Tag Archives: society

Does a Bad Link make a Difference?

Posted on by
Bad Link

I just witnessed a fascinating instance involving a bad link and a series of comments. One of my Facebook friends spotted what she presumably thought an interesting article and clicked the link. It went to a story about a completely different topic.

She then pointed out not a single person, other than her, noticed the story went to a bad link. Her observation was completely on point but not exactly what I want to discuss today. What about all those comments and likes?

The Headline is all that Matters

The picture and headline of the Facebook link indicated psychological reasons for feeling anxiety after heavy drinking. There followed some 150 comments and nearly 700 likes or emoji responses, primarily likes. Yet, it was a bad link. Not a single person making a comment or reacting to the story actually tried to read it, other than my friend.

Now, I’m used to the idea that people comment on stories without reading them. I see all sorts of behavior like that, particularly in regards to my Misleading Headline series. Even I, in my cynicism, didn’t imagine they don’t even bother to click the link.

What percentage of people commenting on a story failed not only to read the article itself but didn’t even try? From the evidence on display here, I’d guess it might be as high as 90%.

Is Humanity just a Bad Link?

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest a healthy percentage of people just don’t care. They don’t see. They don’t read. They don’t listen. They look for what they superficially desire and call it a life. Is this disturbing reality what drives much of the misunderstand between people we see in the world these days?

Has mass media, social media, quick snippets of targeted lies found their ultimate audience? Are the rational of the world doomed to be destroyed by those who don’t even bother to find out it’s a bad link?

Conclusion

I don’t think so. I think there’s plenty of hope for humanity but we need to start teaching critical thinking skills at the very earliest levels of education and never stop. Click the damn link.

Tom Liberman

Iranian Women Chess players and Subtle Misogyny

Posted on by
Iranian Women Chess players

A subtle version of misogyny is on display in news stories about Iranian Women chess players. I’ve written about the subtleties of racism previously and today I take on a similar topic. Just because something is misogynistic doesn’t mean it’s obvious or even an intentional act.

Let’s examine stories making the rounds about Iranian women chess players. Basically, Iranian women are required to wear a hijab. Recent protests in that country brought attention to the practice and a pair of Iranian women, Sara Khadem and Atousa Pourkashiyan are playing the World Rapid and Blitz championship not wearing hijabs.

What’s the subtle misogyny in that? Let me explain.

What is Misogyny

I think the first thing to understand is the idea of misogyny. The dictionary defines it as dislike of, contempt, or ingrained prejudice against women. When we see a definition like this we think of open misogyny. Someone going around telling people that women are not deserving of human rights, they are weak, stupid, worthless.

The reality is that misogyny comes in many flavors and is not always obvious. That’s where such things are insidious. We look at behavior that, at first glance, appears perfectly normal, and accept it as such. Even when it’s actually not quite so harmless.

The Case of the Iranian Women Chess Players

If you look at the picture I’ve included at the top of this article, you’ll see of the players in question. Khadem on the left and Pourkashiyan on the right. Can you guess what image the articles in question are displaying? Both women? Khadem? Pourkashiyan? I don’t even really need to ask. You know the answer already. That’s my point.

In fact, when I first read about this story, the only name I saw was Khadem. They didn’t even bother to include the fact that Pourkashiyan also chose not to wear a hijab. It was only today I realized there were two women involved in the protest, if that word can be used.

Attractive Women are more Valuable

What’s the subtle message from the fact that Khadem’s picture is plastered all over the articles and Pourkashiyan’s is not? Prettier is better. A woman’s worth is in her beauty.

It’s a little more complicated than that. The picture of an attractive woman brings more clicks to the story. The agencies publishing such articles want clicks, therefore they choose to put up the picture of Khadem.

That being said, if we boil it down to its essence, the misogyny is there. It’s subtle, it’s not easy to see. Not virulent. Not overly damaging. A shrug of the shoulders type of misogyny, still, it’s there.

If you were the brother of Pourkashiyan, what would you say?

Conclusion

Little things add up in the mind of those prone to thinking this way. The path to misogyny, and most prejudices and hatreds, is not always obvious.

It’s not always easy to be a better person and sometimes we don’t even realize what we’re doing is wrong. In this case, it’s wrong not to include pictures of both women. It is misogyny, ever so subtle.

Tom Liberman

Teacher Sex with not Student

Posted on by
Teacher Sex at William Hulme school

I just read about an interesting teacher sex case involving a not student. It touches on a lot of issues that I find important as a Libertarian. Normally these teacher sex cases are fairly straight forward. The teacher, in a position of trust, has sexual relations with an underage student. Pretty easy to see the problem there. That’s not the case this time.

In this situation the student is not a student at all but a former student and past the age of consent. The William Hulme Grammar school teaches children all the way from the beginning of schooling to the age of eighteen.

The Teacher Sex Case

The student in question left the school at some point before the sexual relationship began. That being said, it is indicated the teacher and student had a close, but non-sexual, relationship while the student was enrolled.

After the student left the school, the two stayed in contact and went out to local pubs on occasion. Eventually they spent an evening together at a hotel although the teacher in question denies any sexual relationship. The student indicates that she or he, no name is given, spent the night in the hotel and the two had sex twice.

The administrators at the William Hulme school decided this was unprofessional behavior by the teacher, despite the other party being of legal age and not being enrolled at the school, and fired the teacher. The Teaching Regulation Agency suspended the teacher who is now barred from teaching for five years but can then appeal the decision.

What does this Libertarian Think?

I’m pretty much in total agreement with all events. I’m certain the teacher did nothing legally wrong and the fact criminal charges were never filed in this teacher sex scandal is correct. The young person was of legal age when the alleged sex occurred and not a student.

That being said, the circumstances of the case bring the teacher’s judgment into question. The idea of grooming is real and dangerous. I think the regulatory agency within their rights to suspend the teacher and I think the William Hulme school had every right to fire him.

Conclusion

That being said, I do think there are plenty of situations when a teacher can have sex with a former student without repercussions. Imagine a teacher who has a favorite student, sends that student off to higher education, ten years later the student returns and the two begin an adult, mutually consensual relationship. I don’t think the school, the regulatory body, or the law has any right to argue they know better than the two adults.

That’s one of the reasons I’m largely against zero-tolerance rules. It’s important to take in the totality of the particular situation before passing judgement.

Look at the circumstances of the situation, assess them as is best possible, come to the most equitable solution. That’s all we can ever do.

Tom Liberman

White Boy does not know about Rap Snacks

Posted on by
Rap Snacks

Today I recount an interesting interaction centered around a bag of what looked to be delicious Rap Snack Salt and Vinegar Chips. I’ve written about my life of White Privilege and about the Social Divide between black and white people in the United States. Today I write about that divide in regards to snacks.

Snacks you ask? Yes, snacks. After today’s encounter, which I will detail below, I begin to wonder how many delicious snacks I’ve been missing out on.

Rap Snacks at the Hospital

I was waiting for my mother to get her blood drawn and overheard a nearby technician waxing poetic about her Salt and Vinegar chips. Now, readers, let me be clear. I love me some Salt and Vinegar chips. So, when I heard a fellow devotee of the delightful treat gushing, I interjected myself into the conversation.

We spoke for a few moments about our shared delight of Salt and Vinegar before I asked her about the brand. I did not recognize the branding on the bag as I normally get Kettle Salt and Vinegar Chips. She paused for a moment, looked at her fellow technicians, and then finally told me about Rap Snacks.

Let’s Talk about the Pause

Why did my fellow Salt and Vinegar chip enthusiast pause? I suspect it was because she was a black woman and I am a white man. She knew, or at least strongly suspected, I never heard of Rap Snacks and likely the stores I frequent won’t carry it.

What’s important to understand is she’s right, if that was indeed her thought process. Until that moment I never knew anything about Rap Snacks and I feel fairly confident they will not be on the shelves of my grocery store.

If you take a look at the image I’m using with this blog post, you’ll probably understand why I’ve never hard of Rap Snacks despite my love of all things Salt and Vinegar. I’m not exactly in the market demographic for Rap Snacks.

Expanding my Horizons

It’s a shame I’m not a targeted audience for the chips because if so, I’d almost certainly have purchased a bag. Will they be better than my normal Kettle Brand? Worse? Equal? I’m not sure one way or the other but I do know that I’m the worse for not knowing they were an option.

Now that I do know, I will go out of my way and purchase a bag. I’ll likely get them from Amazon or Target although I’m sorely tempted to drive the short distance to a store outside of my normal shopping range and purchase them there.

I wonder how much else I miss out on in life because of marketing biases. I’ll keep you informed when I manage to get my hands on a bag.

Happy Snacking!

Tom Liberman

Kitchen Set for Young Boy Causes Controversy

Posted on by
Kitchen Set

An interesting story in the news involves an uncle giving his nephew a fancy kitchen set for his birthday. Apparently, the parents of the lad are quite upset with the gift. They think it’s inappropriate for a boy to get a kitchen set as a present.

Now, we do have to take Reddit posts with a grain of salt. It’s quite possible the person making the post is just trying to stir up trouble. Still, I think it’s a situation worth examining from a Libertarian point of view. Let’s go!

Parental Rights

For a Libertarian it comes down to Parental Rights. There’s a lot in the news about Parental Rights and, as usual, there is no consistency in the established parties. When it comes to math questions it seems the Republicans are all about Parental Rights and Democrats are against them. When it comes to certain medical procedures then it’s completely reversed. Republican’s think the state knows better for the child than the parents while Democrats think, rightly so, the parents must be the ones in charge of such decisions.

Now, in this case, it’s pretty simple from a Libertarian perspective. The parents have every right to restrict the type of gift their child receives. If they think a kitchen set is an inappropriate gift then they can inform the uncle to please gift toy soldiers to the lad in the future. Save the kitchen set for daughters, if there ever are any.

Boys Cook

Everyone is up in arms because the chef industry is dominated by men. The article states almost 75% of all professional chefs are men. It’s a good job and I’m quite proud and happy to say my nephew owns and operates a restaurant. You go, James!

The fact the parents don’t want their son to play with a kitchen set makes the parents morons. This is factually true and I agree wholeheartedly, they are idiots. The uncle is absolutely in the right in giving the gift as long as he didn’t know about the parents’ preferences. It’s a great gift for a young man or woman. I like to eat. I love good food. The more chefs in the world the better. You go, uncle!

Idiot Parents are Still Parents

The parents are living a delusional lie and trying to limit their son. Horrific. I hope the boy overcomes their miserable stereotypes and gender biases and becomes whatever he wants to be, a chef if that’s his passion. Perhaps the uncle can give him an example by cooking a delightful meal whenever the family visits. Make a point of being in the kitchen and creating great food for everyone to enjoy.

That being said, the parents are the parents. They have every right to raise their child the way they see fit, barring something illegal. It’s not illegal to deny your male child a kitchen set, just stupid.

Conclusion

Much as we’d like to everyone to agree with us, be it a math problem or a medical procedure, sometimes parents are stupid. Sometimes people are stupid. It’s not up to the government to fix stupidity. Freedom is all about allowing people to do as they want, within reasonable boundaries including not causing harm. Even if such behavior is self-destructive or incredibly stupid. Even if such behavior negatively affects a child, sad to say.

Tom Liberman

Sheriff Hickman and the Blacks

Posted on by
Sheriff Hickman

I just read a fascinating article about Sheriff Rick Hickman and his response to an emergency call in the neighborhood of Des Arc, Arkansas. Sheriff Hickman responded to the call by asking where the triple-shooting took place. When informed it was a particular apartment complex he responded, “Oh really, black people then.”

The upshot of the response is Sheriff Hickman is being called a racist. Sheriff Hickman claims the apartment in question is largely occupied by black people so his response was not racist, but natural. Now, it turns out the attacker and victims are all white but that is not relevant to the point I’d like to analyze today.

Is Sheriff Hickman a racist?

The Event and Aftermath

The event itself is a horrific example of the gun violence rampant across all sections of the United States, urban and rural, white and black. Three people died in the shooting. It’s horrible and my sympathies to all those who lost loved ones and those who respond to such events and see the horrors.

Sheriff Hickman and his Other Comments

Sheriff Hickman, now accused of being a racist, was asked if he ever used racial slurs before. He responded that he does not use the most egregious racist word often but has in the past and a lot of people around him do. He also thought his response when told about the location of the shooting was natural and not of racist implication. Black people live in that area so that’s what he assumed.

My Analysis

The case seems pretty open and shut but I think there is a great deal more nuance than people who view the world in simplistic, good and evil, terms will admit. Now, I don’t know Sheriff Hickman at all besides his few quotes so I’m merely stating an opinion here.

I found the response to the question of his own usage of racial slurs to be refreshingly honest. In this day and age where the standard law enforcement line generally includes something like: that sort of attitude has no place in our department. We never put up with it. I’ve never known a racist law enforcement officers. Blah blah blah blah blah. Bullshit.

I’ve lived in small towns. I know all about sheriffs, both good and bad. Fire marshals, both good and bad. Good old boys, both good and bad. The fact that Sheriff Hickman answered honestly about his own use of racial slurs when his brethren officers consistently lie in similar situations makes me like the man. It makes me think he’s one of the good guys.

I think if I sat down with Sheriff Hickman and asked: what do you think you’d say if the shootings took place in a predominantly white area? Would you have said, “Oh really, white people then.”? I suspect Sheriff Hickman might pause, look at me, thought about it, and replied, “You know what, Tom. You’re right. I wouldn’t have said that. Maybe I do have some unconscious racial biases and it affects the way I do my job and the way underlings look to my lead. I need to do something about that.”

Now, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he wouldn’t reply that way. Maybe he’d remain in continual denial about a problem that isn’t just overt racism, hatred of all black people. It’s subtle, it has nuance, and it causes problems in many ways, both small and large.

Conclusion

I think it’s important to have conversations with men like Sheriff Hickman. Difficult conversations where I understand his point of view and he understands mine. I think that’s the way forward. This rush to judgement, to cancellation or whatever you want to call it, just widens the divide instead of helping to heal it.

What do you think?

What should be done about Sheriff Hickman

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

The Quantum Computer Future

Posted on by
Quantum Computer

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.

If Quantum Computers remove privacy what sort of society will emerge?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

The Racist Statements that don’t Happen on Camera

Posted on by
Racist Statements

We’ve all seen apologies for racist statements caught on camera or posted on social media. That doesn’t reflect who I am or what I believe is how they mostly start. Well, I don’t believe the apologies. I’m of the opinion the statements represent exactly who you are and what you think.

If you look at my picture you see an average looking white guy, that’s what friends of mine see, acquaintances, and people I don’t know that well. They see a guy just like them. White, racist, angry. Believe me, I’m sitting right next to you when you spew your racism, your anti-Semitism, your hate, your misguided fear. Yes, anti-Semitism, right to my face. I don’t look all that Jewish, I guess.

Believe me, I’ve heard you make racist statements plenty of times when the camera wasn’t on. That’s why I don’t believe you when you claim it was a slip and you don’t really think that. I’m quite certain you say things like that all the time when surrounded by people you imagine have the same opinion. I’m fairly certain you say much worse than what you got caught saying.

I’m not kidding when I tell you people have said, directly to me: Hitler had the right idea. If we’d let Hitler win, he’d have gotten around to the blacks eventually. It won’t take long to kill all the blacks. Interracial marriage is evil. I’ve heard it all because I was sitting right next to you when you said it. I sometimes even speak up, do you believe that? As soon as I start asking questions the mouths start shutting. Uh oh, he’s not like us. Better shut up. This is a conversation we only have surrounded by our friends.

The racist statements you’ve made about people thinking I’m with you. The conversations you’ve had about Libertarians not knowing I was one of them. The conversations you’ve had about Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, women, homosexuals, transgenders, you name it, I’ve heard them and that’s why I don’t believe you when you claim: That’s not me! I’m not like that. I don’t believe the things I just said loudly and clearly.

Now, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you’ll learn from your mistake. That you’ll try to do better. In reality, I’m sure what most of you will try to do is not to say those things when you’re on video. I doubt most of you will change at all but I’m willing to give you the chance to do so. Take the opportunity while it’s offered.

Tom Liberman

Why did Katie Hill Resign?

Posted on by
Katie Hill

There’s been a fascinating story in the news about United States Representative Katie Hill who resigned from her position after having sexual relations with a campaign aide, having lurid photos of her published in various news outlets, and being accused of having relations with a member of her staff. Why did she resign? Why is this even a story? Who actually cares? These are the things I hope to examine today.

Of all the things that Hill did, or has been accused of doing, the only one that presents a legal problem is engaging in consensual sexual relations with a staffer. In 2018 Congress enacted rules against doing so, this largely in response to the #MeToo movement in which generally women were coerced into sexual relations with their, often male, elected officials or faced retribution for refusing to do so.

The second issue involved the fact that the male aide she had sex with was twenty-two years old. Some people have a problem with that. The final problem is the lurid pictures of Hill that appeared in various outlets, generally from those of an opposing political philosophy. Some think Hill showed bad judgement in taking the pictures.

As a Libertarian I don’t have a problem with anything Hill did and I have a problem with anyone who does, although that is certainly their right. If Hill wants to have sexual relations with a staffer then she should do so, as should anyone who works with anyone else. I understand that someone in a supervisory position can coerce an underling with various threats and I understand why members of Congress passed such rules. That being said, I think consenting adults should have as much sex in as many positions as possible. It’s no one else’s business.

If someone behaves in an illegal way; firing the underling for cutting off the relationship, blackmailing someone into having sex, that should be pursued with due diligence. The problem isn’t people having consensual sex, it’s that the legal establishment has long ignored those who were coerced or lost their jobs because they refused such advances. The rules preventing such behavior are clearly being selectively applied, every member of Congress, male and female, is aware of other members having consensual relationships with staffers and does nothing because everyone is happy as rabbits, as well they should be.

As for Hill having sex with a man ten years her junior. Good for both of them! I wrote an article about a woman having sex with an eighteen-year-old friend of her daughter some years back and my opinion has not changed. We have decided, for whatever reason, eighteen is the age of consent. Perhaps we find a fifty-year-old man dating an eighteen-year-old woman distasteful but that’s their business, not mine, and not yours.

Finally, as to the naked photos, I have a very strong opinion on that. If Hill or anyone else wants to take lurid pictures of themselves that is their business. The despicable people in this are those who chose to publish the pictures without Hill’s consent. Their behavior is both criminal and immoral from where I’m sitting. Posting lurid pictures of another person without getting permission first? Sick, disgusting. Doing so for political gain? I’d honestly like to put a bullet in the head of whoever made that decision but I’ll restrain myself because I know doing so is illegal.

Hill should not have resigned, she did, as far as I’m concerned, nothing wrong.

Tom Liberman

The Wealth Gap between Poor and Rich in Athletics

Posted on by
Wealth Gap High School Football

The wealth gap in our nation is something that a lot of people are interested in and a new dynamic, in the form of athletics, brings an interesting perspective to the debate. Essentially, wealthy schools are absolutely crushing poor schools in high school football across the country. I just read an interesting article illustrating how the various states are trying to handle the situation.

There are a number of factors driving the phenomenon including better coaching, better nutrition, better practice facilities, better weight rooms, and the fact sometimes the best athletes from poor districts have to hold down jobs rather than play sports. What cannot be argued is the math behind the wealth gap problem. Teams from poor districts lose consistently to teams from rich districts, so much so that Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado have change the rules for scheduling matchups. More states are contemplating doing the same.

In the past it was relatively simple. The level of football was determined by the number of students in the high school. Schools with large student populations played against other schools with a similar number of students.

Here in my home town of St. Louis that plan was thoroughly upended by desegregation and private schools. The best athletes from poor districts were transferred to financially stable districts or given scholarships by private schools; destroying the balance that once existed. That’s not what’s going on here.

What’s happening is something that we should take note of as an overall trend. Kids from wealthy districts or kids with wealthy parents are gaining an advantage so steep it is becoming almost impossible to overcome. We’ve seen simple bribery in the College Admission Scandal which I wrote about before but this is something else again.

The reality of the problem is demonstrated in the final score of high school football game. It becomes impossible to deny this wealth gap issue when rich high schools absolutely crush poor high schools in a consistent and statistically irrefutable way. Count the wins. Look at the scores.

Solutions are difficult to say the least but it’s important to be willing to acknowledge the wealth gap in this country exists and is problematic. Just allowing the poor high schools to drop down in division, which is largely the various states’ solution, is not addressing the real problem. High school football is telling us something. Are we listening?

Tom Liberman

Just Let Kids Like Olivia Jade Giannulli into College

Posted on by
Olivia Jade

I know it won’t be a popular opinion but I think the only real way to stop the behavior associated with the college admission scandal is to simply let kids like Olivia Jade Giannulli into school in their own category. If Olivia Jade and the legion of kids like her, who have the wherewithal to not only pay for their education but eventually fund many other students through future donations, want to attend a particular college, just let them in, no questions asked.

Simply create a category separate from normal admission so they don’t take anyone else’s spot. We’ve got some wealthy kids with rich parents who want their kid at a particular institution. If the school lets them in, they pay lots of money today and much more in the future. This allows the educational institution to flourish. The downside? I suppose all the people who are getting money off the bribery, such as Mark Riddell, will have to find a new way to finance their lives but other than that, I don’t see a problem.

The issue is basically that kids like Olivia Jade have always had, and always will have, every advantage in life. They get special tutoring, the best instructors, training at elite institutions, and other perks that less wealthy kids do not. It’s reality whether we like it or not. Some of those super-wealthy kids will do great things with the advantages they are given while others will squander them but that’s their business.

I know many people will complain about the inherent unfairness of a system such as I propose. Poor and middle-class kids have to work extremely hard under disadvantageous conditions to get the same thing being given to rich kids in exchange for lots of money. I agree, it’s unfair. Welcome to life.

Rich kids, children of important people within the academic institution, excellent athletes, and others have always been given far more breaks than those without such connections. It doesn’t stop at school either. Such children get better jobs with less effort and receive more chances when they fail.

My point is there is no stopping such behavior so we might as well allow it under a stated structure. Olivia Jade is allowed into USC with all the advantages such an education entails but she doesn’t take up a spot some other kid earned.

In the end, as the expression goes, the cream rises to the top. If such rich children are allowed into school along with their poor but harder working counterparts, eventually the one who does the best job will rise the highest. Maybe Olivia Jade will find great success in life but I’d guess someone like Rose Campion will achieve more. In the end, it’s up to them. Sometimes having to work harder for something is a good thing, even if it’s unfair.

Tom Liberman

Stormy Daniels Brings down the Vice Unit in Columbus

Posted on by
stormy daniels

Back in July of 2018 a woman with the stage name of Stormy Daniels was arrested for non-sexual touching in a strip club in Columbus, Ohio. I wrote an article at the time expressing my Libertarian outrage at the event and now the entire vice unit that ran the operation has been disbanded because of a series of events that sadly do not boggle the mind; frankly, it’s the sort of behavior I expect out of law enforcement agents these days, and that’s a tragic thing.

You can read about the incident with Stormy Daniels that caused the vice unit to come under scrutiny in my original blog so I won’t reiterate it here. The tragedy currently unfolding sadly reinforces my opinion of the continuing downfall of law enforcement to an agency of oppression.

Officer Andrew K. Mitchell is under indictment for any number of abuses he allegedly committed during his thirty-year career as an officer. He is accused of forcing women in custody to provide sexual services in exchange for release. Two other members of the former unit are under investigation for similar activities. The entire unit blatantly disregarded the prosecutor’s office that warned them specifically against the sort of behavior they engaged in during the arrest of Stormy Daniels.

Mitchell also apparently owns properties in which he extorted tenants for sex in exchange for a discount on their rent. In addition, he killed a woman in August 2018 in which he and a fellow officer claimed she attacked them.

This is police enforcement in the era of the War on Drugs. It’s the police versus the community rather than the police with the community. There was a time this wasn’t the case and I’m sure there are plenty of officers out there who don’t behave this way. The reality is tragic for communities and law enforcement.

The good news is that it doesn’t have to be this way. If we ended the War on Drugs, removed moronic laws from the books, and essentially allowed adults to do as they pleased within reason, the relationship between law enforcement and we the people would begin to be repaired. There is also good news in that more and more law enforcement agencies are recognizing the rift that exists and taking concrete steps to improve the situation.

Right here in my hometown of St. Louis, MO the police and local communities are engaged in a terrific program in which officers play chess with young students.

I recognize that my statements in these blogs can be misconstrued as anti-law enforcement. Nothing could be further from my intent. What I want is for law enforcement officers to be seen as a force of good in the communities they serve, not the enemy. Also, for such officers to view the citizens as people to befriend and protect, not as cash meat bags to be used and discarded.

The fact the vice squad is being dismantled is a good thing and the role Stormy Daniels had in it is to be applauded. It’s just a sad statement of fact that it took such a high-profile incident to expose the vile underbelly that has been consuming law enforcement for the last thirty plus years.

Reality often hurts but it is better to expose a painful truth than allow a lie to grow and fester.

Tom Liberman

Taking Offense is for Mockery and not Mimicry

Posted on by
Taking Offense

I’ve noticed a general trend in this world in Taking Offense all too quickly and with little, if any, provocation. The most egregious examples of this, to my mind at least, are people who mistake mimicry as a reason to be offended rather than as a form of flattery.

Let’s dispense with the partisan politics right away, devotees of both parties are equally offended by remarks made by people from the opposite party in equivalent amounts. The so-called snowflakes exist on the left, right and, sad to say, here in Libertarian Land as well.

It’s been said that taking offense is something you do to yourself, rather than others doing it to you; however, I will not pretend words can’t be vicious and painful. It is sometimes perfectly appropriate to be offended when someone says or does something particularly distasteful. What I’d like to address is the difference between mimicry and mockery.

Mimicry is a thing that seems to engender a great deal of taking offense when it should not. If a person of one culture wears the clothes of second culture or the hairstyle associated with another culture, or enjoys the music of yet another culture this is not offense worthy, it is mimicry. A white girl who wears a kimono to prom is not engaged in offensive behavior. An Asian boy in dreadlocks is not engaged in offensive behavior. A black girl listening to Ozzy Osbourn is doing so because she enjoys it, not because she is stealing anyone’s culture.

In this globalized world of ours we see this sort of mimicry in every walk of life. A trend catches on in Japan and soon enough teenagers the world over are imitating it. Some interesting historical style from Africa looks good and again, people from all over the world are soon wearing clothes attuned to that look. A phrase from Russia catches the fancy of people and soon enough people the world over, imitating thick Russian accents, are saying it everywhere. This is mimicry and it is flattery, not mockery.

Mockery is easy enough to spot as well. A person talking with the accent of a particular region of the United States and saying moronic and stereotypical things is an example of mocking and taking offense is reasonable. Painting your face black and making comments that portray black people in a bad light is mocking. Painting your face black and going to a Halloween party as Oprah Winfrey is mimicry and flattery. I realize this last one is going to trigger some people in this world of ours but that’s the way it goes.

If I’m not free to dress up as Lou Brock, one of my childhood heroes, because painting my face dark is reminiscent of people who dressed in blackface to mock and denigrate black people, then I can never honor Brock, no matter how honorable my intentions. No one can honor, through mimicry, someone of a different race or gender. I understand there is nuance but it seems generally obvious to see the difference between mockery and mimicry.

If we pretend to be unable to recognize the difference between the two and simply ban behavior, then we are not making the world a better place, we are making it worse.

Tom Liberman

Casey Smitherman and Doing Good to Make Yourself Feel Better

Posted on by
Smitherman

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

Trace Riff and the Sad Reality of Mental Illness

Posted on by
Trace Riff

The story of Trace Riff is making the news because he was once an international male model who has done something terrible. Riff kicked a black toddler to the ground while screaming racist remarks and bragging about being a white supremacist. It all makes for fantastic clickbait headlines, something the mental illness and drug addiction that destroyed Riff’s life didn’t engender. That’s a shame. Before this incident I’m almost certain you, like me, never heard of Riff.

Riff was recruited by talent scouts at an early age because of his good looks. His fashion career got kicked off back in 2005 with a photo in Harper’s Bazaar with Gisele Bundchen. He spent the next few years traveling the world as a fashion model. Eventually that career came to an end, likely because he was mentally ill and couldn’t perform his duties, and he returned to his home in Wichita, KS. There his problems escalated until he was homeless and completely delusional.

The reality of this is that his family tried to help him many times. In reading the article we hear from his grandmother and his brother who tell stories of trying to aid him. They took Riff in. They sent Riff to drug treatment facilities. They attempted medical interventions. Riff didn’t want help and doesn’t want help. His grandmother says he’s completely delusional and I have no reason to doubt her assessment. He has been homeless for a number of years and seems to prefer it that way. He is well-known to the local police and his grandmother suspects it will be in an altercation with them that Riff will eventually be killed.

All this is terrible but it is so commonplace it didn’t amount to so much as a headline outside of a few local papers before he went on his racist rant. Now it’s national news. Mental illness is not easy to treat, particularly when the person so affected doesn’t want treatment. I’ve written about this subject before but this case is even more egregious. It’s entirely possible Riff will eventually become a violent threat and yet, despite the best efforts his family, not much is going to be done about it.

I’ll reiterate what I spoke about in that other article for a moment before going on. If a person is mentally ill and refuses treatment the solutions are not always easy. We don’t want to make it simple for the government to lock up just anyone who displays a few symptoms.

That being said, we really aren’t trying very hard. The amount of money it takes to help a person like Riff is considerable and it is likely he will never be able to integrate into society in a normal way. It’s an enormous and ongoing expense to pay people to treat Riff and to keep him housed, fed, and clothed. That money would largely come from tax dollars. It’s easier to let him live out his miserable, drug-addicted, homeless life away from our vision and hope he doesn’t turn overtly violent. It’s cheaper. That’s sad but true.

While I’m certain we can’t solve the problems of all mentally distressed people in this country, I think we can do better.

Tom Liberman

The State can Take your $42,000 Land Rover for a Minor Infraction but Why does It?

Posted on by

$42,000 Land Rover*UPDATE*

The Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision for Limb. Well done justices.

*END UPDATE*

The Supreme Court is very likely to rule that Indiana violated the Eight Amendment for excessive fines when it took Tyson Limb’s $42,000 Land Rover because he sold a small quantity of illegal drugs to an undercover law enforcement officer. I could talk about the War on Drugs, I could talk about seizures, I could talk about Incorporation, but instead I want to focus on how and why individuals in the state of Indiana, and in many other places, have simply lost their human decency.

What happened to us that we are willing to essentially steal another person’s property for the violation of a law? The attorney for the state of Indiana argues the Eighth Amendment doesn’t apply to states and if Indiana wanted to take your Land Rover for failing to obey the speed limit, they can do so. Let’s say the lawyer is right. Let’s say the protections built into the Constitution were not bolstered by the Fourteenth Amendment; which has largely been used to give said rights to the people against states and not just the federal government.

Imagine the state could take your car for speeding or foreclose on your house for having grass growing slightly too tall. If you were the law enforcement officer, if you were the prosecuting attorney, if you were the judge; would you do that to someone else? Just because you had the power to hurt another person, would you use that power?

Do you say, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime?” Have you lost your humanity and compassion so completely that you’re willing, eager, and downright gleeful when you get to take someone else’s property? When you get to enrich yourself based on the misfortune of someone else do you jump for joy, do so, and blame them all the while?

Because that’s where we are. Law enforcement officers, local politicians, local prosecutors, and local judges happily do this every single day while the people that vote for and otherwise support them not only allow it, but cheer it on.

How can any decent person argue taking the Land Rover acceptable? It’s legal, I don’t deny that. We can pass any law we want. If enough people want to change the Constitution of the United States to reinstate slavery or to make women property, it can be done. No vile and disgusting law is beyond our power to enact.

I’m asking you to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you allow this to happen. What happened to Tyson Limb is happening to other people every single day. Why don’t you care?

Tom Liberman

Is it Wrong to Point out Mike Matheny is a Handsome Man?

Posted on by

Mike MathenyI noticed an interesting trend on the Facebook posts of some of my women friends in the aftermath of the firing of St. Louis Cardinals manager Mike Matheny. Many of the women commented on what a good-looking fellow is Matheny and that they’d miss him for that aspect at least. Male friends immediately responded that if men made such a comment about an attractive woman coach or manager they’d be subject to attack from Social Justice Warriors.

It’s an interesting point because it’s true. Men who make such comments about attractive female athletes are often attacked as misogynistic. The conclusion that men seem to be drawing from this truth is, on the other hand, completely incorrect. They should be able to make such observations and so should women.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out the attractiveness of another person and women have every right to make such observations, as do men about good-looking women. Our looks are simply a trait, like any other.

Certainly, Matheny’s record as a manager and ability to lead the team is a far more important factor in his being fired than his relative attractiveness. The issue is we can’t get angry at someone for pointing out what they perceive to be the truth. We can certainly suggest his appearance shouldn’t be a factor in whether or not he keeps his job although the women posting made no such claims. What we should not do is pretend he isn’t viewed as attractive by women.

I wrote an article about a golfer named Paige Spiranac and how she used her looks to get an invitation to a golf tournament for which she would otherwise not be qualified. That’s all well and good. A person should use all their assets in an attempt to succeed in their chosen profession and life as a whole. There is nothing wrong with noting such things.

It’s important to make decisions based on pertinent factors. For Matheny, his looks have little impact on his managerial abilities. For a model, her or his strategic baseball knowledge is of little consequence to success. The person doing the hiring and firing is the one who makes these decisions and if they decide poorly, they too will suffer the consequences.

If one of my female friends were in charge of the Cardinals and hired Matheny because of his appearance rather than his skills as a manager, she would eventually lose her job as well. That being said, what’s wrong with pointing out a physical feature that doesn’t necessarily correlate to job performance? To my way of thinking, nothing.

A final point as to Matheny himself. He suffered numerous concussions during his career as a catcher and his mannerisms have always struck me as somewhat dulled. I hope he is consulting medical professionals and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Tom Liberman

The Red Hen and Masterpiece Cakeshop

Posted on by

Red Hen Masterpiece CakeshopRecently the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, was asked to leave a restaurant called the Red Hen because they didn’t like her political ideology as expressed in her job. Before that a bakery called Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple because of their sexual orientation.

The two stories are intertwined in an interesting way for this Libertarian. The battle lines have been drawn, as they say. For me the two cases do not present any sort of ethical dilemma. As far as I’m concerned, the ownership of both The Red Hen and Masterpiece Cakeshop have every right to serve, or not serve, who they want as long as they do not run afoul protected classes. Neither homosexuals or political appointees are guarded by the Constitution, so far. From a legal standpoint, I support both businesses.

From a professional perspective and from a human level I would not have done the same if I was the owner of either the cake shop or the restaurant. I think if I am going to start a business of any sort, I should respect both myself and my customers, regardless of their sexual orientation or political philosophy. From a personal standpoint, I oppose both business owners.

It’s really that simple for me. I don’t have to think much about it. I don’t have to worry about my political ideology or my personal distastes. I have a job and I try to do it as best I can regardless of other factors.

I’m aware we can get into nuance here. What if a group of Nazis wanted to have a birthday party at my restaurant? Would I allow it? Particularly if they were going to display paraphernalia supporting hatred of Jews. I’m actually of the opinion that I’d have them although I’d probably require modest, rather than overt, displays of their beliefs.

If a person with a white supremacist or a rainbow tattoo wanted to dine at my establishment I think I’d have no issue and attempt to serve them the best meal possible. I think we’d all be better off if we treated each other fairly and with decency regardless of personal convictions.

Now, if the same person was loudly and belligerently expressing their hatred of Jews or heterosexuals while dining, I’d feel within my rights to ask them to please express their beliefs in a more subdued fashion. If they refused, I’d consider asking them to leave. As long as they were polite and treated my business with respect, I like to think I’d keep any problems I had with their philosophies to myself.

Certainly, many of the people who I helped with software development were of deeply held religious beliefs. I’m an Atheist. I didn’t let that stop me from doing the best job I could. So, I have some evidence to support my convictions as expressed here.

I do find it extraordinarily interesting that, to some degree, those who support Masterpiece Cakeshop are opposed to Red Hen and vice-versa.

I think this is where critical thinking and a consistent philosophical outlook can make the world a better place. Where everyone gets to have their food or cake and eat them too. A boy can dream.

Tom Liberman

Go Ahead and Party Like It’s 1776

Posted on by

party like it's 1776The latest affront to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness took place at Cherry Hills High School in New Jersey when the prom committee decided to have a Party Like It’s 1776 theme. People were offended because the Declaration of Independence did not free slaves. The reasoning being that slaves were unable to party in 1776 and therefore black people, presumably descended from those slaves, were being forced to participate in a culturally offensive prom.

This ignores important factors. The first being that the Declaration of Independence is about the people who lived in the Colonies declaring they would no longer live by rules of the British Empire. If anyone should be offended by a Party Like It’s 1776 Prom it should be people who lived under the banner of said Empire. English, Irish, Scots, Canadians, Australians, Rhodesians, Indians, South Africans; the list goes on and on.

Another factor is that many black people in the Colonies were free and living in the northern states. Recent estimates suggest that the Patriot military was made up of four percent blacks. Crispus Attucks is believed to be the first person killed at the Boston Massacre that was one of the inciting incidents of the declaration. Many of these heroes gave their lives for Independence. Their descendants deserve to celebrate 1776 far more than me, whose Jewish ancestors fled antisemitism to America around the turn of the century.

Speaking of my Jewish roots. Should I be offended by any Egyptian themed celebration? Should Christians be offended by any Roman themed party? Is there any culture that is not guilty of some horrific crime or another?

Now, I’m not suggesting people can’t be offended by whatever they choose; I’m just telling you not to expect me to feel equal outrage or to bow to your unreasonable demands. If the offense is great enough and people join your cause, I will suffer the consequences. However, if we are talking about a bunch of young men and women who just want to party and don’t really care about your cause, then let them go about their business without interjecting your agenda into their fun.

I’m pained I feel the need to state my disgust at the enslavement of blacks in the Colonies and eventually the United States. It is a stain upon our nation. Those who defended it then or justify it today are vile. This should go without saying, sadly it does not.

In any case, the point I’m trying to make is that the prom committee of Cherry Hills is free to choose the theme of their desires. If it was Egyptian or Roman I would not be offended, there might be Jews and Christians who feel differently and they can choose to boycott said prom. That’s their business.

As for the rest of the fine young folks at Cherry Hills, go ahead and Party Like It’s 1776 and don’t worry about the attitudes a bunch of old people are trying to force upon you. If you look hard enough, life is filled with things that give offense. My advice, stop looking and start partying.

Tom Liberman

Jacqueline Ades and the 65K Texts

Posted on by

Jacqueline AdesA woman named Jacqueline Ades sent upwards of 65 thousand texts to a jilted love interest and the various stories seem focused on humor rather than it being an example of a terrible problem with our justice system.

Even a casual watching of her news conference clearly indicates someone in mental distress. She is clearly not capable of making competent decisions on her own. In layperson’s terms, she’s crazy. Not Ha-Ha crazy, but legitimately disturbed and desperately in need of help. Instead our justice system and our mental health facilities did not step in to do anything until long after the symptoms of her mental health were well in evidence.

We laugh at Ades and the thousands of texts but we lament when someone shoots up a school and kills dozens of people. When someone drives their car into a gathering and kills many of the assembled. Why didn’t someone do something? Let us look in the mirror. Let us look at our own uncomfortableness when it comes to mental illness.

Our ability to deal with mental health problems is abysmal. We don’t offer low level solutions when people first start to exhibit the problems. We just don’t care enough or want to turn the other way because it makes us feel uncomfortable.

Normally, I’m not one to absolve the perpetrator of an act from the consequences of their action, but insanity is a different matter. When someone truly cannot think in a rational way and commits crimes, we need to be better at finding them help.

We tend to ignore such problems or laugh them off. I’m not making accusations against others here, I do the same. I’ve seen people with clear mental issues wandering around the streets, had bizarre encounters in taverns. I’ve encountered people with obvious rage issues both in social media and on the road. Anger issues that might, someday, lead them to do something terrible.

I say to myself, there’s nothing I can do about it. That seems to be the solution we as a society have arrived upon as a way to deal with such problems.

I’m certainly not suggesting helping people with mental health issues is an easy path. I’m just saying it’s extremely sad that Ades has ended up in the criminal justice system, that it’s not funny. I like to think we can do better. Maybe I’m wrong.

Tom Liberman