. This is not as unreasonable as people would like to think. The police arrest people all the time who turn out to be not guilty or not even remotely connected to the crime. It is part of their job to investigate all possibilities and arrest is a tool in their arsenal.

In the end I find that I choose to broadly interpret the Fourth Amendment. I think the police can take DNA swabs from suspects but that information cannot be used in unrelated cases. If they want evidence for a different crime they must go through the process of obtaining a warrant. This interpretation would set the rapist free and I can see how people will disagree with me. It’s a tough case and I eagerly await the decision.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+ pages of daring deeds)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Of Rats, Mermaids, and Gods

Posted on May 31, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Delusions A couple of stories in the news about rats and mermaids reminded me of the fact that our world is largely a landscape of self-created illusion. An imaginary realm where reality is a dream and our fantasies reality. Another couple of incidents that happened to me recently furthered my thoughts in this direction. One involved my older step-sister and another some friends of mine.

We live in this amazing world of sensation and our minds are capable of such imagining that it is often difficult to separate those things that we want to be true, that we ideologically believe, from those things that are not actually true at all. One only has to listen to a friend tell the story of an incident that happened to the both of you years before to see this is true. Their version is generally wildly different from yours. Why does this happen? Why do we cling to phantoms when reality stares us in the face?

I’d like to relate my own recent incidents as an example of why we live in this fantasy realm instead of reality. My step-sister is passionate about the topic of Israel and not long after becoming my friend on Facebook I grew tired of her posts on the subjects and removed her from my friends list. Years went by. Recently at my younger half-sister’s wedding I had the chance to speak with my older step-sister (I have five sisters). My older step-sister rather jokingly told me she wouldn’t invite me to any more Tea Party events. At first I had no idea what she was talking about but then it occurred to me the last event she knew before I removed her from my friend’s list was apparently an invitation to a Tea Party rally.

This is instructive. The invitation had nothing to do with why I removed her from my friend’s list but it was, from her perspective, the inciting incident. She sent me the invitation and I promptly removed her from my list. It’s actually quite logical although false. This is something that happens to all of us frequently. Our view of anyone else’s world ends the moment we are no longer communicating with them. We say our goodbyes and they are happy. An hour later we meet again and they are unhappy. What did I do? Are you mad at me? It, of course, has nothing to do with us but involved some other incidents that occurred in the meantime.

Someone gets overly upset at us for some minor transgression. It’s almost certain that they are mad about something else going on in their lives and took it out on us. Yet we feel as if we caused the wrath. That it is our fault somehow. We our the center of our world. Everything that happens, happens to us. This is false of course but we feel it, we think it. When lightning strikes my house it must because of me. I’ve done something, something to anger … who? Who could bring down lightning? Who could cause my hard-drive to crash? God, that’s who. It’s perfectly logical … and false.

The other incident that happened involved, of all things, boy scouts and astronauts! I was enjoying a wonderful meal thanks to my good friend who invited many of us to his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. The son of another friends is a boy scout and we happened to be talking about space. Yet another friend mentioned that all astronauts were boy scouts. My friend’s son, I’m ashamed to say before me, immediately jumped in with the comment, “Except the girls”.

The man who made the original statement quickly said that he meant only the early, lunar astronauts. I smiled and said that another group of astronauts were not boy scouts. Cosmonauts. The man quickly asserted that the Russians actually had a very strong boy scout program. I was somewhat skeptical but he seemed absolutely sure. The mother of my friend then grabbed her cell phone and told me with certainty that Yuri Gagarin was a member of the Russian version of the boy scouts. At this point I capitulated, after all, this was from the internet!

That night I looked it all up. I don’t want to get into details but the Russians outlawed scouting in 1922 and Yuri Gagarin from the ages of thirteen to fifteen was living in a mud hut the Nazi soldiers living in his house let his family build out back, not scouting in the non-existent Russian scout program. Many of the lunar astronauts were boy scouts, but hardly all.

Why did my friends say what they did? This is another major clue as to why we live in this world of delusion. We make a statement that we want to be true, an ideology that fits with our view of the world. Someone postulates reasonable arguments as to the veracity of this world view and we defend our position. If we admit that one thing isn’t correct perhaps our entire view will fall apart. This is extremely common, extremely normal, and I do not hesitate to tell you that I’m guilty of it as well. The more pointed the question the more strident our defense. The war of the talking heads has begun. Rationality has lost.

My goal here isn’t to humiliate my friends. I’ve been guilty of the similar delusions many times. My goal is to urge people to look past their self-centered, ideological view of the world. Look at things with a critical eye and take nothing for absolute truth, whether it be mermaids, rats on Mars, or god.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (300+ pages of swashbuckling fun for $2.99)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Too Much Help – Helicopter Parenting

Posted on May 26, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Helicopter Parenting There was an interesting article in the news this morning that struck a chord with my Libertarian philosophies. The basic idea is that parents who are overly involved in their children’s lives do them no favors.

The article cites one specific study and indicates that others show the same trend but also admits that when it comes to parenting there are a number of styles that offer success. I don’t have any children myself and I’m probably not the best person in the world to analyze the data but I can, at least, speak from having worked with juniors in several golf programs over the years.

Let’s first talk about the concepts of helicopter parenting. The idea is that for children to succeed in the super-competitive modern world parents need to be involved in every aspect of their lives. This hovering is especially noteworthy around school where every grade is argued for the student, specialized tutoring is offered to help write college entrance essays, and other things of this nature.

The argument against this kind of parenting is that children who are not allowed to fend for themselves become anxiety ridden and unable to cope with the problems that arise in their lives. It’s fairly self-evident to me that if you do not allow a person to solve their own problems they will never learn that skill for themselves. It’s analogous the nanny state that America is becoming and I’ve talked about that in other posts.

One of the things I find discouraging about this country is how many people complain about the government without the realization that they are complaining about themselves. We are the government. We have the government we want. We chose them. I’ve talked about that topic before. My point in mentioning it here is that the nanny state isn’t responsible for helicopter parenting, it is our helicopter parenting that causes us to become a nanny state. Our representatives are us.

One of the ideas that I found most interesting about this sort of behavior was that parents who engage in it are actually less emotionally available to their children. They use modern technology to keep tabs on their children, fight with teachers, and defend their kids as a way to show their love without actually having to spend time loving. It’s like someone who clicks the “Like” button to support a cause. Look at me! I care! I hate cancer! Look at me, look at me. I’m better than you because you don’t hate cancer. I’m the greatest parent ever.

I’m certainly not suggesting that parents shouldn’t be involved in their children’s lives and their education. It just seems to me that a person who grows up not having to solve their own problems is not going to be a successful adult.

I’m reminded of my time at Spring Lake Golf Course in Quincy, IL under the direction of head pro Les Holcombe. We were teaching juniors when one little fellow came over to me and stated that “Jimmy took my club.” I was ready to offer my help when Les jumped in and said, “Then go take it back”. I immediately understood that Les was absolutely correct.

There are certainly circumstances of bullying, poor-teaching, and general life incidents that do require a parents intervention. I’m just suggesting that the first response to a difficulty that arises should not be to solve the problem for the child. A person who grows up solving their own problems is a person who has a better chance to succeed in life. Isn’t that what any parent wants?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (watch Silenia grow from frightened lamb to an empowered young lady)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

The Double Play that Wasn’t

Posted on May 25, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Bad Call We want to get the call right and we want people to play with integrity. We say these things but do we mean them? In a Major League Baseball game between Seattle and Texas on Friday night, getting the call right and sportsmanship became an issue. You can watch the video of the missed call here but I’ll cover the basics.

On a ground ball with a runner on first the lead runner was forced out but on the return throw the pitcher intercepted the ball before it reached the first baseman. The umpire missed this, more on that later, and called the runner out.

Columnist Mark Townsend of Big League Stew calls it the worst call of the season. While I agree that the call was a mistake I actually don’t think it was a bad call from the umpire. On ground balls the umpire is generally listening for the sound of the ball hitting the glove as he watches the feet of both the base runner and the first basemen. It’s completely understandable how the umpire missed the call. If you read further down in the article you’ll find that the Seattle manager actually missed it as well and was arguing that the first basemen left the bag early, not that he didn’t catch the ball at all.

Now a missed call in a baseball game is not really worthy of an entire blog, unless we’re talking about the 1985 World Series and Don Denkinger, and what I want to discuss today is the culpability of the players in this mistake. I can’t stress this enough, we don’t want mistakes. We want the right call every time which results in the proper team winning the game. That is justice.

I’m of the opinion that one important thing happened that should not have occurred. I lay a great deal of the blame on our win-at-all-cost society. We teach these sorts of values rather than sportsmanship. There were two players on the field at the time of the incident who could have easily told the umpire that the first baseman did not catch the ball and that the runner was safe. First baseman Mitch Moreland and pitcher Justin Grimm. They chose not to do so. They chose to walk to the pitcher’s mound concealing the fact that the first baseman did not have the ball.

One can argue that it’s not their fault that the umpire made a mistake and it’s not their responsibility to point it out. I argue differently. The reason I do so is because the direction our society is heading based on the win-first mentality. I’ve got nothing against winning. The goal is to give your best performance every time out. I’m not even going to call Moreland and Grimm cheaters for concealing the reality of the event from the umpire but I don’t like what they did. I don’t think it’s an example they want to set for their children, if they have any.

I’m not even going to pretend this is anything other than an unimportant indicator of the modern world. But it bothers me. Is getting an out more important than integrity? Is winning a game more important? Is winning the championship more important? Is winning the third grade spelling bee more important? What rises to the level where we teach kids that integrity, honesty, and sportsmanship need to be sublimated to winning, to getting money?

If we laugh off dishonesty in a May baseball game what sort of society will we have in twenty years? What sort of society do we have today?

I’m probably over-reacting but it really seemed like if Grimm turned to the umpire, smiled, and showed him the ball we’d all be a little better. Our lives are built, our world is made one decision at a time. I vote for integrity and honesty. That’s the world I want to live in.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+ pages of ripping good fun)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

NFL a non-Profit is that a bad thing?

Posted on May 22, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Corporate tax status is in the news lately with Apple but I just read another interesting story about the NFL. It turns out that way back in 1966 in a deal negotiated by then commissioner Pete Rozelle the NFL and sports leagues in general were declared non-profit organizations. What this means in practice is that the NFL doesn’t pay taxes. This despite the fact that the NFL earned about $10 billion in revenue last year.

If the comments on the story are to be taken as any indicator then most people are fairly upset by this state of affairs. Just as many people are upset with GE for paying no corporate taxes or by Apple avoiding paying taxes by shipping billions overseas to phony companies in Ireland.

The question I want to pursue today is the effect of the fact that the NFL doesn’t have to pay taxes. That NFL employees don’t pay taxes on hotel rooms when they come to visit your city, but I pay huge tax rates on my hotel room, on my rental car, on my airline tickets. Those are the taxes everyone is for, taxes on visitors to the city.

The result of this tax-free status is that the NFL has more money to spend on salaries. They have more money that they didn’t spend on tax lawyers. They have more money to build their league. The result is the NFL pays great salaries (which are taxable) and puts out a product that people apparently want to see. I do, I have season tickets to the Rams and gladly fork over my money every year. The result of the NFL not paying taxes is good for everyone. Now, could the NFL do things differently, do I quibble with the way they’ve run their long-term disability insurance for former players injured while playing the brutal game? Yes. But, would taxes help? To my way of thinking absolutely not.

Are corporate taxes, as they are structured today, totally counterproductive? In my opinion yes. Basically, the way it works today is that any business large enough to help Congress members get elected gets laws passed that make it relatively easy for them avoid taxes while small businesses, who can’t afford to bribe congress members, bear the brunt of the corporate tax burden. Now we begin to understand the root of the problem.

Congress passes laws not to help businesses in general but to help a particular business. Generally the one that pays for their political campaigns. When Congress passes laws that will supposedly ensure the safety of our food in reality they are passing laws making it impossible for a small cattle rancher to slaughter cows because the owner of the feed lots foots the campaign bills. When Congress passes a law to help the technical industry with overseas business they are actually passing a law that allows Apple to store huge sums of money overseas to avoid paying taxes while a company like Acumen Consulting gets stuck with the real tax bill.

These laws, passed by supposedly pro-business Congress members discourage competition and destroy business. These laws help huge companies like Pfizer and make it an unfair playing field for small companies like Jost Chemical Co.

Congress is currently in the business of deciding which company will succeed and which will fail. This is not capitalism. This is Crony Capitalism.

Detractors will argue that a business that gets to keep all its profit will simply pay the upper management even larger sums and there is that possibility. The pay structure of average employee to CEO is way out of whack but I think part of that is the unfair business model that Congress has created. When the model is biased towards large companies, and it is, then smaller, vigorous companies have a far more difficult time supplanting the behemoths. Not to say it can’t happen, it’s just more difficult. If a huge multinational company pays all its top executive outrageous sums but neglects its best workers then they will quickly lose all their talented people to smaller companies that treat their employees better.

The current system allows huge companies to pay little or no taxes while small businesses pay close to the ridiculous 35% rate. That’s one reason big companies aren’t all that eager to encourage the Obama administration to lower the corporate tax rate. Or at least those businesses that benefit from the current system. Walmart, for example, doesn’t have a huge corporate tax law division and largely pays their taxes. They want to lower the rate. GE, they like things just the way they are.

I’ve gone on a little long here but I want to sum up. The corporate tax rate as it stands today helps only the largest businesses that help fund the election cycles. It doesn’t help small businesses. It doesn’t help employees, it doesn’t help anyone. One look at the tax-exempt status of the NFL proves it. Their league is doing great and generating profit for many people; jersey sales, parking lots, hotels, construction companies (Jerry Jones spent $2 billion out of his own pocket to build a stadium), and many others. It’s a model we should at least consider. Don’t tax business profits at all. Tax salaries, capital improvement projects, purchases, whatever. At least give it a try because the current system is broken.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (Jon Gray v. Eleniak the Golden Flame c’mon, that’s awesome stuff)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Bellyaching about Belly Putters

Posted on May 21, 2013 by Tom Liberman

Anchoring Putter I don’t think most of my friends will be much interested in the recent USGA ban on anchored, or belly putters, but I find the topic quite interesting for a number of reasons. First a little explanation for those of you who have no idea what I’m talking about.

Normally when swinging at a golf ball a player puts both hands down the shaft of the club and swings freely around his or her body. By anchoring a putter the golfer holds the end of the club against his or her chest or belly and swings it in pendulum fashion with the other hand. This has the effect of using the body to stabilize the club. Unless you move your torso, at least part of the swing is going to remain steady.

This sort of putting first started to gain fashion about twenty years ago and I know all about. Twenty years ago I worked at a golf course as an assistant pro. I wasn’t a particularly good player but the best part of my game was putting. I fooled around with anchored putters and absolutely loved them. They help ensure the club face is “square” or at a ninety-degree angle to the face of the ball when contact is made.

At this time the USGA allowed the practice and has continued to do so until now. The USGA decides the rule of golf in the United States while the Royal and Ancient Golf Club makes them for the rest of the world. Yes, the R&A, it’s a real thing you non-golfers.

There is tumult in the golf world about the USGA decision that effective Jan 1, 2016 anchoring will become illegal. Some players have been putting this way for many years and now it is suddenly against the rules. A number of professional golfers are angry about it but that pales in comparison to the PGA’s opinion. Why, you might ask? I’ll tell you why.

It’s an interesting situation. In most professional sports the rules making body is one and the same as the professional league. If baseball says corking your bat is illegal then it’s Major League Baseball making the rules for its game. If the National Football League says lowering your head to hit an opponent is illegal then it’s the NFL making the rule for the sport it runs. It’s not the same in golf!

The USGA makes the rules but the PGA (Professional Golfers Association) runs most of the tournaments. PGA players argue that anchoring the putter offers no statistical advantage and they are right … for professional players who practice putting hours upon hours every day. They get the putter face square to the ball virtually every time. When they miss a putt it’s because they misread the green or didn’t swing at the right speed. For your average golfer the anchoring, if done properly, is undoubtedly helpful.

The PGA makes their money from members. By that I mean average golfers. Many average golfers love anchoring. Many average golfers play gambling games with their friends while enjoying a round of golf. Many average golfers are older and the act of bending over a putt is not easy for them. Anchoring is very helpful in this regard when a longer putter is anchored against the chest. Many average golfers are rather upset that their friends are going to call them for a rules violation if they anchor their putter as they’ve been doing for twenty years.

The PGA could easily tell the USGA that they are going to ignore that rule for their members and their tournaments. Is it starting to sound interesting yet?

Now, obviously, the USGA can make whatever rule they want but just as obviously the PGA can choose to ignore it.

What will happen? I don’t know but I aim to keep watching. Of course, I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t give my opinion on the subject.

I support the USGA’s decision as it’s their right to ban anchored putters, or square-grooves, or certain dimple patterns on a golf ball. I think the rules of the USGA should be followed by the PGA and by the players of the game, even at a casual level. However, I think that if a group of players wants to “give” a putt of less than the length of the grip on the putter, that’s fine as long as they all agree. Winter rules, Mulligan, all of these things are against the official rules of golf but if a foursome agrees to them then what’s the problem? I say let anchored putting fall into the same category. If the group says it’s OK, it’s OK.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (follow Jon Gray as he tries to find the legendary sword)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

The Case for Ken Griffey Jr

Posted on May 18, 2013 by Tom Liberman

A recent spat of stories about the daughter of former major league baseball player Ken Griffey Jr. reminded me of what a player he was. More importantly, what a player he was compared to his peers. Most importantly, what a player he was without using Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs).

In an era when PEDs were becoming prominent Griffey didn’t use them. The reason I come to this conclusion is that as the years went on his performance declined and his injuries increased. That’s the opposite pattern of players who in advancing years see increases in their performance and recover more quickly from injuries. That pattern of improvement in later years is by far, in my opinion, the strongest indicator of PED use.

Griffey was truly great and had he not suffered a series of injuries or had he chosen to take PEDs he would probably be considered one of the best baseball players of all time along with Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. He was much like Mays with power (630 home runs), speed, and defensive greatness (10 gold gloves). In his first eleven seasons he produced 1,752 hits, 398 home runs, 1,152 RBI, and 167 stolen bases.

The important point for me is that Griffey played in an era when PEDs were being used and, I think, he chose not to use them. When Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, great players both, decided to become even greater they needed to use PEDs, Griffey Jr. chose to play without them.

When many of his peers were using steroids and other PEDs he gritted his teeth, went out there, and played with whatever his body had left. I think it’s difficult for everyday fans to understand the pressure a professional athlete faces in regards to performance. Imagine if tens of thousands of people watched you do your job every day. Imagine if younger, healthier workers came to your office every spring with the stated intention of taking your job, your livelihood. For a star, for a superstar, for a player just trying to make the team, the temptation to do anything to win, is strong. Especially if you know your main competitors are doing it.

I’m convinced that Barry Bonds turned to human growth hormone (HGH) only when he saw lesser peers exceeding his achievements. Can you imagine watching someone cheat away and get praised for it? Cheat away and make more money than you? Cheat away and maybe take your job?

Head on over to the Baseball Almanac and take a few turns around the hitting categories. See how Griffey Jr. compares to the all time greats and then start removing the PED abusers from the list.

I was lucky enough to be in the park the day he hit homer 500 on Father’s day with his dad there. Here’s to you Junior! From a National League St. Louis Cardinals fan. Thank you for the great memories.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300 pages of rip-roaring sword and sorcery excitement)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Tom Liberman

Tales of Corland

Tag Archives: News

Immigration Reform – Robot Style

Secession Chatter

That’s the Rule

West Virginia

My Point about Secession

Conclusion

Aaron Hernandez and Urban Meyer

Wages Paid via Fee Ridden Cards

Paula Deen and the word Nigger

Political Activism in the Internet Age – Your Click Counts

Second Grader Ostracized or Not?

Traitor or Patriot – a Matter of Conscience

The Chicago Cubs vs the Rooftops

A Power Down Power Struggle

DNA Collection from those Arrested

Of Rats, Mermaids, and Gods

Too Much Help – Helicopter Parenting

The Double Play that Wasn’t

NFL a non-Profit is that a bad thing?

Bellyaching about Belly Putters

The Case for Ken Griffey Jr