Book Review: Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell

Outliers – The Story of Success is an international best seller. There are scores of articles and reviews by “professional” book reviewers available for this book, but I'll still add my take to the pile of information available on this book.

Outliers explores the role circumstances have in the creating success. The basic thesis is that although talent and hard work are certainly necessary for success, they are a bit over rated when reviewing what creates success. As the thesis goes, circumstances and even luck can have just as important a role in creating great success, or outliers.

Besides what I gleaned from this book, I know little about Malcolm Gladwell. I have not read any of his other best sellers. However, based on what I learned from this book, I would say that Gladwell is a statistician and a sociologist. He uses data to make correlations, then draws conclusions about the cause and effect of these correlations.

Outliers was quite interesting, and somewhat eye opening. It was fascinating to see the pieces that had to all fall in just the right place to create a great success like a Bill Gates or even a Malcolm Gladwell.
The tone of the book was tough to pinpoint. One of the messages of the book was that there are other factors out of your control that determine your success. Regardless of how hard you work, or how talented you are, you will have a difficult time becoming a true success outlier without good fortune. For example, if you are a young kid starting hockey in Canada, even if you have great natural talent, you will likely not get anywhere unless you were born in one of the first 4 months of the year (You’ll have to read the book to see the reason for this.). At the same time, there is some message of hope in the book. Gladwell contends that talent is overrated. He believes that in many cases, people viewed as great talents were really of average talent but through hard work and lucky circumstances, were able to become successful. Therefore, there is some hope in believing that although you may not be born with great talent, you can still become a success outlier. However, I believe this hope message is drowned out by the fact that Gladwell puts such a large emphasis on luck as a key factor. It’s a little disconcerting to become aware of the fact that regardless of your hard word and talent, whether or not you become successful is in large part due to luck. Even if it is likely true to some degree, it’s still a tough message to face into. I think we all internally know that circumstances are a big factor in life, but to have it laid out in black and white with supporting data can be a bit depressing, unless of course you are one of those on the good side of the luck equation (which is all relative)!

One point that is critical to understanding Outliers is that Gladwell makes generalizations based on data. He does a good job pointing out that he deals in just generalizations, not hard rules. For example, it may be easier to become a hockey star in Canada if you were to be born in February, but not impossible if born in November. One always needs to be careful when making generalizations about people. Gladwell points this out.

One criticism of Gladwell is that he does not discuss any data contradicting his conclusions. This is an understandable criticism, but it’s also understandable why Gladwell leaves most contradictory data out. His intention is to write a book in everyday terms, not create an academic research paper.

There’s a good reason why Outliers is a best seller. I highly recommend this book.

Getting to the Heart of the Healthcare Debate

Millions of protesters at “tea parties” and town hall debates are an obvious indicator that there are clearly differing views throughout the American population regarding government provided healthcare.

Polls have indicated for quite some time now that more people are opposed to government provided healthcare than support it.

Whether against the present Obama-supported healthcare plan due to fear of high costs, poor performance, government intervention, or any number of reasons, in the end all these reasons really funnel down to one central idea – mistrust of government.

The debate over government provided healthcare in the United States is in essence a debate between people who generally trust government, and people who generally mistrust government.
The words “generally” in the statements above are crucial words. Few people always trust or always mistrust government. It is a general perspective of trust versus mistrust that is at the heart of this debate.

To the chagrin of big government supporters, the United States was founded under a purposeful mistrust of government. The United States Constitution was set up to give people maximum liberty precisely because the founders did not trust government. The second amendment to the US Constitution is a direct descendant of the founders mistrust.

The left may not like this built-in mistrust of the US Constitution, but unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the rest of us), the Constitution is the law of the land.

This idea of governmental mistrust is something that most liberals don't understand. The US Constitution is meant to err on the side of too little government, not too much. It is why the left is wrong in the healthcare debate.
Keep in mind that just because the left is wrong in this debate, does not mean that they will not prevail. For this reason, liberty-loving Americans need to continue to stand up to the anti-Constitutional socialization of America.

Book Review -- Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell

Lone Survivor is the true-life chronicle of a Navy Seal team that was ambushed in the mountains of Afghanistan. The author was the lone survivor of this ordeal.

This book was a national best seller with plans in the works for a movie.

The book focuses on the events in Afghanistan, but it traces Luttrell’s journey from small-town Texas kid to highly skilled soldier. Luttrell was already preparing to become a Navy Seal during his high school years. The book spends a lot of time giving the background of Luttrell’s Seal training. It also explains the events taking place back at Luttrell’s Texas home while he is fighting for his life in Afghanistan. This background sets the stage for the hardships Luttrell and his Seal team battle in Afghanistan.

The story of operation Redwing is a powerful true-life war story. Just the dramatic events that unfolded on the mountains of Afghanistan alone would make a fine book. However, the book sets itself apart by the detail the author spends on the non-battlefield aspects of this story. Though the battlefield adventure is the climax of the book, Luttrell intersperses the themes of honor, valor, love, family, dedication, excellence, and leadership as much with his off-battlefield stories as he does with the actual war story. Luttrell also gives his own matter-of-fact assessment of the battlefield impact of political events back home. He pulls no punches as he explains how the soldiers fighting in hostile lands are handcuffed by the ridiculous rules of engagement thrust upon them by liberal politicians back home. He also discusses the negative impact the liberal-slanted media has on the fighting soldiers. Luttrell explains how tactics that are the absolute right thing to do from a military strategy perspective are second-guessed because of the potential for negative media coverage. Luttrell makes the case that these policies cost actual American lives. To the soldiers, they are not abstract. They are living with the result of policies implemented by Washington Liberal do-gooders.

The book is an interesting look into the mindset of an elite soldier. It’s an action packed, and often gruesome war story. It’s an interesting political commentary. It’s a reassuring story about family, community, and ideals. This book is a recommended read.

Liberal Voters Would Not Be Satisfied with True Government Health Insurance

This post builds off my previous post.

Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we can all agree that government health care as it is presently being pursued by the Obama administration would be an expensive proposition. Health insurance as it is presently constituted is expensive whether it's paid for by an employer, or a government. We can all agree on that.

There are a number of people uninsured in this country. The number differs depending on the source, but I've seen estimates between 12 and 44 million. The true number probably lies somewhere between these two extremes.

We hear hyperbole in the main stream media about people dying out there because they can not get the life saving medical procedures they need. Making the big leap that this is true, instead of the government providing very expensive health insurance like our employers generally provide today, what would be the reaction of the left if the government provided cheaper catastrophic-only health insurance? I am not saying I support such a move, but it would be an interesting compromise. The plan would have a high deductible. Much like car insurance. The individual would be responsible for anything under say for example $3000. Insurance would cover anything after that number. The government could institute a tax deduction for the money spent under $3000. The government would not be involved in any medical decisions or end-of-life issues. The government would put the contract out to bid to existing private insurance companies.
There are a lot of advantages to this type of plan. This type of plan would be much less expensive than full government health insurance. It would cover catastrophic medical needs, but still require the individual to be responsible for their day-to-day health charges. It would also require people to pay attention to their health care costs and introduce market forces into the system, which would drive competition, which would in turn drive up service and drive down costs.

If you had no health insurance, wouldn't one think this kind of plan would be welcomed? Mama always said beggers can't be chosers, right? This would give people the assurance that they would not die or be saddled with high health care debt, while possibly not totally bankrupting the government. What would be the liberal voter reaction to such a compromise plan????

I suggest that the liberal voter would not be satisfied with such a plan! I portend that the liberal voter does not really want health insurance for the uninsured. The liberal voter does not appear to care about federal spending and the damage to our economy. The liberal voter does not want the responsibility for their health care. What the liberal voter truly wants is "free" health care. The liberal voter wants to get any prescription they want, go to the doctor whenever needed, and not have to pay a dime out-of-pocket. They want the so-called rich to pay for their trip to the doctor or pharmacy. They want free health care, not health insurance. The statists-socialists running our government today are all to happy to push for such an all-powerful, all-encompassing bureaucratic option.

As we all know, nothing works that way. Nothing is free. Everything has a cost.

The cost of the current Democratic health care plan will result in lower quality service and care, and will be incredibly expensive. The people know it, hence the public backlash we are witnessing in town hall meetings etc. all across the country. Reports of the death the American public as a powerful entity are greatly exaggerated!

Healthcare Insurance We Have Now Is Not Insurance

The healthcare insurance debate rages on in the United States, with President Obama in the middle of the lion’s den…a place nobody belongs. He’s a statist and he just can’t help himself, but that’s a topic for a different day.

There have not been many posts on Liberty Alert of late. There are two reasons for that. One is business. The real life of a no-name blogger is definitely at odds with the blog. The second reason post have been sparse lately is that I want Liberty Alert to be a place for original thinking, not just retreads of the crap spewed by the main-stream media, and non-main stream talking heads. I’m not always successful at it, but I try not to be sucked into the trap of basing my opinions (and blog posts) on the points made and developed by others. I like to try to use my own original logic here. Again, I’m not always successful at it, but that’s the idea anyway. That does not mean that I can’t take ideas and learn from others. I just want to avoid repeating the babbling of others. This means that sometimes I’d rather write nothing at all, until I have something original in mind.

I’ve been doing some travel to the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico this past week. Although Puerto Rico is a part of the United States, it is not a state, and has a totally separate culture from the mainland. Therefore, it’s interesting to read some of the opinion pieces in the local newspapers to get a unique viewpoint on national matters, especially the current healthcare debate.

One letter-to-the-editor I read in a Puerto Rican newspaper raised an interesting point. The way we pay for healthcare is not insurance at all. We call it insurance, but it really is not. It’s closer to pre-paid healthcare than insurance.

This letter made me contemplate other insurances that we have. The most common insurance that nearly everybody uses is auto insurance. Think of the contrast between how we use auto insurance versus health insurance.
Auto insurance has a set premium based on how much of a risk you present. This premium can be raised or lowered based on the risk assessment of the insurance company. However, you have the freedom to shop around and switch at any time. With auto insurance, there is a deductible. The insurance is meant to cover catastrophic events, not everyday maintenance activities. The insurance company does not pay every time you enter the auto body shop. Does this mean you should stop doing maintenance like oil changes on your car? No, of course not. The driver is still responsible for the upkeep of their automobile. The incentive for the driver is to do the maintenance in order to keep their car running well longer.
When an accident occurs, the driver is free to address the issue as they please. They can take the money from the insurance company and leave the damage on the car, or they can use the money to pay for repairs at any garage or autobody shop of their choice.
In addition to insurance, most new cars come with warrantees. These warrantees cover unexpected mechanical breakdowns, but the driver is still responsible for general maintenance.
Contrast this insurance model to our current healthcare insurance model. In our current health insurance system, we expect insurance to cover every trip to the doctor. We expect to take no financial responsibility for our own healthcare. We have no concern toward cost (since insurance is paying for it), and we have restricted choice. In essence, we ask the insurance company to pay not only for accidents, but for every oil change, tire rotation, brake job, radiator repair, tune up, etc. regardless of our lifestyle choices and risk. This is not insurance. I’m not sure what one would call it, but insurance it is not.

Twitter-ization

I read this on a bumper sticker the other day:

"READ BANNED BOOKS"

I agree.

Al Gore is a Hero! Global Warming is Over!

Hooray for Al Gore! His dream has come true. In addition to inventing the internet, he has apparently successfully stopped global warming!

The temperature of the earth has not risen since 2000 (some data suggests even earlier). We're approaching a full decade without any global warming.

Let me be the first to thank Al Gore for a job well done. Now PLEASE go away.

More Evidence That Liberals Hate America

More accurately, the political left in the United States hates freedom and liberty, not specifically just the United States of America. All freedom is a threat to statism. The founding ideals of the USA represent the most conspicuous example of freedom and liberty in the world today (even with the constant assault on liberty from the left), so liberals in turn hate America.

Why do I make such a bold and divisive statement? This is not a new thought to me, and I'm certainly not the first one to make such a statement. This is something I've long suspected, but every once in a while I find an example that reinforces the hypothesis.

This weekend while mowing my lawn, a thought came to me...

(I do most of my best thinking while either walking the dog, taking a shower, or mowing the lawn.)

Why is it that the vast majority of US military personnel are right-of-center (mostly members of the Republican party), while the majority of political protests come from the left? With the recent "Tea Party" movement being the exception, it's generally accepted that most protests come from the left. For example, think of the political demographic of protesters during the Vietnam war. Think of the disruption at the last Republican National Convention. Think of pies and shoes thrown at prominent political figures during speeches. Again, with the recent exception of the "Tea Party" movement, the left is where the protest crowd generally originates.

Why is that?

I have my theories.

Protesting and criticizing America comes easy to liberals because they have never bought in to the founding principles of the country.

Liberals consider running down the USA as patriotic. In some instances that could be true. However, the men and women of the US military, which as a group are largely politically conservative, can teach the liberal bunch the true meaning of patriotism. These soldiers don't scream and shout. They quietly dedicate everything, including risking their own lives, to defend the principles of the United States. The liberals talk the talk, but the brave people of our military walk the walk.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the US military special forces. These are the Rangers, Navy SEALs, Green Beret's, etc. These groups are made up of dedicated volunteers that set aside their personal well being for something bigger than themselves. These people believe in something. These individuals would not put themselves through such hardship without being fully dedicated to the principles of their country. Liberty and freedom are critical to these brave soldiers, and they would give their lives to protect these principles.

I recently stumbled across a book while waiting for a plane in the airport. It's called Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell and Patrick Robinson. The book chronicles a firefight in Afghanistan between the Taliban and a Navy SEALs team. I have not finished the book yet, but the author makes it clear how the men of the Navy SEALs feel about their country. The book also clearly spells out the distaste special operations soldiers have for the political left in the United States.

The men and women that walk the walk, dodging bullets and IEDs for what they believe, are nearly all conservative-leaning. Beyond that, they have a loathing for liberals.

The contrast between the actions of people that truly love America, and the liberals that hate America is stark.

If the liberalization of the US is not reeled in, the experiment in freedom and liberty known as the United States of America will essentially end. Let's hope it's not already too late.

"Water Boarding" is Not Torture

A lot of talk has recently been emanating from the Executive Branch of the US government regarding torture.

Let's make one clear declaration: So-called "water boarding" is not torture.

None of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques to which President Obama takes such offense are torture.

Sleep deprivation, water boarding, solitary confinement, etc. are uncomfortable circumstances, but certainly not torture. They cause discomfort, not pain. They leave no permanent damage, and in no way threaten the life of the subject. At most, these tactics scare the subject, or cause some temporary stress or discomfort.

If you want to know true torture, watch the final scenes of the movie Braveheart. Watch Senator John McCain deliver a speech without the ability to move his arms. Read Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe's to learn how African slaves were whipped within inches of their lives in the American South prior to the Civil War. These are only a few of the numerous examples of true torture.

Given the choice, what would William Wallace, John McCain, and Tom choose water boarding over the fate they actually received? You bet they would.

Water boarding is not pleasant. Hopefully it never needs to be used. However, it is a tool that likely saved thousands of lives. A little discomfort and unpleasantness for some of the nastiest human beings to ever exist is a small price to pay for saving thousands of innocent lives.

Once again, liberals come down against the military, against citizens, against America.

Book Review -- Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin

On this blog I usually try to review books that might not be the first title that comes to mind when you try to identify a book to read. Sometimes I review classics that might be gathering a little dust at the local library, or unique books I discovered by chance. I typically stay away from the best seller lists for two reasons. One is that best sellers typically are not available at the library, so they would require me to purchase the book. I try to utilize the "free" books at the library whenever I can. The second reason is that best sellers already have so many reviews and information available on the Internet, that I often feel my review will not add significant value. However, every once in a while a book comes along that grabs my interest so much that I can't wait for the library version. Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin is such a book. It's been a best seller for a while now, but even though there is a ton of information available regarding this book, the book was so good that I needed to add my review.

Liberty and Tyranny is a non-fiction book. I don't remember the exact price but I believe it was around $20. It's subtitled "A Conservative Manifesto". This book traces back the root of conservative political ideology in the United States of America and breaks it down to the most basic philosophical building blocks. It's clear, concise, and strong in its arguments. It explains the conservative position with examples and logic. It also provides counterpoints to squash the opposing liberal (or "statist" as the book uses) positions.

If you are a liberal, I have my doubts that you will like the book. However, if you are truly open minded (a trait that many liberals profess to posses) I believe you have to at least respect the positions that Mark Levin lays out. You might not agree with them, but based on this book I believe you have to respect their orgin and logic.

If you are a conservative, you will love this book. You will be reading and shaking your head in affirmation throughout. It will help you clear your mind and reaffirm what you've always felt in your gut. It puts reason, logic, and examples behind your beliefs.

If you are somewhere in between liberal and conservative, this is a powerful book that I suggest reading. If you are a "lost conservative" i.e. someone who has typically considered themselves right-of-center, but have recently been questioning yourself, this book is more than suggested reading! It should be mandatory! It's like medicine when you have a sickness. It's the cure to your philosophical confusion. So called "moderates" have the most to gain by reading this book. If I were a doctor, I would prescribe this book.

Liberty and Tyranny is the kind of book I hope my family will all read. I hope my children will someday read it. Better yet, I hope I can pass the ideas presented in the book on to my children so they will not have to read it. Liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, Liberty and Tyranny is a well crafted book that should cause you to think.