Outliers: Audiobook

Outliers is the third offering from Malcolm Gladwell.  His book Blink was reviewed previously on this blog.  Outliers can be called a pop-economics book like Freakonomics and The Undercover Economist, because it looks at the hidden causes of situations.  It's not an economics book per-say, but it's core is the price/cost of achieving and succeeding and the hidden factors.  It really follows the trend of the other books.  I found this book to be more interesting and more helpful than Blink.  I think the basis for the book has more real support and application.

Malcolm Gladwell chose an interesting topic to start the book, one that made me very angry at my parents.  Apparently 40% of NHL players were born in in the months from January-March.  Thirty percent in the following three months and so on.  Being both a January baby and a Hockey fan, my parents should have known to move to Canada when I was two so I could have my chance.  I could have been the next Wayne Gretzky.

In all seriousness, Gladwell addresses topics that I would say fall into the common-sense category.  Not literally, more that what he says is the unspoken wisdom about certain things.  The book is about those who succeed and why.  Not just succeed, but the outliers who surpass everybody else.  Why are they so super-successful?  According to Gladwell it boils down to two main things, hard work and luck.  He's states that it takes about 10,000 hours to become truly expert and proficient at a task.  That works out to about 10 years.  The earlier you get the 10,000 hours in, the better.  You'll be ahead of the curve.

Gladwell tackles his topic by looking at various fields, starting with the Hockey example.  He moves on to the Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Bill Joys of the world and then to the corporate take-over lawyers in NY City.  There are other outliers interspersed as well, including The Beatles, Asians and math, and Korean Air.  I will talk mainly about the first three examples and let you read the book (or listen to the audiobook) for yourself.

Why is the NHL comprised of so many people from the first three months of the year?  The answer lies in the fact that the cut off to sign up for hockey is on January 1.  All the kids that missed the cut-off have to wait a whole year to sign up.  By that time they are bigger and more mature than some of the other kids signing up born later in the year.  Early in life this constitutes a significant difference.  When these JFM (Jan/Feb/Mar) kids play, they are seen as being better, because they are better, but not because they necessarily possess more natural skill.  They just happen to have mature enough to stand out a little bit more than their peers.  As a result, they have more opportunities at the All-Star teams and upper leagues.  They end up with better coaching and more difficult challenges that make them much better.

This phenomenon is not just with Hockey, it's found in Soccer (Football), and Baseball.  The largest populations of players come from the group born just after the cut-off date.  It even happens in school where the kids born just after the cut-off a greater advantage over the kids born just before it.  The reason for the success of these kids is due to chance, when they were born.

How do the Bill Gates and the other computer billionaires fit the bill.  Well, they were all born in the years of 1954 and 1955.  In fact Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Bill Joy were born withing 6 months of each other.  Why is this significant?  When the personal computer was coming into being, these folks were at the perfect age at which jump into the field.  The other thing they had in common was the opportunity to learn computers.  Bill Gates had the opportunity to program one of the few on-line computers in the world during his Jr. High and High School years.  By the time computers were making there way to the mainstream, Gates had years of experience beyond his peers.  His birth year was key, because it put him at the age when he could take advantage of the opportunity.  A couple years older and he'd probably have a steady job at IBM and not willing to take a chance.  A couple years younger and he'd have missed the window.  The same goes for Steve Jobs and Bill Joy, as well as a number of the other computer pioneers.

Another group are the Jewish lawyers who specialized in corporate take-overs.  The birth year was important, but their ethnicity was more important.  When they graduated law school, they went to the big NY firms, but were generally rejected, because they were Jewish.  As a result, many signed up with small firms and often took whatever business came in the door.  At the time, corporate take-overs were considered beneath the big law firms, thus these Jewish lawyers ended up with much of the business.  Over the years, this kind of law became more important and the Jewish lawyers reaped the rewards.  The other law firms were far behind the curve and had trouble catching up.  The Jewish lawyers had years, 10-20 years of experience and expertise in this field of law.

From this book I take home the message that hard work is essential to success, but so is luck and opportunity.  None of the people mentioned would be where they are without the hard work.  The opportunities and luck were just as important.  As Gladwell states, there is no such thing as a self-made man.  It's a myth.  We are a composition of out genetics, family history, and opportunities.  I think that in general Gladwell is right.  I do think there some areas that could be improved on the book.

I think that Gladwell does well in emphasizing the hard work and luck that plays a role in the lives of the successful.  Even Bill Gates has stated that he could not be where he is without the opportunities he's been given in life.  Gladwell I think puts too much emphasis on these two areas.  Other factors are also involved that he doesn't address.  He doesn't touch on genetics enough.  Some of us are just wired to be successful at certain kinds of tasks, whereas others may not be wired to be as successful.  That's as important as any other factor.  We are nor born blank slates.

He also misses the fact that interest plays an important role.  Why do the kids play hockey and stay with it? Why did Bill Gates spend so much time programming?  Why did these Jewish folks go to law school in the first place?  I think that drive and ambition are central for success.  The people who are successful would likely be successful no matter what, at least in most cases.  It's the luck and the interest factors that I think shot them into the stratosphere.  If not these folks, we'd be talking about somebody else.

The book is about why certain folks are outliers, so maybe that's why he didn't touch on the two areas I mentioned.  I still think they should have been discussed more.  Overall I thought this was a very interesting book and well worth the time.

Sarah: A "Definitive" Biography

I remember seeing the "Biography" of Sarah Palin at Costco.  Even with the Costco bargain pricing, it was way to steep for my blood.  The regular price is $15.95, in paperback.  That's quite a price for a book that's a mere 146 pages, I think removing the photos and making the text more standard would have reduced the book to about 100.  Maybe the publishing costs are high, like putting lipstick on a dog (I'm just glad the Sunnyvale library forked out the dough for it).  I never had high expectations for the book.  It's not hard hitting in anyway, it's almost a propaganda piece.  I didn't realize Sarah Palin was the inspiration for Wonder-Woman.  Now I think that the country is crazy for not voting in this person without a single personal flaw.

On to the actual book.  As I stated above, my expectations were not high for the book.  The author Kaylene Johnson seemed to have one job, make Sarah Palin look good.  One great thing about the book is that Johnson provides a log of all the interviews and emails she used in writing the book.  I do appreciate that transparency.  I think it proves the book was not meant to compete with the likes of Team of Rivals.  It's right between Tom Cruise extolling the virtues of LRH (L. Ron Hubbard for the uninitiated) and Oprah gushing over Barack Obama.  From reading this book, I think an Obama-Palin ticket would have been unstoppable and they could be the rulers of the Multi-verse.

Seriously, onto the actual book.  The book is really a rough overview of the life of Sarah Palin finding virtue in just about everything she ever did, or least that was recorded in the book.  We start with the Heath's (Palin's family) moving to Wasilla.  We learn of Sarah's tenacity growing up and her driver to get more playing time while playing basketball, which culminated in winning the state championship her senior year.  It was this tenacity and drive that finally led Sarah into politics and she ran for mayor of Wasilla, against some odds.  She followed that up with a run for the Lieutenant Governer, which she lost.  She took the loss in stride and the next election took on the race for the Governorship.  This time she won, despite running a barebones campaign against the well established good 'ole boys network.  According to the book, it was Sarah honesty and willingness to challenge the establishment.  She came into office and followed up on her promises and cut the budget.  She even went as far as selling the state jet on Ebay.  A lot of the qualities she seemed to show as governor were actually quite impressive.  I was a little surprised the book did not dwell on her faith a whole lot, especially considering the publisher is a Christian publisher.

Despite my cynical remarks, I have more appreciation for Sarah Palin having read the book.  I take the book at its face, meaning I didn't expect it to be too in depth.  It was certainly a book rushed to capitalize on the moment.  Though the author did not touch on the weaknesses of Palin, I still thought the book made an honest effort to touch on meaningful aspects of Palin's character.  Though a lot of Liberals don't like her, mainly due to he conservatism and religious convictions, she seems to have a strong side to her that I think a lot of Liberals would appreciate.  In spite of the $150,000 wardrobe for the Presidential campaign, she does seem to be a bit of a minimalist.  She doesn't necessarily fit the Republican political stereotype and I think she might even be more of an actual maverick than John McCain.

Since the campaign, Palin has received a great deal of criticism from the McCain insiders.  Knowing what is real and what is BS is not an easy chore.  I don't believe the statements about Palin's apparent confusion regarding Africa.  That sounds like a cheap shot.  I don't doubt that she rubbed some folks the wrong way.  I don't think she was the right choice for McCain.  I think all in all she has the same level of experience as Obama.  She lacked the polish and that's what did her in.  I think she has the potential to at least make some waves next time.  I think being governor for a few more years will be more helpful too.  A short stint as a mayor and one year as a governor doesn't provide enough to measure her executive skills.  Obama's experience lacks as well, but I already addressed some of those issues previously.

In short the book wasn't that great, but it's not horrible.  It's the kind of book you want to pick up if you're really bored and weird, like me.  I would recommend this over other books like The Secret.  It might actually be a good book to have a young girl read to encourage her to take on opportunities that are normally perceived as male only.

From Catchphrase to Cliche

Barack Obama's election may be one of the most exciting in history.  Much has been made, because of the historic nature of the event.  The most interesting thing over the last several weeks has been the constant references to Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals.  The book is definitely worth reading.  Pundits like to draw the Lincoln/Obama comparisons; national legislators from Illinois, lawyers, overcame difficult family circumstances, and the most notable: Lincoln brought down slavery and Obama is a result of the action.

A new comparison emerged in the weeks after the election finished: The Team of Rivals.  This idea was alluded to somewhat during the campaign, but really too hold in the 2-3 weeks afterward.  So far, it may be a fair assessment, but Obama needs to pull in more rivals.  Bring on Hillary certainly qualifies, Biden qualifies, but his campaign was so short it almost seems like a stretch.  I wonder though, does the Team of Rivals even matter?

I have no personal problem with Obama*, again it's the media pushing it's spin on things.  I've heard the phrase "Team of Rivals" so much lately, it's gone from catch-phrase to cliche.  Having a team of rivals doesn't mean anything really.  It doesn't equal success.  In oder to be successful and avoid groupthink, having people with opposing view points is essential.  That teases out the intricacies of difficult situations and decisions.  It's not guarantee for success, but it does increase the probability.

A team of rivals can be as much of a detriment as a help.  If the team members cannot get along well enough to come to a reasonable decision, then all is lost.  That's one of the problems when we look at the Democrats vs. the Republicans.  Both parties are corrupt morally and neither has the interests in their respective constituents any more than using them to make it through the current election cycle.  They are a team of rivals and they do little to truly improve the nation.  I hear a lot of lip-service, but not a lot of real action.  My point is that a team of rivals is not an automatic recipe for success, though it might improve the chances.  Even though Lincoln had a team of rivals, it was not the reason for the success.  He succeeded because he saw past rivalry in order to pick the best people for the job.  The fact that they were at one time rivals is more an adjective, then a noun in this case.

*That's barring any emerging issues with the Blagojevich fiasco going on a the moment.  So far Obama appears to be innocent of any wrong doing.  I doubt he's got a clean background coming from the Chicago machine zone.  Maybe his goals are lofty enough that he was able to succeed without playing ball too much.  So far it doesn't look like he was willing to play ball with Blagojevich.  I hope that's the case.  That may not save Obama if Blagojevich decides to try and bring Obama down with him.  

The Corporation

I finally had the chance to watch the film The Corporation.  The film centers on the evil committed by corporations as a way to show the failings of capitalism.  The film also includes and all-star cast with the likes of Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and even Milton Friedman.  As a whole the film does make its arguments in a convincing way, but so did Loose Change (Counter-point).  It certainly is a film worth watching, but its bias skews much of the valuable information.  Below is some background to the film, my major criticisms of the film and some recommendations of how it could be more worthwhile.

An overview of the film is also available on wikipedia and the web-page is linked above.  The film was directed by film-makers Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott and written by Joel Bakan (who also authored the book of the same name released about the same time).  It was release in 2003 and is one of the most seen canadian documentaries.  Only Bakan appears to have some relevant education and experience, he being a lawyer. Both Achbar and Abbott are film-makers by trade, so the business credentials may be lacking somewhat.  I don't think that disqualifies from making a film about business, but it is worth keeping in mind in understanding where they may be coming from.

The major players are Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Moore.  Naomi Klein is of course famous for last year's book The Shock Doctrine, in which she took a little known Milton Friedman phrase and morphed it into a doctrine she believes was used to justify the Iraq war (her book has been challenged by Johan Norberg of the Cato Institute).  Noam Chomsky is of course professor of Linguistics from MIT.  He's notable for his anarchist views and outspoken criticism of US foreign policy and capitalism (it was a Chomsky book that Hugo Chavez said was suggested reading for all people during a UN appearance).  Chomsky is also the subject of another film by Achbar, Manufacturing Consent.  Most people should be familiar with Michael Moore.  He may be the most famous documentary film-maker in history and he has a fairly strong following.  Milton Friedman is also part of the film, though his time is somewhat short, his appearance is significant.  Milton Friedman is the most important economist of the last 50 years with a very liberal position when it comes to businesses and how they operate.  Friedman is the most significant counter-weight in the film.  There are many other participants who contribute to the film, but these four were the most significant in my mind.

The movie analyzes corporations as "persons" and repeats the concept that a corporation is a legal person.  This point is driven home like no other point in the film.  This becomes most significant when the corporation is diagnosed psychologically.  The tactic is treating the corporation as a person and then assigning it human traits, which conveniently fit the bill for a psychopath.  The trait is cited and then a corporation is shown to have committed an act that fits the trait.  I find this tactic very dishonest, because it's easy to steer people's minds down a track when you set such narrow criteria and cherry-pick examples.  The film-makers also fail here, because each trait is "fulfilled" by a different corporation.  If they wanted to show that corporations in general were psychopathic, they should have picked many corporations and shown how they all compared against the psychopathic traits.  Because the purpose of the film is to maintain the effects of drama and not serve as a scientific analysis, it's not surprising that effort was avoided.  This is really just a straw-man argument and resembles some of the tactics used in the 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change, which uses similar manipulative language and news reports to build a story that 9/11 was an inside job.

Like Loose Change, The Corporation needs some serious fact checking.  I have not had the time to look into every claim made by the film.  In fact, I don't necessarily think that they are lying or making things up.  I don't doubt that much of what they show happened.  The problem comes in the telling of the story and the way facts can be turned around a bit or motives assigned that may or may not exist.  Two that stick out came from Michael Moore's mouth.  I already have enough trouble taking what he says seriously.  He is not  reliable source for much of anything.  I believe he poorly understands information and does not sufficiently understand the counters to his arguments.  In the film he talks about Coke selling Fanta in Nazi Germany as a way to make money on both sides.  A simple search on snopes brings up strong counters to what Moore stated.  While he wasn't entirely wrong, he got enough wrong to create a great deal of distortion.  He also referenced the Columbine Massacre and the fact that Lockheed Martin is the largest employer in Littleton.  His point being that the parents fail to make the connection between what they do for a living, building WMDs, and the Massacre.  The connection is a stretch and not very meaningful.  I also take issue with the fact that he implies that all Lockheed Martin makes is WMDs.  I am a Lockheed Martin employee (just to expose my bias) and I don't work on WMDs; I work on satellites.  A great deal of the work at Lockheed Martin has little to do with war or WMDs.

Since the psychopathy of corporations are the center of the film, you would expect that the film-makers would have had a solution.  Not really.  It's mostly that corporations are bad and it's in their DNA.  The very existence of the corporation is the problem.  What's the solution, Government?  The same group who had trouble handling Hurricane Kartrina?  I'm not anti-government by any means, but I find that to be a lazy solution to any problem.  It doesn't really address the actual problems caused by corporations.  It also negates all the evil that has been done by governments as well.  It takes a very noble government to control itself when it has the kind of power it seems some people want to give it.  Corporations may be legal persons, but they have no emotions.  Milton Friedman is quoted with his famous line that corporations' only obligation is to get a return to the shareholders.  Because this is be true, it's easier to hold corporations accountable than it is the government when something goes wrong.  The only wrench is when government and corporations get too friendly.

While much of the film bothered me intellectually, there were some things I found beneficial.  The inclusion of Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, former chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, I thought was a nice touch to the film.  The film-makers included footage of a protest outside of Moody-Stuart's home.  The protesters hung a sign on the house accusing him of being a murderer of the environment, because he was the head of an oil company.  In the footage, Moody-Stuart actually came out and reacted well to the protest and ended up having tea with the protesters and a rather nice discussion.  This story added a human element and showed that the film-makers understood the fact that the heads of corporations are people too.  I think this fit in the film without affecting their premise, because they are looking at corporations as something separate from humanity.

The Corporation could be a better film.  I think it made some good point in showing what some corporations have done and the negative effects that resulted.  Certainly, there are many instances where corporations have done horrible things, whether intentional or not.  I think it's important to know about those kinds of events so they don't continue and the damage can be minimized.  To really bring that home, the film-makers should have emphasized the good that corporations do as well.  Rather than show the corporation as a psychopath, the misdeeds have been the center of the film with the people who committed the misdeeds held accountable.  The film could have been an analysis of the market system and how bad things may occur, then suggest ways to fix the any problems.  Unfortunately the film falls short and amounts to a propaganda film against the capitalist system.  I still recommend the film, but more to know what's being said than for any educational value.  Part one can be found here; you can follow the trail to get the rest of the film.  Part one of a critique can be found here.

Prop 8 and the Aftermath

Gay Marriage is perhaps the issue of our time. In California, where the major gay marriage battle took place, Prop 8 passed reversing the state Supreme Court ruling from the Spring. In my short lifetime* I have never seen a political issue that raised such a ruckus. I knew that no matter how the vote came out emotions would continue to flare. I did not expect what has since happened. The numerous protests have far exceeded my expectations.

It appears obvious that the emotions for the pro-gay marriage crowd are more greatly stirred up than the opponents. Had the vote gone the other way, I doubt the protests would have been so numerous and well attended. Candlelight vigils would be more likely with lots of punditry and plans for potential legal changes. I don't see this as an issue of one side being better more mature, but actions fueled by different emotions. From what I can tell the pro-gay marriage proponents see this as the civil rights struggle of their lifetime. On the other side, the opponents see themselves as protecting something that's sacred to them. If pushed into the right corner, they could act the way that the pro-gay marriage supporters have.

Many of the pro-gay marriage folks blame the passage of Prop 8 on the LDS church due to it's strong support of the measure. While the LDS church did provide a great deal of man power and financial support (via individual member contributions). The LDS presence in California is rather small and not near enough to sway an election, at least as far as voter support is concerned. The efforts for the LDS members certainly had an impact, but that's not unusual. It's common for people who believe in a cause to put in a little bit extra to support public policy they believe is right. Being better organized is not a crime.

While I believe the efforts of the faith groups in California did much to pass the proposition, the No-on-8 people hurt themselves as well. They committed the worst public relations nightmare...ON PURPOSE. Of course they probably did not think it would be a problem, and I'm willing to be that many still don't considering what's happened in the weeks since. Stealing lawn signs, while somewhat innocuous, is still a major problem. It's not so much that it happened, it's the scale on which it happened. Both sides were party to this particular indiscretion, however, it appears that the No-on-8 group perpetrated this on a grander scale. Combine that with the vandalism that occurred, and you have a serious problem.

The vote on November 4th did not quell the emotions, and may have insighted even more anger. I haven't heard as much about vandalism, though I've heard of threats against supporters of Prop 8. The most prominent might be Scott Eckern, the former Art Director from the California Musical Theater. Eckern donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and was essentially forced out of his job. Now boycotts are planned for all things Utah, even the Sundance Film Festival, which is interesting since Robert Redford likely would have opposed Prop 8 (I don't know for sure).

Proponents of gay marriage continue to do themselves a disservice by the public behavior that's making the news.  Rarely is such behavior justified.  It continues to damage the reputation of the position.  This group would be better served by taking the high road, rather than submit to the basest emotions that's enslaved them.  Granted the displays are largely performed by a minority, but not enough voices from the camp at large have risen to condemn the behavior.  If there are voice's that have not been loud enough.  If the gay community wants to be taken seriously and people listen to them, they much reach out.  Being angry and passing blame will continue the most damaging factor surrounding this issue.  People who oppose gay marriage should be allowed to due so without retaliation.  I support the rights to boycott, but I do not support intimidation and vandalism.  That amounts to totalitarianism and violates the spirit of the rights these folks claim to be after.

The real solution is to privatize marriage.  Marriage is a religious ceremony and should remain so.  We would be better served to have the domestic partnership or civil unions for all at the state level, and let the religions take care of the marriage aspect.  I think that two adults should be able to have the same rights as a married couples.  This is especially important when it comes to visitation rights and medical decisions.  This is more than about marriage.  This can cover cases of an elderly parent and a child where the child is responsible for the care of the elderly adult.  I think there are a lot of situations where these rights can come in very handy for the benefit of society.

Another kicker on the marriage front is the issue of polygamy.  So far the gay marriage supporters have not made effort to gain equality for those small towns in southern Utah and northern Arizona.  If they did that, they'd actually be consistent when they say they are just looking for equality.  I know there are issues in some of the compounds where underage marriages are forced, but looking at things from the side of consenting adults you could make the same case the gay marriage supporters are making.  I can probably guarantee that most of them would oppose the idea.

The issue of polygamy left me thinking about the issue in a different way.  If people marry polygamously in this country, they go to jail (in theory at least).  What if gay people get married, do they go to jail?  Gay marriage is simply not recognized.  Why the inconsistency in the 21st century?  Shouldn't we just say that polygamous marriages are not recognized.  Perhaps you could fine people if they are able to sneak one into the legal system, then just annul it.  I guess it's the cohabitation thing that gets people into trouble, but is the government going to arrest some guy that's living with multiple women who are merely girlfriends?  I doubt it.  Maybe it's just one of those imponderables.

That's my take on the aftermath.

* Contrary to what my wife says, I still consider myself relatively young.

American Talib*

Last night I listened to a speech by Frank Lindh (it's an hour with the Q&A at the end, but well worth it), the father of John Walker Lindh, given at the Commonwealth Club of California**.  His speech was given about two years closer to the incident.  I rarely hear anything at all about John Walker Lindh now.

I remember the pictures of John Walker Lindh when this hit the news.  Knowing his age at the time, I just hoped that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  After listening to the speech by Frank Lindh, I still lean toward that conclusion.  My knowledge of the situation is limited, because I haven't studied it very deeply.  I am glad that he was given the reduced 20 year sentence, because from what I remember and from what Frank Lindh states in his speech, the media*** as a body were ready to hang this guy.  Politicians weren't too nice either.  I think if they could have held a public execution at Yankee Stadium, you'd have a sell-out crowd and some massive profits for scalpers.

In the chaos that emerged around 9/11, it's was hard to really get a bearing on what was going on.  I remember waking up to 107.5 The End thinking it was a prank.  I was half asleep and couldn't make out everything they were saying.  I finally tried another station the second or third time the alarm went off and realized something was really going on.  I had to go to another apartment, because we were TV free, to actually see the footage.  I think the events for the next several months are similar what I experienced that morning.  John Walker Lindh became an easy target due to the inflamed emotions at that time and many did rush to judgment.

Frank Lindh portrays his son as a sincere seeker of Islam; somebody who had a deep connection with the religion and wanted to serve the nobel goals it espoused.  His reason for being in Afghanistan was to help people he felt needed his assistance.  His original destination was Pakistan, but after being there for a time, he joined a cause he felt was nobel.  Frank indicates that John had support for going to Pakistan, but went to Afghanistan without informing his family (Frank stated that had John contacted him about it, he would have said no).

I am left with the question as to why John did not discuss going to Afghanistan with his parents, where he's had a practice of doing so.  Was it because he knew what they would say and he felt strongly about going?  Did he know he was getting involved in something he knew he shouldn't be?  Was he dragged into something without time to think or act?  From the speech it's not entirely clear, what the exact story is.  We may have to wait before we get the full story of what happened.

Frank gives a vivid accounting of what happened based on what he knows and does a good job of setting up the historical context of the events.  Even though he criticizes the media, he acknowledges the motivation and spirit of the time the events took place.  It's possible that had John Walker Lindh been found at a later date, the media would have handled things differently, but still with severity.

My biggest issue with the speech came during the Q&A session.  A few questions were asked containing the implied assumption the John was a terrorist, or at least along those lines.  Frank seemed to tackle setting that straight more than answering the question.  I don't have a problem with him correcting what may be a misconception, but the way he did so came across a little too defensive for my taste.  Overall the speech was interesting and I could tell this was told by a passionate father who cares deeply for his son.  The question is whether that passion and love has clouded his judgment.

I do hope that the story told by Frank Lindh is accurate.  It's hard to say for sure.  Considering one statement John made in an email regarding the Cole bombing where he stated that the US ship being in the harbor was considered an act of war and it was justified.  That statement isn't that helpful without the proper context.  John might be better of to remain in prison.  I think that it will be hard for him to earn a living and some nut will try to pull something.  That would be tragic, if he is innocent of being a traitor.

* I know the common way to say it is American Taliban, but that's plural and John Walker Lindh is only one person.

**You can access the Commonwealth Club of California on iTunes as a podcast.  The podcast is the regular weekly radio show.  They invite speakers from all areas and interests (Naomi Klein, PJ O'Rourke, Anthony Bourdain, etc...).  It's a worthwhile podcast to check out.  I recommend that along with the Authors @ Google series that can be found on You Tube.

*** According to Lindh there were numerous headlines and articles condemning his son.  I couldn't find much, except for place that charge money.  Maybe more to be updated.

Pregnant Man?

This should be filed under "Why is this news?".  If it were an actual man who got pregnant, that would be news.  If it's a woman who had a sex change, it stupid.  It's not miraculous or amazing, or newsworthy when somebody gets pregnant when they were born with the proper equipment.  If a hermaphrodite gets pregnant, that's more newsworthy than this nonsense.  The attention this story gets has more to do with some people's fascination with oddities of people than of anything truly amazing.  From what I've seen of the trailers, Barbara does ask some direct questions.  The fact that she performs the interview at all is a little disappointing.  I have no personal ill will toward the transgender people.  I don't doubt there is something very complicated going on with them.  I can't imagine going through that kind of surgery if somebody is just mildly confused about their identity.  I'm pretty sure that this kind of issue runs pretty deep and it's something I probably will never come close to understanding.

That said, the story does not deserve that much attention, at least stop referring to Thomas as a pregnant man.  It's just not the same.  

Obama-nation

I ceratainly see Obama's election to the presidency of the U.S. is historic.  I don't consider myself a fan of Obama, but as I stated earlier, I will give him a chance.  My differences with him are largely philosophical, but I like him personally.  Most of my gripes deal with the public image and deification of Obama.  This clip is from Gene Healy of the Cato Institute and he's expressing himself right after Obama was declared the winner.  I do agree with him in some ways, though I do think that he comes across as too cynical.  I want to live with as little government involvement in my life as possible.  I don't like The way that Healy basically roots for Obama's failure as a president.

I have mixed feelings.  I don't want the government follow the track it's been on for the last 8 years for sure.  I hope that Obama can do some good things to correct that and at least restore some dignity to the Office of the President.  Obama comes across as a person who is willing to listen and to learn.  He does have the chance to be this era's Abraham Lincoln.  As Dan Carlin states on this edition of his podcast (follow the link - it's about an hour, but it's really good), Obama will be tempted by the powers that Mr. Bush is leaving him.  The question is whether he can keep his nose clean.  I'd really admire the guy if one of the first things he did in office was to undue the Bush policies of wiretapping and such.  I do think that Obama has to be an extraordinary president.  It won't be enough to be better than Bush.  Homer Simpson could do that with a can of Duff Beer in his hand.

The most important thing about Obama winning the White House is the mental barrier that's been torn down.  He's the first legitimate black candidate to ever run for the presidency.  I don't think it taking so long is a just result of racism, maybe more a hangover from previous years of racism.  I think that it boils down to him being a candidate who appealed to more than just one segment of the population.  I don't think it would have worked in the '70's or '80's, but I think the '90's could have seen a black president, had the right person came a long.  It's easy to have a long list of white presidents, when they are virtually the only ones who run.  The mental barrier that Obama may have broken I think opens the door for people of other races to run.  There's already talk of the Louisiana governor running in 2012, who happens to be of Indian descent.  It may be a little gimmicky at this point, but I think it's good that this is happening.

Obama's victory, plus Hillary's campaign, changed things for women as well.  Sarah Palin could have backed things up a little bit.  The field is more open for women, though I still think that it will be harder for a woman in this country than for a black man.  I think it requires more of a paradigm shift, because of the way that our political system runs.  Hillary's run does show though that's it's not just a pipe dream, as much as I dislike her (maybe I did a little too much Rush in the early '90's).

What's with the McCain People

I didn't really like any candidate this  election.  I bashed on Obama, more the status bestowed by the media, extensively.  I don't have as much to say about McCain.  Since he was behind most of the way, it's hard for the media worship to get to me.  Why do people boo the announcement?  Did the Kerry people boo in 2004?  Do these people not understand how Bush screwed things up so that McCain didn't have a chance?

McCain The Pain

I've expressed some of my beefs dealing with Obama.  Most of which center on the messiah-esque aura given him by the media.  As a third party voter, probably for life, I have issue with McCain.  They are not as numerous as those for Obama, due in large part to the fact that the media wasn't in love with McCain the way they were for Obama.  I might feel a bit different if we got Fox News.

My first beef with McCain, and this goes for most of the Republican candidates, was the way he blew off Ron Paul during the debates.  I consistently referred to Ron Paul as the Al Sharpton of the Republican party.  He had no chance, so he felt safe to speak his mind.  He on occasion said some nutty things, but he also made valuable points.  The Republicans treated his comments with such disdain, when it appears they didn't quite understand his points.  They seemed to prefer throwing down the straw-man, because dealing with Paul's points would take too much effort.  For all his short-comings, Paul added some needed kick into the Republican race.

My other issue with McCain is his choice of Palin.. This was obviously a last ditch attempt to woo some voters.  It backfired, because McCain failed to consider the choice deeply enough.  I think he figured he was going to lose, so he might as well go out big.  Unfortunately he goes out looking somewhat foolish.  He would have been better served by selecting a running-mate who had better credentials and gone out with some honor.  I also feel a different choice would have provided him a more credible shot overall.  It became hard to take his campaign too seriously with Palin on board.  I don't doubt my opinion is somewhat colored by the SNL skits, but that's part of the picture.  I don't really care that much about the stuff being revealed post-campaign.  To me that's just dirt that doesn't matter that much.

That's pretty much it.  It's certainly easy for a cynical person like me to get more annoyed at the popular candidate.  It's probably as self-esteem issue, but I like it that way.

More on Obama

Actually this isn't so much about Obama as it is about the media adoration of Obama, AKA Obamania.  It's definitely swelled with last night's victory over McCain.  There are only a couple things things that irk me.  When people fawn over other people, I am deeply troubled.  There isn't a single person who can solve our problems and to put somebody on a pedestal like they are the messiah who will save his people does a disservice to the citizens and the object of adoration.  Granted, this election is historic and has unleashed powerful emotions from many people, understandably so.

My first issue is about the historic-ness of the event.  It is historic, though I don't like how it's been framed by some.  I keep hearing on the news how great it is we finally elected a black president.  The way it is said, it's as if we've had a black candidate in every election since the mid '60's and America finally had the moral courage to take a chance on a black man.  Obama is the first legitimate black candidate EVER!  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made their efforts in the past, but they never got very far.  They struggled with the fact that they were running to be black presidents.  Their appeal was mainly to black voters.  Obama reached out to all voters.  He didn't run on a 'black platform'.  There's also Alan Keyes from the Republicans, but like I said in an earlier post, I think he's nuts (the real kind).  The election is historic and I'll go with that; I just don't like the references to Obama breaking the black ceiling.  I know some voted based on his color, but that didn't carry him.  I think he really connected with a lot of people.  I don't fall in line with his philosophy and that will be an issue (that infamous spread the wealth comment just doesn't work for me).

I'm tired of being shown footage of other places in the world.  I know that people in these places may feel a connection with Obama.  It just seems that the news agencies are trying to show the US that we made the right decision, because these foreign folks are celebrating.  Honestly, I don't want their approval.  We were voting for our president, not theirs.  Getting it right is up to us to decide.  It's that I mind knowing that some people around the world are happy about the outcome, but it's being played way too much.  Along with that, I'm tired of seeing the news people near tears.  Too many are treating this like it's a holy communion.  It's an election; historic as it is.  Before we start celebrating too much, let the guy get in office and do something first.  The history doesn't count for another 20 years when there's some perspective.

That's my final post on Obama, at least for a while.  I'm not trying to be down on the man.  I do want to give him a fair chance, though philosophically we are divided.  I certainly doubt the country is going to fall apart.  It will hard to beat Bush at his own game.  I have a natural repulsion to things/people gaining overwhelming popularity.  It took me until 1.5 months ago to finally get an iPod.  I'm sure it's a personality disorder.  I will discuss McCain in a little bit.  I have less to say, because he spent so much time behind in the polls and the media didn't fawn over him that much.  His public image couldn't get under my skin as much as Obama.  I had less feeling that McCain was getting shoved down my throat.

Meet El Presidente

So we now have a new president.  I must admit I'm a little POed that the race got called before I even got back from Ryan's birthday party.  It wasn't much of a surprise.  I haven't decided how I feel overall.  I'd be torn if either candidate had won.  I guess that's the price when I prefer to not be part of an in crowd.  I think overall Obama can do a good job, but there are things that have bugged me for a while.  Most of it is the aura that seems to surround Obama.

1.  The Rock-star status he's been given.  I wrote earlier that he's treated like the messiah returning in glory to redeem the people.  I remember when he spoke in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention.  He was this big deal for not accomplishing that much.  Not that I'm in position to become a senator or anything.  He was just a state senator running for the senate against...NOBODY!!!!  I know Alan Keyes got in the race...LATE, plus that man is certifiably nuts.  To me, that's not an accomplishment that deserves the acclaim that appeared to be given to Obama.

2.  The Oprah endorsement is an issue, not that it's necessarily Obama's fault.  Oprah kind of bugs me as it is, because she promotes things like 'The Secret'.  She generally does a poor job of taking the role of Devil's Advocate, much less bringing on voices that would adequately question the notion.  If I were in Obama's position, I'd probably take the Oprah endorsement.  I'm really just bugged when it comes to Oprah, because she's never endorsed a candidate before, then all of a sudden Obama is this magical candidate.  Let me just say, if he'd been white (as opposed to half-white) Oprah would have passed over him.  As Steve Salerno has stated on his SHAM blog, this is considered racism (the idea of voting for Obama because he's black - you'll have to read the comments to get to this point).  I think Oprah would have gone with the Dem anyway, but the endorsement would have been held back.  Personally, I'm OK with Oprah endorsing Obama in a general sense, though the celebrity endorsement thing bugs me on all sides, but that's another story.  Basically, I'm bugged by the BS of Oprah trying to come off that it's not race and Obama is some transformative figure.  Maybe I'm just cynical, but that really set me BS detector off.

3. Obama does give me the same feeling I get when I see Kevin Trudeau on TV.  I think I'm just distrustful when people sound a little too positive about things.  It just doesn't seem natural to me.  A lot of it is just politics, because politicians speak in ways that make listening to their speeches like reading horoscopes.  They sound specific, but they're really general and can be applied to just about anything.  Change we can Believe in vs. Country First.  To me that's all the same and meaningless.

Overall, I'm going to give Obama a fair chance.  He does seem to have the personality where he's be open to outside information, certainly way more than Mr. Bush has been.  I think McCain would have been too closed, much more like Bush, in that area.  I think I would trust McCain's decisiveness in a crunch over Obama.  Maybe we should let Prop 8 fail, then Obama and McCain can move to Cali and have a kid who will balance these traits perfectly.  Obama's pick of Biden as a running mate was brilliant.  I wanted to give Biden a chance in the primaries, but he sunk to fast.  Obama certainly showed wisdom in his choice, where McCain showed complete desparation.

Kim asked me this weekend, for the umpteenth time (since dodge the question every time), if I could only vote for McCain or Obama, who would it be.  Usually I said something like 'I have more than two choices'.  I finally gave her a real answer and told I'd probably go with Obama.  I still stand by that and hope for the best.  I still tend to think that we're in for a one-term presidency.  We've had two 2-termers in a row and with the current situation, there's a lot on the table with extremely high expectations.

Being a third-party person, it makes it easier to accept the winner of the race.  I am really bugged by those of either party who act like the winner is not their president if he came from the opposing party.  Even if McCain had won, I'd still support him as president.  I'd piss and moan about some things, as I will with Obama.  I think I'd do the same had Bob Barr won.  I think complainers like me are necessary to keep us in from turning into dodos.

I do think the republicans made a mistake selecting McCain.  I don't think the field was that great on either side, but the republicans were pretty bad.  I wish that Ron Paul hadn't been so nutty.  He injected some great points into the debates and it's unfortunate that the other candidates didn't take some of those point more seriously.

As an aside, a fella in my toastmasters club called Palin as the running mate about a month before the announcement.  Very prophetic, if you ask me.

Anyway.  Cheers for Obama.

The Logic of Life

I finally got around to finishing another book.  It's only taken 6 weeks or so.  This last book written by Tim Harford comes from the pop-economics genre that's rising in popularity.  This genre tries to apply economic theory to other areas of life to explain why certain things happen.  In a lot of ways, it's the economics of human psychology.  This is a follow-up to Harford's previous book The Undercover Economist.  The major premise of The Logic of Life centers on the belief that people are rational.  Harford defines people who are rational as those who respond to incentives, whatever the incentive may be.

To start, Harford is a very good writer.  The topics that he covers could easily put the reader to sleep, but Harford has a writing style that keeps the subject matter interesting and meaningful.  He's obviously passionate about economics, but he is able to combine is passion with economic knowledge and the ability to communicate.

The book looks at similar kinds of things as Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt.  The highlight of the book was the chapter on marriage.  He shows how marriage has changed based on economic theory.  He even makes a case for divorce.  He doesn't necessarily advocate divorce, rather he shows how women have become empowered by work and education, and easier divorce.  This has resulted in making divorce less treacherous for women now than in the past.  Harford believes this has ultimately led to declines in domestic violence, as the woman has an out from a marriage.  Specific situations may vary, but the trend appears to exist.

Another interesting chapter is about rational racism.  This isn't where people consciously hate blacks, but where companies tend to overlook resumes of people with African-American sounding names.  This is caused by a few factors.  First, the hight number of resumes that many companies get, makes it difficult to do deep read of each resume.  Because, experience tends to show that folks with the African-American names tend to not have the required skills, generally due to lack of education, the recruiters know that a resume with a given name likely won't work.  One reason that it continues, is that it works.  It's not that it's a good thing, but companies can afford to discriminate because it doesn't affect they're competitiveness, where blatant racism (hating blacks) would.  The rational racism still allows them to get the right mix of minds.

Support for this comes from a computer simulation where students were assigned colors (green or purple) to be employees with other students as 'employers'.  The employees were to get jobs and the employers were to hire them.  Employers were to select students based on a cyber-die that were rolled for a 'test score'.  The employees had the option to get an education before each test.  Getting an education weighted the die so they had a higher probability for a hight score.  Employers were penalized for selecting employees who did not get an education.  In the end, the one color became discriminated against, because the employers learned, that color had a lower tendency to get the education.  Those employees in turned became less likely to get the education, because they knew they were being discriminated against because of their color.  It became a cycle, that at first was merely random.

Overall this is a good book.  It's one that I'll likely pick up again to reread and gain more insight.  I definitely think that better understanding economics in general, is a good idea.

Cato's Take on Obama's Health Plan

I'm not into universal health care as a policy.  I think it would be great if everybody could afford the healthcare they need.  Obama talks about Americans not wanting government to solve their problems, then he wants universal health care.  I don't want government to solve my problems, because I don't they are capable of really solving any problems in the free market.  Anyway, I thought this video was good.

Heartrending Pictures of AIDS

The pictures here are amazing and tragic. It does bring to mind 

the cruelty of life for some people made worse by many things 

out of their control. Though I feel the pictures show the impact 

of AIDS and the pain, they are still too clean. I think they still 

make AIDS look almost artistic, which I think damages the message 

a little. Kristen's storytelling, for me at least, is what makes the 

video so meaningful.

Fun with Prop 8

Halloween 1990 some friends and I went out for some halloween fun. John Haywood, a kid in our senior class, and his family were giving out money to trick-or-treaters. We decided it would be a good way to get some extra cash; just hit his house a few times and head straight for the bank. It turns out he was only giving out 1 quarter per person. It would take all night for it to be worth our while (We must have been expecting rolls off Benjamins or something). In the end we ended up just goofing off for the rest of the night. First we returned to his house and covered him in silly string. From there we went around and edited some political lawn signs. Another classmate had a dad running for the town council or some similar office. Conveniently his last name was Frick, which allowed us to be really efficient with our whiteout when we changed the name to Prick on a few signs.

In the last few weeks in California excitement has really boiled to a new level for a political season. Prop 8 has provided the most fun for halloween pranksters this year. Most common has been sign stealing; which appears to be happen mostly to pro-8 supporters, though it's occured on both sides. The most creative has been some folks who parked their SUV in front of a pro-8 supporter with "Bigots live here" written on the windows. The homeowner couldn't do much about this for three days when the police department finally towed it. There have even been reports of houses being spray painted with messages, usually against prop 8.

I am in full support of the political voice. There isn't anything more sacred in this country than the right to voice opinions, especially then it comes to the political realm. Take that away, the U.S. means nothing. I am ok with some of the "pranks". When a person feels so passionate about an issue that they would sacrifice an SUV to voice their opinion, then I'm ok with that. It's annoying and unpleasant for the resident, but they aren't taking away anybody's voice. What irks me most are the sign stealers and spray painters. As a libertarian, I support peoples right to do most anything as long as it does not directly infringe on anybody else's right. Sign stealing is a complete infringement on that right. From the news reports that I've seen, there have been some arrests for that and for the vandalism. Apparently some numbnuts have decided that they are so morally superior that resorting to damaging property is OK, because their position is the right one.

The one thing this country needs less of is the fundamentalism that keeps popping up. Whether it's from the christian right, gay left, or pick your group. What is most dangerous to effective democracy is self-righteous fundementalism. Unfortunately, it's all over the place and no once side is innocent. I'm reminded of Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire 4 years ago. It is this cancer that I think will upset this democracy before anything else. Enough rambling.

Who do you hate '08

I must be really bad since I hate all of them.  Very funny.

Beckham Both Feet on the Ground

This is only the second sports autobiography I have read.  I read Wayne Gretzky's a few times while in high school.  Being the type of book this is, the review will be a little different then normal.  I didn't borrow this book from the library with expectations of high literature or deep insights.  It merely filled the void that I usually fill with Dan Brown types of books.  It was reading for the pure enjoyment of reading.

The book is very readable; This probably largely due to efforts of the co-writer, Tom Watt.  I don't expect an athlete who has little writing experience to be particularly skilled in the craft of writing.  Beckham covers his life up until the point he signs with Real Madrid.  The focus is on his soccer career, for obvious reasons, though his courtship and marriage to Posh Spice (Victoria) plays a significant role in the later chapters.  David provided a some good details on his life growing up and how much of a factor soccer played in his life.  One thing that stuck out to me, similar to Gretzky's autobiography, was that Beckham's father had played some organized soccer, like Gretzky's dad played some organized hockey.  This connection shows the role a father's interest in an activity can influence their children.

I found Beckham shared his emotions about certain events and big games.  He seemed to be trying to be open and not cover up the joy of winning a big game vs. the sadness of losing a big game.  There is also the tension that developed between him and Alex Ferguson near the end of his Manchester United career.  I felt he was pretty open about the emotions he felt during this period.  The mixture of having a falling out with the coach and the slow realization that he would not play another game in Old Trafford.

Even with all the openness, the book still lacked some personality in the writing style.  My memories of reading Gretzky's autobiography are very different from reading Beckham.  While reading Gretzky's book, it seemed more like he was talking in his own voice.  Whereas Beckham seemed to have too large of a filter between the mind and the page.  Even though he was open about his emotions, they weren't as palpable I think they could have been.  The rest of the book, while readable and generally pleasant, lacked that personal feel to it.

Overall, this book is a fun read.  I think any soccer fan would love it.  It seemed to be somewhat geared to female readers, judging from the number of pictures included with Beckham's shirt off (especially those found in the last group of pics).  I also think this a good book to fill a gap between more demanding titles.  It was almost relieving to read this after reading PJ O'Rourke.  When compared to other athletes, Beckham does seem to be a class act, especially compared to A-Rod.

Scrap the Pledge

This isn't a major issue at the moment, though it has been in the recent past.  The Pledge of Allegiance for the U.S. has been the center of significant controversy in recent years.  Most of the controversy centers on the phrase Under God, which was added to the pledge in 1954.  I consider this a minor issue, as the title for this post may suggest.

I remember reciting The Pledge throughout my school years.  I was a good little American and recited everyday while in school.  I have two reasons for at least reducing it's place in public life. (image -  Students pledging to the flag in a former form of the salute, specifically the Bellamy salute)

First, The Pledge does absolutely nothing.  Maybe some folks feel patriotic when they recite it, especially during time of war.  To be honest, I never took it seriously growing up.  It was just he first thing you did in your day at school.  I think most kids who recite it have grown numb to any meaning that could be gained from The Pledge.  It seems to me, that if The Pledge is so important, then we would want to reduce its use so that it doesn't become a meaningless series of words that tired school kids brainlessly repeat each morning.  Basically, give The Pledge some real respect.

Second, I completely oppose compulsory recitation of The Pledge.  That violates the very rights the words are meant to glorify in The Pledge.  Forcing citizens to recite The Pledge sounds totalitarian and belongs in an Orwell novel, not American classrooms.  Besides, what does it say about a nation where people feel that a Pledge of Allegiance is needed.

If we are to maintain a Pledge for the U.S., we need to have some changes.  Take it out of the schools.  This should only be used on rare occasions, like swearing in new citizens (where it serves a ceremonial purpose).  We should change the wording of The Pledge as well.  I certainly don't pledge allegiance to a flag.  I don't mind having a flag as a symbol of our nation, but I don't swear to it.  As much as I disagree and almost despise the man, Michael Moore actually has a good suggestion for new wording: 

I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which we stand, one nation, part of one world, with liberty and justice for all.

It's not ideal, but I do think it's a place to start and I think it brings up some of the core issues that patriotism should be about.

I think that, improving the wording, reducing repetition, and providing The Pledge a proper ceremonial use, The Pledge will develop real meaning.  That will lead more people to appreciate what it says and what it means.  Just my thoughts.

Let Them In

I have yet to read the book, though it (Let Them In) and Mexifornia are both on my list of books to read.  Let Them In hasn't arrived at the library and Mexifornia has been checked out everytime I've visited.  Both books address immigration, especially immigration from Mexico.  This is an important issue, considering Hispanics will greatly out number African-Americans*  in the coming decades.  It will be important for us as a nation to have the current understanding about the situation so that we can avoid the mistakes of the past and continue our progress toward truly being a melting pot of different cultures.

This clip from the Cato Institute with the author of Let Them In is the next best thing to reading the book, until I can get a hold of the book.

*Seriously we need another word besides African-Americans.  I don't like hyphens, they detract from unity.  We just need a cool sounding ethnic name that's not racist that works like Hispanic/Latino.

Election 2008

Reason Magazine did something for the 2004 election where they asked some libertarian thinkers how they planned to vote, how they voted in 2000 and they're most embarrassing vote.  I liked the idea and decided to do my version for the 2008 election.  Please add comments indicating your choices and explanations.

2008:  Bob Barr; I'm not a Bob Barr fan in general, but I committed early in the election season to vote libertarian.  My intention in voting libertarian is to put my vote behind the ideas I support and hope that in the future more minor parties can gain more support to challenge the current system.  Jello Biafra described our country as "...a one party state masquerading as a two party state."  I've decided that voting for expediency is pointless, because every election some how gets painted as being vitally important.  If Ron Paul had made the ticket, voting Republican might be somewhat appealing.

2004:  Ralph Nader;  This was a throw away vote I admit, but I was in Utah and my vote didn't count anyway (not that it really counts in California right now).  I couldn't stomach 4 more years of Bush, I felt the Iraq conflict was a mistake from the start; I didn't feel any real love for Kerry either.  I maybe could have voted for Kerry if he'd had a different running mate.  Edwards is a big turn off for me.  I always felt he was trying to sell me something I didn't need; plus there were the comments about Cheney's lesbo daughter that I thought were pretty lame.

2000:  George W. Bush;  What was I thinking.  I guess I felt I needed to be a good republican for some reason.  I'm not so sure we can blame 9/11 on him.  If Gore would have been in the White House, the same event would have taken place.  The aftermath would have been different, although I doubt he would have kept us out of war entirely.  I think Dem or Rep in office and we'd be in trouble somewhere when it comes to terrorism.  The elected officials always have to look like they are doing something important.  Bush didn't earn a second term, but unfortunately he's more telegenic than Gore and Kerry combined.  It's the same reason I think that Obama will ultimately win in the end.

Most Embarrassing Vote:  See above.  That was the first time I got to vote; It probably should have turned me off to voting forever.  As more of a kick in the pants, I was an absentee ballot from Florida.  I do remember my mom telling me to vote Republican all the way down the ballot.  I don't think I did.  I probably only should have voted for president, since I was completely uninformed about any of the other candidates for the remaining offices.

I do have an observation about the current election, or at least the media's coverage of it.  This may sound sacrilegious, but it's not intended to be so.  It seems with the two candidates, the media is painting them as two different versions of Jesus from the Bible.  It's true that you probably need a bit of a messiah-complex to be a viable candidate for president.  It's almost like McCain being 'roughed-up' (tortured) is his version of Gethsemane where he suffered for our country.  Obama on the other hand is being portrayed as the messiah making his triumphant return.  You can listen to Dan Carlin's analysis here (it's an hour long, just FYI).  Personally, I think we'll still get the same old song and dance no matter who gets into office.  We don't seem to really have a political system where actually standing for something means getting re-elected.

PJ O'Rourke on the Wealth of Nations

I looked forward to reading this book.  I've enjoyed PJ on TV and think he's pretty funny and does a good job supporting generally libertarian ideas.  Maybe my expectations were too high, but I struggled with his latest book.  I came the the conclusion that he writes the way I think, very disjointed.  Unfortunately, we're not in sync.  I think I was able to understand most of the point he was trying make as I read the book, but not much sunk in.

The main issue for me came from his little asides and random references.  I got a lot of them, but there were a few that didn't click.  I also found them to be disruptive as I read.  There were a vast number of quotes from Adam Smith's book, but those became a little tiresome in places, although I think O'Rourke still did a fair job of addressing the quotes.

The review is lame, but I don't actually have much to discuss about the book.  I'll probably try another O'Rourke book again, assuming it's the book not the author.  I like this speech Part 1 & Part 2.

A New Reality Show: Wayne Allyn Root's $1,000,000 Challenge

Wayne Allyn Root has called Barack Obama out.  According to Root, he graduated from the same class at Columbia, '83 poli sci/pre-law.  Root does not remember Obama from his years at Columbia.  Root is not accusing Obama about lying about attending, but that Obama did nothing while at Columbia.  The $1,000,000 challenge pits Roots GPA against Obama's while at Columbia.  Root claims to have earned B+/A- grades and a decent LSAT score, but was told not to even consider Harvard or any other top tier Law School.  Obama got in to Harvard, and according to Root, it could not be because of Obama's abilities (or at least efforts in his under-grad).  This is an interesting challenge, however rather meaningless.

Undergrad grades are one thing, but I don't even think they prove that much in the long-run.  It does bring to mind the thing I've heard about Obama abstaining from important votes while in the Illinois state senate.  I don't have the facts, so I can't really judge but if true that alone should disqualify him from being a viable candidate in the minds of most people.  How can you be an agent for change if you do not participate in important decisions?  Something to chew on.  I wasn't planning on voting for Obama anyway.  I get to throw my vote away with the Libertarian Party ticket, which does include Mr. Root in the VP slot.

If there are any takers for the challenge, please contact Wayne Allyn Root.  As an aside, I didn't really like Tucker Carlson, but this interview I thought was pretty good.  I have new found respect for Tucker.

The 'N' Word

Most of the books I read come from the list I keep and continually update with new tomes.  I came across The 'N' Word while browsing my local library.  With a title like that, I just picked it up and headed to the check-out kiosk.  Since I'd never heard of the book, I was able to read it with an open mind.  The book is a history of the use of the N word in the United States and of racism in general.  Jabari Asim is the author.  I enjoyed this book and am disappointed that it took me three weeks to finish it.

The structure of the book makes it easy to follow.  Asim take the use of the word and divides the History of the U.S. into five time periods with several subchapters in each.  This structure provides helps show the use and evolution of use of the N word.  I really felt like I grew with the word.  For each era, Asim provides ample storytelling to showcase how the word was used and who used it.  He successfully destroys the myth that the the only users to the word are merely uneducated people from The South.  Plenty of educated people from The North and The South took occasion to use the word.  Along with the use of the word Asim demonstrates the racism that went with the word, even among American heroes.  Many consider Jefferson and Lincoln as the great believers in equality in the U.S., but both held views that were not entirely consistent with that image.

The most striking chapters for me came when Asim brings the word into the modern era.  Knowing the history of the word and better understanding the baggage associated with it make these chapters all the more meaningful.  Asim makes the case against banning the use of the word entirely in these chapters.  He shows how artists are able to use the power of the word to be ironic or to make certain social point.  He cites Richard Pryor as being key in filling this role.  Asim also suggests that African-Americans should not be concerned with whites who use the word behind closed doors.  Not that he approves of the use of the word, but it's not something that can be policed.  I get the sense that he sees such a pursuit as futile and maybe he believes the word will fall out of fashion eventually.  He points to LBJ's use of the word behind closed doors, though he was also responsible to making sure some of the most important Civil Right legislation was passed.  He's making the point that people realize they live in a culturally diverse world and they will behave accordingly, as long as there is accountability.

The only real weakness I found in the book came in a few of the chapters.  The overall structure kept the thoughts consistent and on track, but there were times in the book when too many quotes were used causing some lack of cohesion on some thoughts.  This wasn't a major problem, but certainly noticeable.

As I stated above, I enjoyed this book.  I admit to having used the word, though most of the time has been to mock racism (mostly in my adult life).  Fortunately, it hasn't been a major problem for me.  Since reading the book I've been able to reflect on using that kind of language, even when not serious.  I am certainly less inclined to use that kind of language or similar terms, thinking mostly of Fag/Faggot (Asim touches on slurs against homosexuals, but leaves those two out the the discussion for some odd reason).  I will certainly be more conscious in the future.

The Secret

The world may be suffering from over-indulgence when it come to The Secret.  Part from those critical and those who consider a new bible.  It's hard to not take notice of a book being heavily promoted by Oprah.  She gave The Secret two episodes within one week of each other.  With that, plus the usual Oprah-effect, the book ends up on everybody's lips.  I had the opportunity to actually read the book, so now I can criticize it.  The Secret creates an over-reliance on positive thinking, establishes the blame the victim attitude, and is a severe rip-off.

The Secret is based on the concept known as "The Laws of Attraction".  In short, you are ultimately responsible for what happens to you.  It's not just issues where you start taking drugs and you become a suicidal junkie.  If you don't have the job you want, it's your fault.  If you don't have enough money, it's your fault.  If you get hit by a car while sitting in your living room, it's your fault.  Why?  You have been sending out mystical "orders"to the universe, and you don't even know it.  The universe is merely acting as your personal genie granting you your every "wish" (and you aren't even limited to just three).  With The Secret you can harness this power to get the things you really want.

What's the problem with getting what you want?  Probably nothing.  Unfortunately, The Secret can't deliver.  It amounts to little more than New Age mumbo jumbo that promises great things with nothing to it.  I won't argue that having a positive outlook and being generally optimistic will make life better for you.  With those traits you are more likely to be around other people who are positive and more willing to support you.  You are also more likely to try more things and take advantages of opportunities that present themselves.  The Secret makes bigger claims than this and that's where it fails.  Your thoughts don't send out orders to the universe, they only affect how you act in life.  I can think about having $1M and it will not fall into my lap.  I need to find a way to earn that $1M.  This example may seem silly, but there are examples on the official website like this one.  You can find the story table of contents here.

The most common complaint I have heard about The Secret is how it blames the victim.  As I stated above, the bad things that happen to you are based on the orders you send out to the universe.  I wish I had the book in front of me so I could cite the page.  In one part of the book, the author basically blames the holocaust on the Jews.  It's not state plainly as in the previous sentence, but the description seemed rather clear to me in the book.  Again, I don't have the quote in front of me, but the book states in essence 'even the most horrible atrocities are caused by the thought of those affected'.  There are instances, many I suspect, where we bring bad things upon ourselves.  Many are likely inadvertent, but we can learn from these experiences and do better in the future.  It's not that revolutionary.

My biggest complaint is really about how the book is a rip-off.  First it gives the reader cheap New Age advice that offers little real benefit.  Second it's way over-priced for what you get.  The hard-cover book runs around $25 for a 198 page book.  That doesn't sound so bad at first.  Realize the font for the book is large and the pages small.  If the book were condensed to normal font size and printed on pages typical to most hard-cover books, The Secret would likely run 75-90 pages (my guess).  That should cut the price to $15 at the most.  On top of that, the book is more repetitive than Groundhog Day.  If the repetition were removed, the book would be reduced to roughly 10 pages for a normal hard-cover formatted book.  That's a pamphlet that should only cost $2.  Ultimately, The Secret is really like those novelty books they have in the little spinners located randomly around your local book store.  The advice is about as good and the format is perfect.  I can't wait until the 'condensed' version of The Secret comes out.

It's Dangerous Being Mayor

I'm sure some have seen the news about the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland.  If not, I'll give you a brief run-down (or click here).  Basically, a package sent from California was delivered to his house.  While in transit, the marijuana (aka ganja, weed, pot, grass, etc...) was detected.  The package was then intercepted by the authorities and delivered to the mayor's house by members of the county police, acting as a delivery person.  The package was left on the front porch, even thought the mother-in-law was present (I don't actually get that part; I've accepted packages for my in-laws at their house and I don't leave them on the porch).  The mayor picks up the package and takes it inside when he gets home and is almost immediately assaulted by officers in masks and plain-clothes.  In the end, his two labs were shot dead and the mayor appears to be innocent of any wrong doing.

According to Dan Carlin in his most recent podcast, this is likely part of a scam.  Drug dealers will send a package to a wrong address, and the delivery person will leave the package on the door step.  Another person will then pick up the package.  This way, it's harder to trace the sender and the receiver.  Carlin seems to think that the mayor may have been a victim of this scam, and may have been OK had the authorities not gotten involved.

What fascinates me most about this case is the fact that the cops just busted in, when the only thing the mayor did was to pick up the package and take it inside.  I didn't know that was a crime.  You would expect that the cops would have been better served to see what he did with the package in a day or a week or something, not one minute.  What else do you do with a package that's sitting on your porch, leave it.  If it appears to be something that is sent to me in error, I would still bring the package inside.  Not every package I've received has been something I was expecting, so that shouldn't seem like something out of the ordinary.  That's what made the unabomber so successful, was people accepted packages that they probably weren't expecting and then opened them.  Even if the mayor was guilty, how do you prove that by the fact that he brought the package inside, unless the package is bugged and they have him on tape saying "My pot finally arrived, I better go smoke some."

The other issue with this whole thing is the whole police state nature of this.  From what I've heard, the county did not inform the city about the "raid".  Dan Carlin asked a pretty good question.  What if the people in the house had called the city cops?  The county cops were not in uniform, so you can imagine the potential for a deadly shoot-out in this kind of situation, especially when it involves the mayor.  That's a great point.

This whole story points to some of the problems that exist when it comes to the drug war.  One of the excuses for the drug war is that it is to protect the American way of life.  I just don't understand how we're protecting the American way of life by violating rights and allowing police-state tactics to be used on citizens.  Events like the one in Maryland are unconscionable, even if the guy is guilty, because it puts innocents in danger and it assumes too much on too little verifiable evidence.  I'm sure there are some lawyers out there who can find legal justification for the raid, but where's the moral justification?  What if the mayor had been shot and killed trying to protect his family from masked intruders?  What if another family member, a child perhaps, had been shot.  I think it's fortunate that only the dogs were shot, not that I consider that a good thing.  The county could only muster a weak apology.  They should be bending over backwards and re-evaluating their policies after an incident like that.  They need the mother of all Kaizen events.  They've arrested two suspects so far.  I'm sure they'll get blame for the incident and the police will just shake off their mistake.

Ultimately this just points to the problems with the drug policy in this country.  It's not that I think people should be taking drugs, but the methods being employed to protect the people seem to leave far more collateral damage then the drugs themselves.  The Cato institute has written about the drug war and done some writing on legalizing drugs.  We may see an increase in use, but we will also be able to actually handle the problem better.  The drugs can be regulated ad prices can drop.  They can be taxed to bring in revenue, ideally for rehab.  Milton Friedman even had some interesting things to say on the subject as well:

Milton - 1

Milton - 2

Milton - 3