Tag Archives: sports

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

If so, why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Christian McCaffrey Skipping the Sun Bowl?

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Tim Tebow and the Power of Self-Delusion

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Locker Room Talk and What isn’t

Posted on by

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

He has excused his words as Locker Room banter.

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

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

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

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

Response: “She was fine. Hellz ya.”

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

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

It is less often about actual activity but can be.

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

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

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

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

Response: “Har har.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayor Raggi of Rome says No to Olympics

Posted on by

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

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

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

The money to pay the contractors comes from tax revenue.

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

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

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

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

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

Rams Smashed but Does that Make Me Happy or Sad?

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saban Blames USC for Problems Misleading Headline

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaepernick, Solo, and How to be Consistent

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace.

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

Usain Bolt and How Our Nature Promotes Cheating

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I took a shower.

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

USGA and Anna Nordqvist Grounding Club Rule

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Liberman

Zack Hample and the Baseball Game at Fort Bragg

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

That’s life.

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

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

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

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

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

Dustin Johnson and the Fear of Making a Mistake

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jordan Spieth and Professional Autograph Sellers

Posted on by

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

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

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

There are several thoughts behind this line of thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hunter Osborn and the Penis that Traumatized Everyone

Posted on by

hunter-osborn-penis

**UPDATE – All charges have been dropped**

Really? A felony for exposing your penis in a group photo of the football team?

Yep, that’s what it’s come to in this great country of ours. Hunter Osborn pulled down his football pants just enough to expose his penis in the team picture. The prank went unnoticed and the picture was placed in the school yearbook.

Osborn is now being charged with sixty-nine (yes, ha ha) counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure, one each for his clearly traumatized teammates, and a felony count of furnishing harmful items to minors, presumably other students who purchased the yearbook.

Smart move by Osborn? Probably not, but good grief, have we no sense of humor? First off his sixty-nine teammates share a locker room with him. I strongly suspect they’ve seen his penis before. I suspect they’ve seen quite a number of them over the years. I played sports, I was in locker rooms, boys have penises, is that the right word? What is the plural of penis? Do I care? No. Penises it is.

Does anyone actually think this image was harmful to minors?

Have the police in Mesa, Arizona not heard of the internet? Pictures of penises abound, and breasts as well, you might, if you look hard, even find a vagina, ahhh! Run, hide the children! They must not see a penis, breast, or vagina lest they be emotionally scarred.

It was a silly prank but let’s face reality, no one was hurt. There was a time when the football coach would have made Osborn clean the locker room for a week the whole time snickering away and remembering some of his own youthful indiscretions.

And poor Osborn is saying things like he was disgusted by his behavior? Is that the kind of adults we want to raise? Disgusted by showing his penis in a football picture? It’s stupid but, frankly, kind of a funny.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Princeton could use a guy like Joel.

Tom Liberman

Life Ain’t Fair – Just ask Hikaru Nakamura

Posted on by

gary-kasparovI wrote a blog post about a chess player named Hikaru Nakamura who was penalized for breaking a rule in chess a few weeks back and something happened yesterday that painfully illustrates the old adage that life just ain’t fair.

In that case Nakamura moved his piece, took his hand off of it, and then tried to further move it. His opponent, Levon Aronian, immediately called this a violation and Nakamura was forced to put his piece on the original square. This cost him the game.

Tough but fair. Them’s the rules. Or are they?

Nakamura just finished playing in the United States Chess Championship where he finished in a tie for second place. After the match the tournament scheduled a special Blitz Chess match between the top three players in the tournament and legendary chess player Gary Kasparov.

Kasparov is 53 years old and has been largely retired from chess competitions for the last ten years. He is considered one of the greatest players in the history of the game and some consider him the clear best. That, of course, is debatable.

Well, why today’s blog? Because in a Blitz matchup against Nakamura; Kasparov did exactly the same thing as Nakamura did in his match against Aronian. Nakamura saw him do it and a wry expression came across his face. Why? Because he was totally screwed.

If Nakamura called the legendary Kasparov for the rules violation, everyone is going to consider Nakamura a bad guy. While there is a fairly large amount of money available to the winner of the Blitz tournament, it is largely an exhibition for fans to watch one of the all time greats take on some of the best United States players of today. If Nakamura doesn’t call Kasparov then he is throwing away an important advantage.

Well, Hikaru, I don’t have to tell you, life ain’t fair.

That is today’s lesson people. Sometimes you have to give life a wry smile and move on. I feel for you Hikaru. At least this one blogger thinks you made the right call, however, if it happens again, throw down the hammer!!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Is it Okay to Root for Nazi?

Posted on by
Nazi-Paikidze

Nazi Paikidze, that is.

The annual United States Chess Championships, both men’s and women’s divisions, are being held at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center in St. Louis for the next few days and the aforementioned woman is a leading contender for the title.

Let’s all admit it, when we see the word Nazi certain things come to mind. We cannot deny this bias against the word. It has a meaning far beyond her name. When I heard her name at last year’s championship the first thought I had was: She would be wise to change it. I’m not proud of that thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that she should use her name proudly. She has nothing to do with the definition we generally associate with that word. She is a young woman who is an excellent chess player and, by all accounts, a great role-model for young girls everywhere.

It does get me to thinking about the unconscious biases we have in our daily lives. If I was robbed by a person who wore a red shirt then when I see someone in a same colored shirt I become slightly afraid. If I was in a car accident caused by a someone driving a particular make and model of car then when I see a similar car I immediately become more alert. It’s certainly not fair to the person in the red shirt or the driver of the other car but it is unquestionably true, much as we might like to pretend it is not.

We cannot avoid such biases for we are human and we have lived. Things have happened to us. Events and people harmed us and we associate said events with what the person was wearing, the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, and any myriad of other things.

The reality is that we must judge people by their actions, not the color of their shirts, their names, or any other superficial feature. Such a world is the one we Libertarians yearn to live upon and yet I am as susceptible to such biases as anyone else.

My point? I’m not sure. I guess I’m saying that I’ll be trying to overcome such thoughts and I hope you will as well.

P.S. Go Nazi!

Tom Liberman

Chess and the Internet Live Update Controvery

Posted on by

agon-limit-broadcast-chessI know the title of this blog isn’t too exciting but if you’ll put up with me for a moment I think I can show how a controversy that is roiling the chess world might well have a big impact on you.

The situation is this: A company called Agon Limited contracted with the FIDE (World Chess Federation) to have exclusive rights to develop, organize, and commercialize the World Chess Championship cycle. As part of this exclusive control they demanded that no other site publish information about ongoing games in the just concluded 2016 Candidates Tournament. In the past other chess orientated sites have broadcast such events on a move-by-move basis. They didn’t broadcast a live view of the players, just the moves those players made on an image of a chessboard that was updated regularly.

Several sites refused to accept this demand and went ahead with their broadcast. Agon is now moving forward with legal action against those sites.

At this point, if you’re still with me, you’re probably wondering how this effects you.

If Agon is successful in their efforts it means that no one can legally give information about an ongoing event without permission from the original content provider. This is an extraordinarily broad restriction. It means that sports websites like ESPN could not give you updates on the status of current events. It would mean, for example, that the only way you could learn what was going on in the currently running 2016 NCAA Basketball Championships would be to tune into the primary broadcaster. No other outlet could give you so much as an update on the score of the game.

It could be extended to non-sports events like awards shows. No entertainment outlet would be allowed to broadcast the winner of an award until the conclusion of the show.

The benefits for the original broadcaster are obvious. If the only way to get information about an event is to watch said event from the provider, it forces more people to watch the show. The drawbacks for everyone else are likewise apparent. Every other outlet that gains an audience by broadcasting information about the event is out of business. All users that cannot or do not want to watch the original broadcast are left without recourse.

One can certainly imagine if the primary broadcaster has sole rights to updates of an event, they might well find a fee-based structure in order to gain access. They have a captive audience. That also cannot be good for consumers.

Paying attention to what this about yet?

I’m hard pressed to believe the courts will support Agon in this lawsuit but it bears watching.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Without Audio who would you believe? Krzyzewski or Brooks

Posted on by

brooks-coachkIt’s March Madness and that means lots of hard fought basketball games. There was an incident after the Oregon v. Duke game that I think might give us all cause for reflection. We make many assumptions in life and, if we are honest with ourselves, sometimes these are completely incorrect.

Near the end of the game an Oregon player named Dillon Brooks took a very long shot as the clock was winding down even though his team had the game in hand. There were actually good reasons he did this including instructions from his coach. That’s not my topic for today though.

Coach Mike Krzyzewski approached Brooks after the game and said something to him. Afterwards people were wondering what was said in the exchange. Brooks responded that Krzyzewski told him, “You’re (Brooks) too good a player to be showing off at the end“.

Coach Krzyzewski, when asked, denied this and said that what he told Brooks was that he was a terrific player.

Brooks is a young man while Krzyzewski is a well-respected and older coach.

When I heard about the exchange I immediately and without much thought believed Krzyzewski. Why would a coach with such a distinguished record lie? Brooks was coming off an emotional win, perhaps he misunderstood, I thought charitably.

Then audio of the exchange was released.

Coach Krzyzewski has now apologized both for his original denial and for lecturing a player from another team.

My point is straight-forward. In a he-said/she-said situation how many times do we believe the person who appears to have more credibility. I think this is natural. The person who has more credibility has achieved that status for a reason. But the reality is far more nuanced. Sometimes the more credible person has more to lose. Sometimes the more credible person knows they can get away with a lie because the other party is less trustworthy. I think we see this situation far more often than we realize.

I’m of the opinion a lot of times the less credible person is not believed and suffers consequences, sometimes severe.

What I hope you take from this incident is while believing the person who appears to have more credibility might be natural, it’s often wrong. We should always dig a little deeper, if possible.

I’m curious. Without the conclusive audio evidence would you have believed Coach Krzyzewski? Would you have labeled Brooks a liar and lost respect for him?

Without Audio what would you have thought?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

J’adoube and Hikaru Nakamura

Posted on by

Hikaru-touch-kingThere was an absolutely fascinating incident at the 2016 Candidates Chess Tournament being held in Moscow, Russia. The top U.S. player in the world, Hikaru Nakamura, touched his king but decided against moving it.

There is a rule in chess that if you touch a particular piece you must then move that piece to another square as your next move. The rule is clear. You can adjust your piece without intending to move it, if you tell your opponent of your intention beforehand. This rule is well-known by all the players at such a prestigious tournament and was one of the first rules of chess taught to me when I was a child.

It happened at a crucial moment in the game and Nakamura touched a piece that if moved would almost certainly cause him to lose the game. He had to move another piece in order to achieve a draw.

It’s not so much the incident that I find fascinating as its immediate aftermath. Nakamura’s opponent, Levon Aronian, immediately called Nakamura on the touch. Nakamura’s reaction was just as quick. He claimed that he was adjusting the piece. Aronian didn’t believe it for a moment and called over an arbitrator who agreed with the Armenian. Nakamura then had to move the king, did so, and soon after lost the game.

It is clear from the video that Nakamura was in no way adjusting the piece. He grabbed it in order to move it and then realized his error.

His initial denial of his intentions is understandable but not to his credit. He’s having a poor tournament at a very bad time. The winner of this tournament gets to play for the World Chess Championship, and a lot of money, against Magnus Carlsen. The fact that he knew this loss was going to badly damage his chances to win the tournament certainly went into his knee-jerk denial of his intentions.

However, since that moment he has been exceptionally reasonable, fair, and completely without rancor (skip to about 1:30) toward Aronian and the arbiter. He has spoken about it with reporters openly. And I, for one, find that enormously admirable.

Nakamura could easily have carried a lot of bitterness and defended his position until the bitter end but chose a different and better path. There are many of us, I won’t hesitate to say most of us, who would not be so generously inclined. We would be bitter, angry, we would probably convince ourselves that we were actually adjusting the piece, that we had been wronged.

I get that people will find his initial reaction bothersome but I’m willing to forgive him that because of the immediacy of the situation in the heat of the moment. I find his behavior after the fact to be a far more important indicator of his character.

Good on you, Hikaru!

For full disclosure, Nakamura is a member at the St. Louis Chess club to which I belong but I don’t think that’s influencing my opinion.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

To Quit or Play – Steven Bowditch

Posted on by

steven_bowditchThere was an interesting situation in last week’s World Cadillac Championship when a golfer named Steven Bowditch chose to keep playing despite the fact he was having a miserable week.

Bowditch had mathematically the worst tournament at a World Golf Championship ever. The reason I think it’s worth discussing is because he kept playing despite the fact he did not have to do so.

Normally at a golf tournament they play four rounds and anyone not in the top half after the first two rounds is “cut”. That is they don’t make any money and they don’t get to play the final two rounds.

This particular event has a limited number of players and there is no cut. By finishing in last place Bowditch earned $48,000. Had he said his stomach was upset or claimed that he hurt his wrist and withdrawn at any point he still would have earned the money. He chose not to do so.

Despite being well out of contention, he finished fourteen shots behind the second to last place finisher, he continued on for all four rounds.

Bowditch is an excellent player who has won twice on the PGA tour and earned over three million dollars last season playing golf. He suffers from severe depression and before getting desperately needed help had some rough times.

I’m of the opinion that Bowditch is to be admired for not quitting despite there being no real reason to continue on. He claims his game needed work and so he decided to keep playing but I think there is more to it than that. Perhaps, perhaps not. Only Bowditch can say.

I know I probably would have quit. Most people will say they too would have continued on despite the misery but I think that’s not the case.

Anyway, I admire Bowditch and wanted to say so. I also have a question for anyone who reads this. Do you think you would have quit?

With nothing to play for and in misery, do you think you would have continued on?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn