The Chancellor and the Sex Videos

Posted on January 3, 2024 by Tom Liberman

University of Wisconsin-La Cross Chancellor Joe Gow was fired from his job because he made sex videos with his wife publicly available. Yes, it’s yet another “Freedom of Speech” story with all the salacious sex that every news organization likes to plaster on the front page.

Gow says he’s been making such sex videos with his wife for years but kept their real names secret. He says he and his wife wanted to be more open about the videos to raise free speech issues.

A Quick Note about Why I’m Writing This

I haven’t written many articles lately, mainly because every time an interesting story comes up, it pretty much mirrors a previous endeavor of mine and I feel like I’m just covering old ground. Then a little voice inside my head reminded me about as many people read my blogs as read my novels, which is to say, not many. So, why not rinse and repeat? Who does it hurt?

Anyway, I’ve spoken on the idea of Free Speech many times before. If you want to find those stories then look them up, I won’t be adding anything new or groundbreaking here. On the other hand, just stick around and read this one, then you won’t have to read the others.

Free Speech is not Speech without Consequence

People throw around the words Free Speech all the time, but only when it applies to speech they like someone else does not. Right wing speaker cancelled? Left wing beer promoter cancelled? People are howling from the rafters about Free Speech.

Fired for making a sex video? Gow says it’s about testing free speech. It’s not. It’s about testing permissive attitudes. Free Speech is pretty simple. The Constitution of the United States manages to cover it with a simple sentence. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

That is all. That’s it. That’s what Free Speech means. It basically means you can’t be arrested for saying something although there are exceptions like shouting fire in a crowded theater as the classic example.

What it does not mean, what it has never meant, is that you are free from facing consequences for speaking in certain ways. If you tell your spouse they’ve gained too much weight then you expect to face consequences. If you tell your boss, you had sexual intercourse with their spouse, you expect to face consequences. If the rules of the forum are no political speech and do it anyway, you expect to be banned.

What was Gow Really After?

Publicity, possibly. Expecting an open and honest discussion about sexuality between consenting adults in the modern, internet era, quite possibly. Good luck with that, the depth of Holier than Thou in this nation requires an infinitely long sounding chain to find the bottom. Fire and brimstone to everyone who is doing exactly the same thing as me but they don’t know I’m doing it.

I’m sure he expected to be fired and it’s certainly the right of the school to do so.

The Bottom Line of the Sex Video

It was a foolish thing to do if he wanted to continue at his job but I applaud Gow and his wife. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex, as best I can remember. If two consenting, legally capable people, want to have sex, to tape themselves having sex, to make those tapes available for the titillation of others, I applaud them. Good for you.

I’d vote to keep him at his job if he was doing it well. If people can’t handle the fact other people enjoy this sort of thing, then don’t look at it. Don’t judge. Sure, some students are going to see it. Why do we care so much? It’s just sex. Better than the violence we glorify in this society.

Tom Liberman

The Pleasure of Shelling a Pistachio

Posted on January 12, 2023 by Tom Liberman

I thought I’d turn my eye to something important today, the pleasure of shelling a pistachio. The reason this topic comes to mind is a commercial I saw while riding the stationary at the gym this morning. I’m not sure what the commercial was about but in it an anthropomorphic creature of some sort flicked pistachios in a bowl and commented something along the lines of it’s time to get rid of shells.

I think I speak for a healthy majority of people in saying the pleasure of shelling a pistachio is a great deal of the joy in devouring the tasty nut. Yum. Now, I’m sure there are those who disagree and please feel free to tell me so. I welcome dissent here.

My question is, why do I enjoy the process of removing a pistachio from its shell and then eating it as opposed to having them pre-removed and just eating them?

The Unshelled Pistachio

Lest I be accused of not trying both methods, I’ve eaten from a large bowl of unshelled pistachios in the past. You just dig in with your grubby fingers, or perhaps use the spoon the germophobic hosts provide, and pop them directly into your mouth. They certainly must taste the same either way. A pistachio is, after all, a pistachio.

But do they taste the same? My answer is no, they don’t. My brain does something. When I pop pistachio after pistachio, or even a handful, right in a row, the taste is diminished. They just don’t taste as good to me this way.

Now, obviously, this is mental. There is something in the pleasure of shelling a pistachio that changes the perceived flavor, for me at least.

What’s the Difference?

Two things come to mind in trying to decipher why I enjoy the taste of a pistachio I’ve removed from its shell more than one I have not.

The first explanation is simply the time between eating one. When I shell them one by one, there is a delay before gratification. I’m not the sort to remove ten from their shell and then eat them in a row. I remove one, eat it, move to the next. I even take some time to sort out the larger and smaller at times. The smaller being more difficult to shell, generally.

The second explanation is the effort required to shell a pistachio somehow translates to the joy of eating it. The sense of accomplishment in getting it open, casting aside the shells, and then popping it into my mouth. There is also the satisfying sound of the shell breaking open.

Conclusion

There’s no doubt in my mind that I enjoy the taste of a pistachio I’ve removed from the shell more than one I have not. How do you feel about it? Is it a human thing? A Tom thing?

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

The Quantum Computer Future

Posted on November 22, 2021 by Tom Liberman

I just read an interesting article about the threat a Quantum Computer presents to crypto-currencies. The idea behind a quantum computer is simply that it calculates really fast. When I say really fast, what I mean to say is really, really, fast. Much faster than current computers.

This means a quantum computer can easily bypass even the most sophisticated computer cryptography quite quickly. The article discusses the ability to do this in regards to crypto-currencies which rely on such security to ensure funds remain secure. If a quantum computer can crack any security in seconds, then crypto-currency no longer works.

What I’d like to discuss is much broader. What is the nature of a society in which there is no way to protect your private information?

The Lack of Privacy

A while back I wrote how technology erodes privacy and a quantum computer accelerate this process. However, this is a speculative article not one focusing on technology. What will a society largely without privacy be like? This question appeals to the writer in me. Imagine the Star Trek or Star Wars universe in which privacy does not exist. I imagine writing novels based on a universe of that nature.

Would Captain Kirk be less promiscuous? More? Would Luke and Leia get it on or would their kiss disqualify them from public service?

The big question I ask myself is: will people become less enthusiastic about engaging in behavior society deems inappropriate or more?

A Chaste Society

The first answer is, because everyone doesn’t want their behaviors to be known to their neighbors, people will engage in a chaste life. I won’t get drunk at a party and make a fool of myself because that might later hurt my career. Rather than hide my sexual fetishes, I will simply not engage in them because other people will know about them.

It’s not just sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It’s anything that a peer group might find inappropriate for whatever reason. As a young man would I play Dungeons and Dragons if the cool kids shunned this as nerdy behavior?

How much of myself, yourself, are you willing to deny simply for larger acceptance in the world? I think this is a very real possibility. The fear of being judged will make us more monastic, less willing to indulge in the pleasures of life.

This is, in my opinion, a pretty bleak outcome. A society in which no one engages in behavior deemed inappropriate is dull, stagnant.

The Hedonistic Society

The other potential is people will simply stop caring so much about how others conduct their life, become less willing to cast the first stone. Or any stone at all for that matter. Yeah, I’m a freak, so what, bitch? So are you and I love you anyway, but please don’t bring it into my house! Keep it in your bedroom with eager and consenting partners. See you at the game on Saturday.

How willing is a person to shame another person when their own private behavior is largely public knowledge?

Conclusion

I honestly think most people are unable to deny their nature and a quantum computer world with little privacy will make such behavior more acceptable.

I’ve always found it fascinating often times the figure most loudly decrying a particular behavior actually conducts it themselves on the sly. As an example, I’ve noted those most eager to condemn homosexuality are often denying their own feelings in that regard.

It’s likely some people will go into their little caves and hide their desires from not only the world but themselves.

However, I think it much more likely many people will just do as they please and if anyone tells them it’s wrong, simply ignore that person. It’s likely that people all over the world will become freer to engage in their weirdness because they will find so many peers.

The internet allows people who enjoy the same things to gather and that’s a good thing. Even if I find some of the behavior unappealing at best.

Get your freak on because, if you can’t hide it, the best strategy is to embrace it. What others think, it doesn’t matter.

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Your Desire for Beer Defines you

Posted on April 6, 2021 by Tom Liberman

The Need

You have a desire for beer. That’s it, that’s the focus of this blog. Well, it’s a bit more than that, but I will explain. It’s what you do after you realize your desire for beer that brings us together today. It’s how you go about getting the beer that defines you.

We all have a desire for beer in one manner or another but how to you get to the point where a mug or bottle filled with the elixir arrives in front of you?

The Types of Desire for Beer

Needs an Excuse

Some of you cannot indulge yourself with the beverage in question without knowing others will join you. You make inquiries. Does anyone want a beer with dinner tonight? Yo, Tommy Boy, do you want a beer with dinner tonight, we’re having brats and burgers. If you’re having one maybe I’ll have one too.

What am I supposed to say? Nah, I’m bloated today, sorry. I know you want a beer; you’re not fooling anyone. If I refuse your offer then I’m punishing you, which I can’t do, I’m a nice guy. Well, I at least like to pretend I’m nice guy. Sure, I’ll have one, how about you?

The Helper

Hey, Tom, I’m getting a beer, can I get one for you? You can’t indulge in your desire for beer without bringing me into the equation. What do I have to do with it? What am I supposed to say now? You waited until the strategic moment my glass was empty just so you could ask me and prove how damn polite you are.

Again, my options are limited. I can tell you no but, frankly, I kind of do want a beer so that’s not happening. Ya, I’d love a beer, thanks. You’re a superior human, you win.

The Lazy Drinker

You wait until I get up to get a beer before you utter the words we all know are coming. Hey, Tom, as long as you’re up ….

What am I supposed to do, keep walking and pretend I didn’t hear you? Because that’s what I want to do, trust me, that’s what we all want to do. Then I’m the bad guy and you’re the victim. Get your own damn beer seems like a reasonable response but the reality is that we can’t say that.

Sure, what do you want, another one of those dirty dish-water things or a manly stout?

The Anti-social Jerk

The desire for beer comes over you and you stand up, notifying no one, saying nothing, all Gregory Peck, walk boldly to the cooler, grab yourself a bottle, crack it open, optionally pour it into a glass, and return to your seat without a word.

Ever think someone else was thirsty you ungrateful bastard? Have you ever consider the needs of anyone else or are you just a selfish prick?

Conclusion

In conclusion, we all want a beer but the only way to get one is to be a jerk. Life ain’t fair sometimes. So, anyone want a cold one?

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Aerosmith was Better on Drugs but for Whom?

Posted on December 3, 2020 by Tom Liberman

A social media friend of mine posited with unequivocal certainty that Aerosmith was better on drugs. By this he means their music was more enjoyable to him. The main point being, when taking mind-altering drugs, the band created better music. He might well be right but I think the important factor in that statement is my friend is viewing what is better through the lens of his betterment, not the members of the band.

I think this willingness to view the state of another person’s life and decision by how you are affected is a common human condition. I don’t blame my friend for saying what he said, and there are probably some reasonably objective standards we could apply to the question but that is not my point today.

Yes, it’s entirely possible Aerosmith was better on drugs then when they gave the lifestyle up. Perhaps their music was stronger, edgier, and better by all objective standards but that doesn’t change the underlying selfishness of the statement. I enjoyed the music more when the members of Aerosmith were blitzed out of their mind on mind-altering drugs. That they might have been shortening their lives, creating significant medical issues, courting death by overdose, hurting those around them with their behavior, is unimportant. Or at least less important than my enjoyment of their music.

Artists, by and large, suggests my friend, are better when they are whacked out of their gourd. Again, I’m not trying to insult my friend with this observation. I think we all look at life through our own eyes and what is good for us. I see nothing wrong with this philosophy, to at least some degree, but I think it’s important to recognize it.

Was Aerosmith better on drugs? For me, yes. For them, arguable. This is one of the fundamental ideas of objectivism and libertarianism, both philosophies my friend ridicules and perhaps why I’m writing this blog. It turns out my friend is an objectivist Libertarian of the first order when it comes to bands producing the kind of music he likes.

Take that, Harris.

Tom Liberman

Jared Kushner and Black People wanting Success

Posted on October 26, 2020 by Tom Liberman

Jared Kushner recently implied one of the reasons black people have struggled in the United States is they don’t want to be successful. His exact words were … but he (Trump) can’t want them to be successful more than they want to be successful. The question this Libertarian asks is: how do we define success?

I’m sure Jared Kushner and others will be spinning his comments one way or the other and that’s fine. However, there is no doubt in my mind Jared Kushner was simply repeating a line I’ve oft heard before. Black people have only themselves to blame for their lack of success in the United States. It’s a refrain that ignores a great deal of reality and, conveniently, absolves white people from any blame in the matter.

Now, I’m a white guy. Let’s get that out of the way. I don’t know what it’s like to be a black person nor can I speak for them on this subject. I’m merely giving my thoughts on it and I have at least the background of a racially mixed primary and secondary education to support me.

When Jared Kushner talks about black people having to want to succeed, he’s talking about himself, not black people. How he defines success, how his wealthy New Jersey father defines success, how his culturally Jewish heritage defines success. This is not the same as many other people and cultures.

The inherent problem with this attitude is it makes huge assumptions about the personal desires of other people and the cultural mores they value.

I think it’s safe to say black people have compelling reasons for not wanting to seek success the way a largely white America and Jared Kushner define such. We don’t even need to bring up the subject of slavery. Black people today are oppressed by white people overtly and covertly. One of the hidden oppressions is on full demonstration when Jared Kushner speaks on the subject. You must succeed the way I define it, otherwise it isn’t success. That’s his inference and black people have been hearing that for a long, long time. Many of them aren’t buying it and who can blame them?

Recently a person whose own background and culture strongly resemble that of Jared Kushner, Ben Shapiro, wrote that rap isn’t music. Presumably people who make great rap songs that others enjoy are not successful in his imagination. That’s the problem with trying to define how other people should view success.

For some people having a country house with a big yard to mow and some chickens is success. For others going billions of dollars into debt to purchase real-estate holdings and not paying any taxes is their version of success. For me success is defined by writing books that few people purchase. There is no one path to success and when we try to force our version of it on others, we are being presumptuous.

The fact Jared Kushner thinks he knows how black people should view success is part and parcel of the entire problem. People resent such a patronizing attitude.

It is impossible for irony to be more on display when Kushner goes on to blame black people for protesting the murder of George Floyd by crying on Instagram but not offering solutions. Kushner says you solve problems with solutions. Jared Kushner, instead of telling black people they just need to want to have success, maybe you should offer a practical and pragmatic solution, instead of crying to Fox News.

Tom Liberman

Why Racists Often think they are not

Posted on June 25, 2020 by Tom Liberman

I just read what many people will find to be a horrific article about a group of racists who happen to be police officers. What struck me about it was that after being caught making virulently racist comments, the three racists claimed they were not racists. It’s a refrain I’ve heard many times from racists over the years.

I wrote about my experience sitting at the table with people who made racist comments right in front of me but I’d like to spend some time today discussing why these clearly racist people think they are not racists. It’s fairly simple, in their minds if they don’t hate every single person of a particular group; black, Muslim, Evangelical Christian, Jewish, Atheist, whatever, they are not racists or bigots.

This is what leads many racists to mention how they are friends with a black person. Being a racist is quite simple. Do you hate someone because of the color of their skin, the religion they practice or don’t practice, the circumstances of their birth? If you do, you’re a racist. If you believe every person is an individual and you cannot hate or have any feelings at all about a person before you know them, then it’s likely you have Libertarian leanings.

Racism is an interesting topic for Libertarians. It is an absolute foreign concept to the ideals of the philosophy. Each person is an individual and must be judged by their words and deeds. You can never make assumptions about a person based on meaningless external factors. However, racists are entitled to their stupid opinions and, if they want to express their idiocy for all to see, that’s their business.

What’s important to understand is the world is filled with people who pat themselves on the back thinking they are not racists, like the three officers in question, when they are quite clearly racist scum who have no business in any position of authority, let alone law enforcement. I’ve known any number of people exactly like this. I had a police chief say to my face that he had never met a racist police officer. Perhaps I should have asked him how he defined racism and pointed out how he was living in a world of self-delusion. I did not, blame me for that.

You might think you aren’t a racist. You might think you’re a good person. Your friends might like you. You might behave in largely kind and decent ways to your friends and family. That doesn’t mean you’re not a racist.

If you choose to acknowledge it or not is your business. I’m not going to tell you to wake up. If you want to face the reality of your beliefs and actions, that’s up to you. However, I do think you’re a piece of garbage and if you die tomorrow, the world will be a better place.

Tom Liberman

Small Turnout at the Trump Rally Shows Enlightened Self-Interest

Posted on June 21, 2020 by Tom Liberman

I wrote an article yesterday about Enlightened Self-Interest in regards to the Aston Villa futbol team and today I’m taking on the same topic in regards to the small turnout at the Trump Rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

President Trump flaunted Covid-19 restrictions by holding a large, indoor, rally and it was poorly attended. This is going to be a major news story today in various outlets for all sorts of reasons but the underlying, and most vital, is the display of Enlightened Self-Interest by those who chose not to attend.

The small turnout at the Trump Rally is going to be cheered on by the left because they imagine it shows an erosion in his support. The small turnout at the Trump Rally is going to engender a million explanations from the right and particularly the president who will undoubtedly blame his perceived enemies as an excuse.

The libertarian community should be cheering on the small turnout at the Trump Rally as a triumph of enlightened self-interest. Trump still has many supporters, more than enough to fill BOK Center to capacity many times over. They didn’t show up and that is important but perhaps for reasons both of the mainstream political parties don’t understand.

President Trump in particular, certainly because he’s an absolute moron and viciously sadistic, doesn’t care about Covid-19. He doesn’t care about his supporter’s health and certainly enjoys the image of his many perceived enemies suffering. However, intelligent people are also against draconian restrictions in relation to Covid-19, not because they relish the suffering of enemies, as does Trump. Not because they don’t understand the nature of a highly infectious disease, but simply because they believe people have the ability to show their own Enlightened Self-Interest and should be trusted to do so because they are adults in charge of their own lives. Count me among such.

The small turnout at the Trump Rally displays our point. People care about their health and the safety of their loved ones more than any political figure. Trump supporters they certainly are; but they are people who are worried about their own safety and that is a wonderful thing. I applaud them for not showing up, not because they have abandoned Trump, but because they are acting like Libertarians. Good for you!

My hope, my dream, is that those who didn’t show up might consider the fact their chosen candidate doesn’t much care about their health, frankly, he doesn’t care much about anything other than himself and everyone is well-aware of it. You don’t have to vote for a Democrat, who have plenty of their own problems, there is another choice. Her name is Jo Jorgensen.

Tom Liberman

You have been Buying Wine Properly All this Time

Posted on May 19, 2020 by Tom Liberman

Have you been buying wine properly? That’s the premise of a clickbait Facebook post from Naked Wines that’s circulating through my friends’ timeline. Lots of people are buying wine and there is certainly an interest in doing it properly. It’s not so much the article but the comments that interest me.

The premise of the article is that more expensive wines are largely the same as less expensive wine but you are paying for marketing, brand recognition, and overhead rather than the simply the wine in the bottle. The comment section was predictably filled with people who laughed at those fools who purchased expensive wine opposed to those who ridiculed bumpkins for their unsophisticated palate in cheap, sweet wines. What a surprise.

The reality of the situation is pretty clear. When buying wine, you should purchase what you want. While I might wax poetic that such is the mantra of the Libertarian, the reality is we all feel this way. We all, largely, buy the things we want to buy for a variety of different reason. Perhaps you like inexpensive wines, perhaps you don’t particularly like cheap wine but you lack the funds to purchase the wine you enjoy more, maybe you don’t have the money but want to treat yourself, maybe you find the taste of cheap wine vile and only purchase expensive bottles. In the immortal words of Tripper Harrison, it just doesn’t matter.

We can argue subjective versus objective but I’ve done that before. If you like the cheap wine then drink it. If you prefer buying wine of an expensive nature, for whatever reason, then do so. Most importantly, the kind of wines someone else purchases are their business and the only reason you are annoyed by that is feelings of inadequacy in yourself. Your underlying lack of self-worth is what drives you to criticize others in this regard, doing so makes you feel better. That’s the crime in all of this.

If you find yourself criticizing the choices of others; the wine they purchase, the sport they enjoy, their hobby, who they choose to ignore on Facebook, or any other choice, then you are the problem, not them. Look in the mirror.

If you find yourself constantly ridiculing those with different tastes than your own then you have a significant problem, not them. If you get enjoyment by putting others down, demeaning them, calling them names, it is you who is failing life.

If you want lead your life in this fashion, whatever. I’m happy with the way I am and I don’t really care all that much. Be a shit if you want but don’t expect me to care about your opinion.

As for buying wine and drinking it? My advice, enjoy.

Tom Liberman

Lori Loughlin is the Covid-19 Response from the United States

Posted on April 11, 2020 by Tom Liberman

Do you want to be Lori Loughlin and fight for a long time or Felicity Huffman and take your punishment up front and move on? Sometimes in life you have a choice between suffering today or delaying the pain until later in the hopes of avoiding it altogether. It’s an interesting decision from a Game Theory perspective and I like to examine it today.

In the case of Covid-19, the United States trod the Lori Loughlin path of delaying the pain in the hopes it would go away. It didn’t and now we’re paying the price. Meanwhile countries like Japan and South Korea went the Felicity Huffman rout and took the punishment early, avoiding more disastrous consequences later.

Is one choice better than the other? If you choose to avoid punishment today there is always the chance the pain will never come. Perhaps Lori Loughlin will have the charges against her dismissed or she will not face any prison time. Felicity Huffman, on the other hand, pled guilty and served a few weeks in a minimum-security prison. She has that on her record forever but she is basically living her best life now and has been for a while.

There are arguments both ways. It’s sort of like staying in place when a hurricane is forecast for your region. If you don’t leave and the disaster doesn’t come, you’ve saved a lot of time and effort. However, if it does come, you might well die, be horribly injured, lose family members, or otherwise suffer for a long period of time.

In this case, President Trump and many of his political allies decided Covid-19 wasn’t that big a risk. That it probably wouldn’t get bad and we shouldn’t risk economic pain today for the uncertain forecasts of its dire consequences tomorrow. Some of them maintain that position even today despite the dying going on all over the country.

To be honest, we still face that very same decision right now. We are currently avoiding public gatherings but people are still getting sick and dying. The question we cannot answer is how many might have died; how bad would the economic impact be if the disease spread more quickly and widely throughout the United States? How bad might it get if we give up on social distancing too early?

It’s not unreasonable to conclude that had people continued to congregate normally the eventual economic impact could have been far worse. If huge numbers of people got sick then everyone would isolate without prompting from the government, merely out of self-preservation. This would hurt the economy far worse than we are currently experiencing.

Of course, it might not have been that bad. That’s the risk you take when you decide to avoid pain today in hopes it won’t arrive, and be significantly worse, tomorrow. It’s the decision you face right now in regards to social distancing. Accept the suffering today? Put it off and hope it won’t be so bad tomorrow?

Perhaps Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman might give us cogent answers to these questions. As for me, I think it’s better to take the consequences today rather than suffer later, you may disagree.

Tom Liberman

The False Choice of Economy or Lives

Posted on March 25, 2020 by Tom Liberman

People in the United States are being bombarded with the false choice of either ruining the economy or losing tens of thousands, if not more, lives to the novel coronavirus, Covid-19. Giving us a false choice is something government and fear mongers are quite fond of doing and we are seeing an extreme example of the tactic and the damage it does. Let me explain.

On one side of the false choice is the idea that millions will die if the government doesn’t force people to stay home and avoid spreading Covid-19 rapidly to the entire population. The opposite side of this coin is the impression if the government enforces such an order the economy of the United States will collapse and this will cause more damage than the lives lost.

That is the false choice being presented to the public and being championed on social media and online forums throughout the country and indeed the world. The problem is that neither is largely true or largely false. The reality is somewhere in between and the government has far less influence than you imagine.

Long before various local and state governments started to give shelter in place orders, before they started closing schools and businesses, people were practicing enlightened self-interest on their own. Many people don’t want to get the disease or pass it along to vulnerable members of their family or friends. Businesses were shutting down on their own. The economy suffered and continues to do so.

Meanwhile, despite orders not to congregate, people around the United States continue to gather in large crowds at churches, on beaches, in public transportation centers, and at shopping venues. No amount of government intervention can prevent people from acting to their own detriment. People are continuing to catch Covid-19, to fill hospitals, to overrun available resources, and to die.

In other words; no matter what the government does, the economy will suffer and people will die. If state and local government acts more aggressively or less, it is certain the suffering in lives or economic ruin will shift in one direction or the other but both outcomes are already assured, despite the false choice offered by those who wish to divide us for their own gain.

The central theme of my novel, The Gray Horn, is this false choice offered by those who wish to separate us, who desire us to fight so they might take away our freedom. Both sides claim the choice is vital, that our lives, our financial well-being, is at stake. We must choose one or the other. This is the false choice.

Act in your enlightened self-interest as best you can. Try to avoid places where you might catch Covid-19 and then pass it along to loved ones. Meanwhile do your best to support local businesses. Understand that some people will die, the economy will suffer. The false choice offered by government is actually no choice at all.

Tom Liberman

The Philosophy of Pasta Sauce

Posted on March 24, 2020 by Tom Liberman

A philosophically inclined friend of mine recently posited a tongue in cheek question about her batch of pasta sauce and her family’s disinterest in eating said treat. Is it delicious if no one eats it? While frivolous and fun, it is also an interesting question from a philosophical standpoint and, because I am unable or unwilling to resist the temptation to dive into such a feast, I shall attempt to examine it.

It is obviously a twist on the old if a tree falls in the forest question but there is an important difference. When a tree falls in the forest there is a sound save and this is a measurable phenomenon. Even if no one is there to hear the noise, it exists on a physical realm. Now, certainly pasta sauce exists in a physical way and taste buds in our mouths react to those flavors. But the idea of delicious is a construct, it does not exist physically but metaphysically.

Deliciousness itself is a subjective idea, its nature as a construct defines it as such. I find certain whiskeys quite delicious while others describe the taste of the same beverage in less favorable terms. If no one eats the pasta sauce then it cannot be delicious nor can it be vile. Yet, the pasta sauce is clearly made up of physical things that have flavors. If we compare those flavors with others that people have described as delicious, then it is certainly fair to suggest that Ellen’s pasta sauce most certainly is delicious despite it not having been tasted by her ungrateful family.

Much like Schrodinger’s cat, the pasta sauce appears to be in a state of quantum superposition. I know this will appeal to my friend whose dissertation is entitled, Mental Disorder in a Biomedical Age: Problems with Symptoms, Perils of Reduction. Yes, I know I’m a cyberstalker. Before she married herself off to a great fellow, before she gave birth to a pair of lovely children, and before she prepared her batch of pasta sauce, I was crushing on her at the gym. That is neither here nor there and we must return to the topic at hand.

Is the pasta sauce delicious? I think I’ve shown, with some logical consistency, that it is not delicious at all and it is quite delicious at the same time. I suspect you will find this conclusion as unsatisfying as a bowl of pasta, dripping with delightful sauce, of which you are not allowed to partake. Philosophy can be that way.

Take care and attempt to eat the pasta we call life with as much gusto as you can manage.

Tom Liberman

Was Golfer Ryan Palmer Wrong to Cause a Long Wait?

Posted on January 13, 2020 by Tom Liberman

There’s an interesting story this week in the golfing world related to a long wait at the end of the 2020 Sony Open. Ryan Palmer hit a shot that looked like it went out of bounds; rather than playing a provisional ball, he chose to go look for his original and then, when it couldn’t be found, went back and played a second shot. This while the tournament leaders had a long wait of forty minutes on the final hole.

Normally when a player hits a shot like Palmer’s they will play a provisional ball so that, if the original can’t be found, they can immediately go to that one and continue play. Palmer chose not to do this which caused the long wait because he had to go back, setup and hit another shot, then finish the hole. The controversy is bigger because the two players waiting behind him were the leaders and such a long wait can, obviously, disrupt your round. In fact, one of the players hit a poor shot and wound up losing the tournament.

Palmer heard some angry opinions about his decision but remains, at the time I’m writing this article, unapologetic. He has stated that he’d do it the same way again in the future.

Let’s first get rid of the notion that I, or anyone else, knows better what Palmer should have done than he himself. It was his decision to make and he made it. Hitting a provisional ball in that situation is completely optional and he was not required to do so.

That being said, let’s talk about what a reasonable person might have done and if it’s permissible to criticize Palmer.

The entire purpose of hitting a provisional ball is to alleviate the wait of competitors behind you. It’s the polite thing to do. This was the final hole of a tournament and Palmer was well-aware the two players behind him were vying for the tournament lead. At the time he made his decision he was still in contention himself although the penalty he incurred from his wayward stroke dropped him down the leaderboard.

There is no doubt in my mind that a polite golfer would have taken the provisional ball. That even in the heat of the moment a golfer who neglected to do so would offer up a mea culpa and apologize to the golfers affected by the decision.

Palmer is choosing to be impolite. He chose to ignore the possibility of the lost ball and potentially inconvenience the players behind him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people saying exactly that. Just as it is Palmer’s right to be unapologetic.

People are allowed to be rude and they don’t have to apologize but you get to, going forward, treat them appropriately based on that knowledge, that’s your decision. The other competitors on the PGA tour can deal with Palmer in any way they want, Patrick Reed is learning that lesson, or not learning it, even as we speak.

Tom Liberman

Scarves and My Life of Privilege

Posted on December 28, 2019 by Tom Liberman

An incident the other night brought the reality of my life of privilege into clarity and it involved a lost scarf. I don’t have a life of privilege because I’m very wealthy or particularly personable with many friends, it is largely based on my innocuous appearance and relatively polite manners.

If you were creating a dictionary with the term innocuous in it you might be well-served to put my picture on the entry. I’m not particularly large or imposing, I’m white, my features are regular and I’m decent looking without being overly handsome or particularly striking. I’m just a normal looking fellow and I try to treat strangers politely with a smile and a kind word, I save my dark side for family and friends, just ask them.

In any case, on with the story. I was out drinking with a friend and we met a nice young lady. Over the course of the evening she left her scarf at one of the places we visited that night. I happen to live in the neighborhood in question and offered to pick it up the next morning. I walked over to the establishment and politely asked if anyone had turned in a scarf. The woman behind the counter insisted that I describe the scarf and said she couldn’t hand it over without such a description. I was startled by this encounter, the reason being, normally when I ask for something politely, people assume I’m telling the truth and comply.

I think it’s an exaggeration to suggest if I politely asked to borrow the sidearm of a law enforcement officer, she or he would hand it over, perhaps admonishing me to be careful with it, but it is not much of an overstatement. I’m quite used to walking into places and asking for a little special treatment without any difficulty whatsoever. Can I have some fruit on the side even though it’s not on the menu? Can you plug in my phone for a bit? My ride is on the way, can I just leave the hospital after my procedure and wait for them outside by myself?

Who knows how many times my life of privilege has aided me without me noticing. When someone actually challenges me, it’s startling. What, do you think I wander into places and steal scarves from the lost and found? Do people do that? They probably do, what do I know, I have a life of privilege.

While I recognize that my appearance has more than a little to do with my life of privilege, I do credit my polite manners with at least some of it, so, pat on the back.

Tom Liberman

What to do about Useful Money from Bad People

Posted on September 9, 2019 by Tom Liberman

A rather despicable fellow named Jeffrey Epstein donated large amounts of useful money to any number of philanthropic causes and these gifts are now causing problems for those who received them. People are returning useful money and resigning from their positions, or being asked to do so. What I’d like to examine is the nature of philanthropic money in general.

Many of the people who donate to causes are not the greatest people in the world. Certainly, Epstein is viler than most but the question remains the same. As an example, let’s imagine you are the financial officer of a charitable organization and you have strong views on religion. Perhaps you are an Atheist or perhaps you are a Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, Jew, or Hindu. You are offered a large amount of useful money from someone who has a completely different belief system than you. Do you take that money knowing it will contribute to doing what you perceive to be good? What if the person has a criminal record? What if they are giving the money in order to improve their reputation because of some misdeeds in the past?

While my question is hypothetical the reality exists to the tune of billions of dollars in charitable donations. The events surrounding Epstein are forcing the financial operators of these organizations to ask themselves this very question. Should I refuse the donation because of the nature of the person who is giving it? Does the money, and the good that is done with it, override my concerns about the source? The money given by such a person intermingles with the money given by many better people and helps us fulfill our mission. Should I deny a child from Make a Wish their wish because I don’t like the person who is giving the money? Doesn’t that just hurt the child?

This is no idle question, if organizations turn down money from disreputable or unaligned donors, they will have less money to complete their mission. Those who would benefit instead go without. There are no easy answers here but I will not shirk from a conclusion simply because the question is complex and difficult.

I’ll happily tell you what I would do were I in charge of such a charity. Not that my decision is proper for anyone else, it is right for me and me alone.

I’d take the money from any source, even if Epstein were alive today in order to give it. I’d also be completely honest about my distaste for such a horrible person. I’d highlight the donation in my monthly and annual literature. I’d speak loudly to the stakeholders in the charity about why I took the money. About how the vile criminal Epstein was attempting to restore his reputation through the donation and that I wanted nothing to do with him other than cashing the check. I’d consider re-donating a goodly portion of it to help his many victims and organizations devoted to helping them and those like them.

Perhaps you disagree and I respect your right to do so. I can certainly understand why you would.

Tom Liberman

An Atheist can be an Asshole and Atheists Should Always Say So

Posted on August 18, 2019 by Tom Liberman

I just watched a YouTube video from my favorite Atheist show, The Atheist Experience, and I thought it an extremely instructive example of how we should all try to behave. In a nutshell, if you largely agree with someone on a subject but they are saying something stupid; you need to be the one to tell that person her or his behavior is idiotic.

The Atheist Experience is a show in which theist call in with arguments against Atheism although the show also takes atheist callers albeit less frequently. The hosts of the show rotate fairly regularly but for the call in question, the main host was Matt Dillahunty along with his co-host David Warnock. Dillahunty is a former Southern Baptist well trained in the arts of debate and logic with a deep understanding of theology. He is a fearsome opponent in any sort of philosophical debate and is internationally recognized as such.

The caller to the show, a woman named Rose, was clearly a well-meaning and rather sweet older woman who wanted to prove the existence of God through a particular line in the Bible. She had come to a gun fight without even the proverbial knife. Her points were logically dismissed with almost careless ease by Dillahunty but it is only after this that the important part of the call occurred.

Rose mentioned that her son asked her to call into the show. Dillahunty immediately came up with the hypothesis that her son was an Atheist and had sent his mother, if you’ll forgive me, intentionally into the Lion’s Den in order to humiliate her. Dillahunty asked Rose if her son identified as an Atheist. Rose confirmed the hypothesis and that’s when Dillahunty and Warnock got angry, not at Rose but at her son.

“Your son is a dick,” was basically the first thing Dillahunty said after he found out the reason Rose called. “He makes us all look bad,” followed shortly thereafter from Warnock. They admonished the son, told Rose that the boy should apologize to her. They refused to speak anymore about the religious aspects of the topic because they did not want to further attack Rose, although they continued to harangue the son, who happened to be on the phone and attempted to explain his reasoning. Dillahunty and Warnock were having none of it.

The son was chastened. I feel very confident in suggesting that if religious people had rightly told the son his behavior was reprehensible, he would have given their opinion less consideration than he did that of Dillahunty and Warnock. That’s a lesson for us all.

When we look into the topics of politics, religion, sports, whatever; people are not much interested in listening to or giving credence to the opinions of those who oppose them. It is only when people are called out by those on the same side that real change is likely to happen.

If I may pat myself on the back and recall an incident that happened at a St. Louis Rams game some years ago. I was a season ticket holder and had seen the decline in the years after the Greatest Show on Turf. One week we played the Denver Broncos who were coming off a season in which they reached the Super Bowl. The Rams played an outstanding game and dominated the Broncos. As the crowd was filing out one of my fellow Rams fans started yelling idiotic thing to nearby Bronco’s fans. I immediately told him to show some dignity in victory, turned to the Broncos fans and thanked them for visiting St. Louis and wished them well. I’m happy to say the Rams fan shut his fat yap.

In any case, that’s my advice to you. Don’t worry so much about yelling at people you hate, call out the ones you like when they are behaving badly. If everyone did that, we might see some progress in this world.

Tom Liberman

Casey Smitherman and Doing Good to Make Yourself Feel Better

Posted on February 4, 2019 by Tom Liberman

The story about Casey Smitherman who made a false insurance claim to help a sick student has been much in the news lately and gets me thinking. Thinking about what, you might ask? Thinking about people who try to do something good largely for the purpose of making themselves feel better, not the person they are supposedly helping.

First the situation. A student in Smitherman’s school district, Ellwood Community Schools, missed some days of school and Smitherman went to the home of the student and took the boy to the doctor. There she used her insurance card and claimed the student was her son. This is insurance fraud.

I would guess the average person reading this story will laud Smitherman as a hero. While what she did was illegal, it was with the best intentions of the student at heart. This demonstrates an idea I wrote about a while back called Relativistic Morality but I don’t want to rehash that topic in this blog. What interests me in this case is that Smitherman has resigned and at least one family member of the boy who was treated is happy about it. Why? Because Smitherman came into the family home, took the boy, got medication, and gave it to him without permission from his guardians.

I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know all the facts about the case. I don’t know the circumstances of the boy’s life or the responsibility of his guardians but that fact bring into doubt Smitherman’s motivations. Basically, it’s possible she was simply doing it because she wanted to feel better about herself and was less interested in helping the boy. That’s the idea I’d like to examine in this blog. People who claim to be helping others when in fact they are trying to make themselves feel like better human beings.

How many of us are guilty of the same thing? We see something that appears to be an egregious situation and step in, without permission, to right the wrongs. How many of us stick our noses in the business of others where it does not belong?

If we see a parent disciplining a child in a way we deem to violent, should we step in? Most people want to be helpful and kind. It makes us feel good to help others. Unfortunately, this sometimes leads people to overstep their authority and place. We jump into someone else’s life with the hope of aiding them but in reality, we are just trying to make ourselves feel like a good person. They did not want nor need our help.

There are no easy answers here. Sometimes it’s very important to step in and help people. Other times we are doing it for the wrong reasons and we are making a situation worse. One of phrases I like to think about in these circumstances is: Don’t criticize the way another person goes about doing her or his business. Before intervening, I suggest you consider why you are doing it. Is it to help the other person or is it simply to make yourself feel like a good person?

I think Smitherman crossed onto the wrong side of the line when she took the boy without permission and her actions should be taken in that light. You may feel differently.

Tom Liberman

Russia and the Battle for Soft Power

Posted on January 10, 2019 by Tom Liberman

I just read an interesting article about how Russia is advancing their political cause by opening up educational opportunities to foreign students, this is an element of something called Soft Power. In the last twenty years Russia and China, perhaps realizing the United States military is largely unassailable, have been ramping up their use of this method of acquiring power in the world and we need be aware of this strategy.

I’ve written about how the United States is losing their edge in the education world more than once and you might want to peruse those articles here and here. Meanwhile, I’ll continue with this one.

The idea of Soft Power essentially means getting other nations to want to be like you. For the entire history of the United States we have enjoyed an enormous advantage in Soft Power simply because our Constitution guaranteed us freedom and with this freedom came upward mobility on a scale never before seen in the history of the world. Our colleges attracted foreign students in enormous numbers, and still do. These students went back to their home countries with stories about the plentiful opportunities the United States has to offer.

The effectiveness of this Soft Power was demonstrated particularly after World War II when it defeated the Soviet Union who, at the time, was much more interested in Hard Power. The United States offered hope and opportunity, a lady with open arms and a welcoming smile in the Upper New York Bay. When the United States came into existence there were very few nations in the world where the people were free, that has changed, largely because of our use of Soft Power rather than military exercises. Freedom has spread.

Success engenders imitation and the leaders of China and Russia, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, are spending a great deal of time, effort, and money in that flattery. They see it works and are now implementing various strategies across the globe designed to demonstrate the value of China and Russia to the people of other nations.

Meanwhile the United States is going in the opposite direction. We have fewer foreign students than we had ten years ago. We are actively attempting to reduce the number further. We are sanctioning more and more countries making it difficult or impossible for our greatest Soft Power asset, capitalistic ideology, to do business with foreign states.

The United States is still a leader in propagating Soft Power throughout the world but we are heading in the wrong direction while our chief rivals are moving to supplant us. An America first plan ensures that we will become America third before too long. Relying on Hard Power didn’t work for the Soviet Union and it’s not going to work for us.

Tom Liberman

Yoga Mayhem Generated by Loss of Routine

Posted on January 9, 2019 by Tom Liberman

This morning in my yoga class there was something wrong with the environmental controls and I’m fascinated by how this relatively minor problem created a situation of so much unease. We humans like routine and when that is disturbed it can completely change our entire disposition. Let me explain.

At my new gym the yoga room environment is controlled by an automated system based on the class schedule. There are free-flowing advanced classes, called Vinyasa, in which the practitioners build up a good sweat. In such classes the room is generally kept cool. There is yoga in an intentionally heated and steamed room, called Bikram, in which the room is artificially turned into a sauna-like environment. And there are others, all with their ideal temperatures. Because the instructors of the previous class sometimes forgot to change the temperature to a setting comfortable for the next class; it was decided the new classroom should do it automatically. Hurray! Except when it doesn’t work.

This was the case today. When I arrived, it was clear the room was anticipating a Bikram class as there was a strong sense of moisture in the air and the yoga room was quite hot. The system began to cool the room not long after I arrived but that didn’t stop a virtual hurricane of anxiety as each new person came into the room and commented on it thus triggering replies from those already there.

About ten minutes into the class the steam came on and the room became decidedly warmer. The instructor kept her head, turned on the fans, propped open the door with a block, and largely remained calm. That being said, she was thrown off her game and the feeling of uneasiness crept into the room. I can only imagine how bad it might have become with a less calm instructor.

The class flow itself lost cohesiveness as the instructor attempted to keep the students calm while adjusting various exercises for the new paradigm. We took a Child’s Pose in the midst of active maneuvers because our instructor was concerned people might be overheating. Eventually the temperature ameliorated and the steam shut off.

Still, I found the entire episode instructive. It’s amazing how quickly a situation can turn from calm control into utter chaos. Luckily, in this case, our instructor was level-headed and the situation only mildly degenerated despite the feeling of panic that was hanging in the air for a little while. I can only imagine what might have happened with a less professional instructor.

It doesn’t take much to throw people out of their routine and into panic. It’s important in such situations to remain as calm as possible and carry on.

I’m not saying there was the potential for disaster but I can easily imagine some yoga classes degenerating into chaos under similar situation, with everyone babbling and losing the flow entirely. That would have been a waste of my morning and I’m glad it didn’t happen.

Tom Liberman

Bread and Water because Mom Did it that Way

Posted on December 26, 2018 by Tom Liberman

I just read an intriguing article about the elimination of Bread and Water as a punishment in the United States Navy. I’m not amazed by the punishment itself but rather how it started and why, until recently, it was still being used.

Bread and Water is a disciplinary action available to captains of naval vessels where they can punish a sailor by restricting her or his diet to simply bread and water. The modern terms of the punishment limit the amount of time to three days and ensure that the sailor in question is given as much bread and water as they desire. In 1909 the maximum time was reduced from thirty days to seven and sailors could no longer be chained while undergoing the punishment.

The bit I found most interesting is the idea for Bread and Water punishment was derived from a similar practice in the British Navy. At the time that naval power was largely considered the finest in the world so adopting some of their practices made a great deal of sense. However, the British Navy outlawed the punishment in 1891. That’s not 1981 in case you are a little bit dyslexic, as am I. It was banned in the British Navy over one-hundred years ago. Yet the Bread and Water punishment persisted in the U.S. Navy until 2019.

This is the equivalent of doing something for the sole reason that your mother or father did it that way. That is, to a large degree, an enormous component of human psychology. I wrote sometime ago about why so many people feel it should be required to teach cursive writing in school when it has little practical use in the modern world, particularly when it takes so much time from other, more useful, subjects.

We do many, many things simply because they have been done that way in the past. It’s not necessarily wrong to do something the same as it’s always been done, but it is important to examine what you are doing, why you are doing it, and the results generated therein. The fact that it’s been done a certain way for a hundred years or more has no bearing on whether or not you should continue to do it. True though this may be, it is not something most people are willing to accept.

If it was good enough for my father than it’s good enough for me. Wrong. If it’s good, then it’s good. If it’s not, then it’s not. Sometimes something that worked well in the past just isn’t useful today. Sometimes it was awful back then and it remains awful now. We must take the time to examine why we are doing things and the results generated from doing so.

The fact that U.S. Navy finally got around to fixing this is a good thing. The fact that it took a century to do it is a lesson for us all. Just because mom did it that way doesn’t mean you should as well.

Tom Liberman