Ok, so I bought the book because of a recommendation on the jacket. My “Inner Economist” told me that my theoretical enjoyment gain would be much higher than the purchase price of the book because I absolutely loved reading Freakonomics. The author had zero value in my decision and the tagline offered minimal impact. The title drew me to the book of course, but the quote slam dunked my decision. My “cost analysis” regarding the purchase of this book was definitely weighted in my favor. Price for the soft cover book, $15… my potential enjoyment of the book, quite possibly 4-5 times that amount. I had determined that I was going to make out very well in this transaction. I was going to be the winner while also helping the author reap a benefit for his time and effort writing the book. Was I the real winner?

You may think I am alluding to a potentially negative review given some of the hints between the lines. Well, you would be somewhat correct. While I did enjoy reading the book (if I didn’t, I wouldn’t have finished it), it did not offer me the perceived reward I placed upon it at purchase. My 4-5 times purchase price enjoyment valuation did not occur. Looking back with perfect 20/20 hindsight vision, I paid $15 and got exactly $15 worth of enjoyment out of it. What that means is I got what I paid for, nothing more and nothing less. Now, to let you in on a little secret, I place high value on my time. Reading a book utilizes my limited resource of time and therefore, if I purchase a book that will consume one of my scarcest resources, I expect it to pay me back in enjoyment many times above the original cost of the product. Discovering My Inner Economist failed my transaction.

The book itself provided about 200 pages worth of interesting reading, albeit not groundbreaking by any means. Separated into 10 chapters, the author takes us through ideas of controlling our world, the “me factor”, how to motivate your dentist, how to become a cultural billionaire, and many other interesting tidbits strung throughout the book. Quite a bit of time is spent on art appreciation and ethnic food decision making. Personally, I could have done without the 60 or so pages dedicated to these two subjects. A few pages directed at each subject would have sufficed but they were drilled to infinity… and beyond. One of the more interesting chapters was dedicated to beggars and poor people. Another singular chapter that stood out as I was reading was the look at self delusion. If the author could have continued on the paths of similarly interesting subjects and points of view as he was able to provide in those two chapters, the book would have been a much better transaction for me.

But I just said I got what I paid for didn’t I? Yes, it turns out that I made an even trade. I traded $15 in cash for $15 in enjoyment. Weren’t we both winners then if it’s an even trade and no one really lost anything? No, the author won because he retained a percentage of my purchase amount, but I lost because my perceived winnings were far less than expected. The author is not at fault for my loss, I am. I incorrectly placed a value on the book before purchase. However, the primary factor for this incorrect valuation was in large part due to the quote procured from authors whose opinion I “trust.” The author and publisher knew going into their business venture that when writing an economics book of this nature, a quote from arguably the two most famous behavioral economists in print would increase sales. They have essentially created an incentive for purchasing and reading this book.

The incentive is a simple one. Utilize the knowledge that the consumer who picks up the book knows who Levitt and Dubner are and create a want/need. The incentive is to stay in the know or in the loop. Another incentive is what I rationally expected. I expected that I was going to win in dramatic fashion by purchasing this book. My incentive was that I anticipated a reward above and beyond my costs associated with the time involved in reading this book. I failed. The author correctly used his Inner Economist and created an incentive for purchase.

Will other people have a different reward than what I experienced? Yes. Everyone places a different value on their time and they also have different parameters involved when making a purchase decision. I did not come out any better than if I had decided not to purchase the book since it was an even trade. I ended up trading time for money, and a book. Would I recommend this book to other economic enthusiasts? Sure, my transaction was good enough to warrant a recommendation to people who enjoy reading economics books but I would not recommend it to anyone else, much unlike Freakonomics which I would recommend that everyone read.

Has my Inner Economist learned anything resulting from this transaction? Yes. Primarily, don’t “trust” the media byte on the book’s cover. Also, it’s a pretty good idea to read an unbiased book review of the product before handing your money over. Will I enact these findings in my future decisions? Hopefully, but we all know how easy it is to rely on trusted opinion, not to mention the fact that it takes precious time researching a book’s value by reading multiple reviews. So, I will probably continue my normal methodology for determining a book’s value and deal with the “losses” because more often than not, I will continue to “win.”

Not to demean professors of philosophy, but generally speaking, the subject matter lacks a sense of excitement. Yes, I mean it’s boring. I instituted a personal goal requiring that I finish this book. I started it and that means I have to finish it, at all costs. So, I weathered the droopy eyelids, the constant mind wanderings to what else I could be doing with my time, and the endless looks forward to see how many pages until the chapter end. I finished the book. Yes, I became enlightened as I had imagined I would when I procured this book from the bookstore. However, it was an enlightenment I did not expect. Given that Seinfeld was a comedic sitcom known for their outrageous takes on daily life, I was expecting a light hearted, funny look at life, while applying some philosophical theories. Well, I did get that… minus the funny.

I’ve never been one to read a chapter or two at the bookstore to determine if I should purchase the book or try and “rent” it from the library, but this book has opened that realm of possibility for me. The book wasn’t “all” bad (boring). Of the 14 chapters, three or four were in the range from entertaining to even bearable, the other 10, not so much so. While it’s always a fun lesson to apply scholarly teachings to subjects we enjoy, sometimes it just doesn’t work too well. Comparing Jerry Seinfeld, the character, to Socrates? Wondering what Aristotle would have thought about George? Determining if Elaine exhibited the philosophical traits of feminism? You get the idea. Not funny. Yes, it could have been, even with the above questions, but the “professional” philosophers were actually analyzing Seinfeld in a philosophical distillation of actions and thought.

Enough with the “book review,” what does Peterman have to do with any of this? J. Peterman, an interesting character from Seinfeld, is a focal point of one of the more interesting essays in the book. Pulling a quote from Seinfeld, Peterman states “Clearly, people want things that make their lives the way they wish they were.” While Peterman the character, truly believes this to be true, is it true in our lives on this side of the television screen? His statement is a great philosophical statement because it offers a point of view into our own actions and thoughts. Are we trying to live a life we wish we were or are we satisfied with the life we have?

America has long been at odds with satisfaction. Are we ever satisfied? If we were satisfied, would we be wishing for a better life? Do you know anyone who is satisfied with their station in life or is everyone always focused on the next step to supposed happiness? Satisfaction in our country has been placed on equal footing as surrender, settling, or giving up. Why should we want to stay the same if there is always something more out there? That something more could make us even MORE happy right? So, as millions of us trudge along in pursuit of the life we wish we were living, satisfaction will ultimately elude us. More often than not, our lives equate any amount of satisfaction to immediate gratification. It has no lasting impact on our lives.

I admit that I look towards the future in search of the next hurdle to surpass on my way to “satisfaction.” While focusing on this next hurdle, how are you applying yourself in your current day to day life? Are you 100% living each day or are you living for tomorrow? Are you wishing your time and life away for a sense of who you wish to be in the future? When and if that time comes, can you truly admit to yourself that you will become instantly satiated and your life you have wished for will become your “real” life? More than likely you cannot. We are trained to want more, be more successful, gain more power, accrue more wealth, etc.

Peterman’s simple statement is a magnifying glass we can utilize to analyze our own lives. We are constantly wanting (or some may say needing) things in our lives to make our lives the way we wish they were. The American environment has destroyed the ideology of contentment. Satisfaction can almost never be truly achieved. We are constantly struggling in our pursuits to acquire “things” that will theoretically make our lives better. In reality, we are all searching for our own fairy tale. The truth that the fairy tale is impossible to grasp escapes us.

I believe we can be truly satisfied. There are those among us who live a life of contentment. They are the true torch bearers of happiness. They no longer want things to make their lives the way they wish they were. Their lives are exactly how they WANT them to be. Satisfaction is a true philosophical state many of us can never achieve because we cannot let go of wishing for something we are not. I still find myself wishing but more and more, as the years pass through the hourglass, I am finding that contentment and satisfaction are what I am “wishing” for. No longer are the things I find myself wishing for, tangible objects to satisfy my fairy tale of life. I wish for a state of true satisfaction and contentment. Will you join me or will you still be wishing as the twilight enters your life?

Ok, so that’s all true, but how do we change anything? Can it be changed? There is a book written by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder titled “The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS.” Within the pages of this book, you learn about the creation of our current income tax system and how it has deteriorated into simply a mess of laws and rules which create very unfair treatment of our society’s wage earners. The core principle of the FairTax revolves around completely removing, our current tax system, and replacing it with a tax on consumption. By doing this, your entire paycheck you earn will be given to you and when you decide to purchase something, you will then pay your tax. Well, that sounds great doesn’t it? Or does it?

As with any radical change, there are lots of numbers and adamant supporters and naysayers on the issue. The book does a great job in trying to dispel any lies or misrepresentations aimed at discrediting the FairTax and its probability for success. Linder and Boortz believe we can replace the current withholding tax with a consumption tax that would be revenue neutral. They believe a 23% tax on consumption would give our government the exact same amount of revenue which they currently have. This is where they start receiving the majority of the heat for their idea. They state that it is a 23% tax and that doesn’t sound so bad. Their reasoning is the $100 total cost of an item would be $77 and you would be paying $23 in tax. $23 of $100 is of course 23%. However, that is not how Americans calculate their taxes or think about it for that matter. If the price of the item is $77, to reach $100, you would have to pay a tax of 30%. Break out the calculator and do the math if you don’t believe me.

In reality, it is a 30% tax. Now that doesn’t sound as great as 23% does it? No, but is it different than what is currently in place? No. They cite research showing our current products on average, across the board, includes a 22% inclusive tax in their price. Every product made and distributed reflects the costs of everyone involved and they are all passing costs and thus, taxes along to the consumer. The amount of this cost is 22% on average. So, if you are looking at a $100 item, 22% of it is the result of taxes being passed on to you making the “real” price $78. Turn that around, for a $78 item to reach $100, it’s a little over 28%. Semantics in math is what the authors say. It’s inclusive taxation versus exclusive. What I say is that it’s a moot point. People like hearing the 23% number and it’s correct in a way. But, in reality, the cash register is going to tack on 30% to reach your payment. It’s a 30% tax.

However, that doesn’t bother me. As I just explained, it’s basically exactly where we are right now on a product given their economic data showing 22% of product price is the result of taxation passed along to consumers. You may be saying that if the FairTax was implemented, the $100 item would now cost $130. Perhaps on day 1 as corporations try and exploit society. However, corporations will see the removal of this 22% inclusive tax currently in their products and begin competing on price. Eventually, market pressure will drive their product to a point in which it is level with the previous “real” price. The $100 product will see a price drop to near its theoretical real price of $78. Add in your 30% tax and you’re right back to paying $100 and some change. The authors cite examples and economic theorists to support this “drop in price” of products so our purchasing power is not removed. It will not result as a tax on the current price which includes 22% of inclusive tax already as they state.

Great, we are ok still. We will still pay the exact same amount for products over time and the government still gets their money. This is a short article so I’m not going to go into great detail about how the entire FairTax reform works, but they do have a valid argument. Personally, I believe a consumption tax places the power in the rightful hands. These hands are the consumer, the individual American, and the wage earner. Currently, the power resides in the halls of Congress and our government. We have seen how this power has completely disrupted our taxation laws and rules and our Congress and government are not the most fiscally responsible group to depend on (have you seen the deficits they run?). The money we make should be placed in our hands. ALL of the money we work for. We will still purchase goods and services and a consumption tax is a great way to fund our government without using the phantom withholding tax.

Think about that. You can now decide where your money goes. You are in control of how much tax you pay. If you want to pay fewer taxes, purchase less stuff. If you want to save more, have at it. You are in control because you control your purchase behavior. Currently, the government is in control of your money and you get a percentage to then buy what you want and need and even then, every single product you buy is passing on MORE tax to you. Your effective purchasing power is much less than you might think. However, there are issues with the FairTax. If the prices drop for goods, won’t wages decrease since corporations and business no longer need to pay taxes? Possibly. If there is an influx of money into the economy, won’t we see inflation rise? Possibly. I’m not saying the FairTax is perfect, but it is a very good platform that can be utilized to reform our current failure of a tax platform. The FairTax reform needs in depth study by the economic community and also the government to decide if this could be a “real life” alternative.

Everyone knows we need change, and I believe the FairTax is the most viable alternative to our current withholding system. As with any change, there will be a great debate between the pros and cons and the majority of what you hear will be lies and misdirection. But, we must find an agreeable solution or our taxation laws and rules will end up in chaos (are we far from that now?). People seem to think the IRS and government are too big to take on with such a sweeping new system. The ability to have an income tax wasn’t even in existence until the 16^th Amendment which was passed in 1913. It’s less than 100 years old but people think we cannot change it. If we changed it then, we can change it now. It just takes voter strength and patriotism. We can find a better way and the FairTax is the fork in the road to finding a better way.

Over the last few years, bookstore shelves have started to turn up a variety of books that fit the bill of “Behavioral Economics.” These new economists and theorists have begun to utilize the economic mindset to analyze society and the choices we make. During my college career in pursuit of my degree in economics, I realized the impact of economics in our day to day decision making. I am very happy to see this “behavioral” world being tapped and receiving support via book sales and websites. Probably the most well known book that was written in this genre is “Freakonomics” by Steven D. Levitt. His book and associated website have generated millions of readers and their thirst for knowledge has resulted in more economists mining the behavioral side of our world.

In reality, behavioral economics comes down to common sense. However, common sense sometimes evades the popular theory because we like to think everything is more complicated than it appears. There always has to be a convoluted reason for various actions to take place. It can’t be as simple as common sense, can it? For the most part, common sense is the key and behavioral economics displays that fact. I’ve always said, just like the statement from the book, that almost EVERY decision we make in our life is determined by the cost versus benefit rule. Usually, the cost/benefit revolves around money, but it doesn’t have to. Emotional pain, happiness, and other feelings can also be part of the cost/benefit analysis. Other things such as respect, power, and pride can be factors in choice making. Again, this is all common sense. But as I stated earlier, people just cannot seem to wrap their mind around decision making being so simple.

If you boil decision making down on any subject, the vast majority of your decisions will be made in a way that benefits your personal self more than what the costs are. The benefits may not even be readily visible to people on the outside looking in because only the person making the choice knows which factors created the greatest benefit in the equation. Happiness is worth more to some people than others when compared to money. Respect may mean more than power in an equation. Potential emotional pain may outweigh any potential monetary benefit. These are all unquantifiable factors on the outside, but the person making the decision places value on each. This is economic decision making at the core of how we proceed in our lives.

However, there are factors that come into play which throw the entire equation on its head. How can that be when we make decisions directly benefiting us more than costs? People have different versions of what benefit truly is. People who have strong religious beliefs or moral and ethical boundaries tend to make decisions that apparently cost them more than it benefits them in our physical world. These people are willing to sacrifice their individual benefits for a payoff in another form. They make decisions out of charity, faith, and belief they are doing the right things. They accept their decision and fully understand the cost/benefit analysis. However, upon further look, even these people are following the cost/benefit analysis. They are sacrificing something up front for a payoff in another form in the end. This payoff after the fact, is worth more to them than the immediate benefit of choosing a different path.

So, we are back to the statement from the book. He says “virtually every feature.” I believe the author has followed the rule, “Never say never.” As I stated above, even the person who appears to violate the cost/benefit analysis is actually following the rule in the end. Sure, there are irrational people who blatantly do the opposite of what their personal analysis guides them to do. I’m not so sure even they are violating the rule. Since they are irrational in the fact they appear to be costing themselves more than their benefits, they are more than likely irrationally receiving benefits in their mind which rational individuals do not understand. Since feelings and other factors cannot be quantified, each individual decision is subjective to their internal analysis. Common sense rules in the rational world.

Economics has long been thought of as a boring science. However, it is far from it when applied to our lives. If you take a step back and evaluate some of the decisions you have made, you will see how the cost/benefit rule dictates how you move forward in life. Take it a step farther. As you make decisions today, keep your mind open to your current decision making process. Most of the time, cost is determined by money, time, and happiness. Those are the easy ones we make. However, when faced with a difficult decision, many other factors come into play and these are the ones that create stress in our lives. We begin to include far too many factors in our decision making process because we want to be thorough and complex. I believe our decision making can be made easier if we follow the best result from this question: Are we helping people/family with our decision or are we hurting them? Answer that question and you’ll be better off. If you are hurting people with your decision making, then your cost/benefit analysis is irrational and broken.

Up until this point, I was fully expecting a book from Jesse explaining his stances on issues and how our current political system could be corrected by injecting some new free thinking and alternative viewpoints into the mix. Larry King has a statement on the cover, “If you’re talking outspoken, unconventional, and no-holds-barred, you’re talking Jesse Ventura.” From the interview on the Tonight Show, to the product placement of his book in the bookstore, and from the promotional material for the book, I was expecting an insightful book about how to change politics from the inside. Jesse is a very forthright individual and he speaks his mind. I was expecting a book giving solutions from his point of view. I was expecting a book explaining why the independent party should be taken seriously and worthy of society’s vote. I was expecting, well, a political book. Halfway through the book, it’s not.

While Jesse does have his moments in the book so far, overall, it’s basically a “memoirish” type book with some anecdotes about the political system. He devotes the majority of text to remembrances of his days as Governor of Minnesota and different situations that arose from his “out of nowhere” victory. The subject fodder for the first 150 pages of 300 is what I would expect in his first book. His life and where he came from and “all that jazz” is rudimentary information reserved for your first time readers who need to figure out who the individual is. This is the 4^th book, not the 1^st. I will continue to read the book in hopes that the remaining 150 pages offer what I was looking for as far as political viewpoints, but I’m not going to hold my breath. However, I have run across a few tidbits of information that I want to write about today.

First off, Jesse mentions on more than a couple of occasions his past experience with the military and his membership in the Navy SEALs. We learn that Jesse is a formidable man both physically and mentally. He has the tools necessary to accomplish what he sets his mind to. He likes people to know about his past as a “feared” man. On this particular topic, he openly threatens the CIA who he believes were “tailing” him during a trip to Cuba. He said the next time people were following him without advance knowledge they would be “floating in the river.” This occurred during his service as Governor. He was a public official threatening the lives of government employees. Is that acceptable? As an individual, we protect our self interests and if our health or family is in danger, we have the right to protect ourselves. However, a simple “tail” does not warrant a threat against the lives of others when there was no direct danger. Jesse utilized his physical and past stature to “scare” people because everyone knew he was capable with his training. Are public officials supposed to be people we are scared of?

Another topic of discussion he mentions is his deep rooted respect for Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara. Che was a devout supporter of the Marxist doctrine and guerilla leader during the 50’s and 60’s. He was also part of the overthrow of Cuba which allowed Fidel Castro to assume power. Che was eventually caught while trying to instigate a revolution in Bolivia and executed. Yes, many people view Che as someone to be respected. Nelson Mandela even says Che is “an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom.” While I have great respect for Nelson Mandela and his undying support for his beliefs, I’m not quite sure we can respect Guevara for his love of “freedom.” Show me the concept of freedom within the Marxist/Communist doctrine. The type of leadership Guevara supported was not of the freedom kind. Dictatorship and tyrants are the results of Che’s support. It is ok to respect someone for giving their life completely for what they believe in, but it is not ok to romanticize someone completely against what the United States stands for.

If Jesse is looking for a hero who was willing to give his life for what he believed in, there are many within our own country. To name a few: Washington, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, JFK, and also every single military man and woman who have given their lives to protect our freedom. Jesse states he has a mirror in his bathroom with Che’s image in it. Every day he gets up, he faces the mirror with his image within. Personally, that doesn’t sit well with me. While I agree that Che gave everything he had in his support of what he believed was right, it is not the doctrine of the United States of America. We are the land of the free and we are not supporters of the Marxist doctrine. If Jesse supported such a doctrine, he would have never been “elected” in the first place. Our public officials showing support for guerilla leaders supporting Communism is not the best choice.

“Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me” leaves me feeling unsatisfied at this point. While I believe our nation is in dire need of a political revolution, Jesse has not offered any substantial solution. He offers us one off solutions even he knows are not practical or realistic answers. One such answer was his recommendation to President Clinton on how to force peace between Israel and Palestine. He recommended to Clinton that we should just have a computer “glitch” which happens to drop a few bombs on the “hill” they are fighting over and destroy it. He puts forth the analogy that if you remove the toy from two kids fighting over it, they will not be fighting anymore. The “hill” Jesse is speaking of is rooted in religious ideology since the dawn of time. It is not an object or a trinket or toy that can be easily removed. This “hill” the Israelis and Palestinians are fighting over has such meaning in their lives they will readily give their lives for its protection.

Once again, Jesse was an elected official offering this “solution” to our President. Is that ok? Absolutely no it is not ok. Jesse does have valid and rational arguments for some issues our society faces, but overall, he is very much an “independent.” Jesse is a breath of fresh air, but he is not the wave of political change we need. We need change from people with rational viewpoints that will help society. We do not need elected officials who willingly threaten people, support Communist guerilla leaders, and who believes “inadvertently” blowing up a hill can solve an issue. Our nation needs a third party to run against our two incumbent parties. Competition always creates a better product. The political parties are no different. However, that third party has to be a viable option and Jesse and his independent party is not that.

That’s about all I have for a book review, it’s a pretty cut and dry subject. If you are interested in blogging, buy it. So what does the topic have to do with this book? Not much really, but there was a statement contained within that I believe can be related to our daily lives. The authors cite a usability study performed by Jakob Nielsen which reports “90% of online community-users are lurkers (read or observe without contributing), with only 9% of users contributing “a little” and 1% actively contributing.” Great, but what does that have to do with life outside of Internet community usage? My theory is this: People are not only actively contributing 1% of their time online, but they are only actively contributing 1% of their time in the real world.

Well that seems like a huge chasm to bridge doesn’t it? Or does it? People live their lives a certain way and along with that, everything they do follows a similar pattern in how they contribute their time. It’s not a long bridge or leap of faith here. People are habitual and if they are inactive in society, they will be inactive in almost everything they are involved in. If a person is very active in life, they will bring their level of enthusiasm to everything they do. This is a case where there isn’t a middle ground as shown by Jakob’s research. 90% of people fail to contribute to the online community. In a normal bell curve, you would expect the percentage to be much closer to middle. But, it’s not. Why? The answer is because people are not actively contributing in their real lives. Each and every one of you can take a quick look around you and think about those you know or even think about yourself and readily see the lack of commitment our society has for active contribution.

Each time an election comes up, everyone talks about voter turnout. It seems that as our country ages, our population is less concerned about how our votes impact our government. We are “happy” with 60% turnout. That is terrible. We should never have less than 90% turnout for a vote affecting our society from the federal all the way down to the local level. Our apathetic society is actively NOT contributing, not just online, but in everyday life. The report above is just a simple illustration of just how far our apathy has infected what we do. So, let’s ease it a bit and include the other 9% of “sometimes” contributors. That gives us a whopping 10% of people who are willing to engage their mind in some sort of discussion. Does that mean that the other 90% already know everything and have nothing to contribute? Of course it doesn’t. We all have something to contribute whether it is physical or mental contribution.

Are you a one percenter? Are you part of the 10%? Or are you part of the 90% who slide by and offer no input to society? I am personally in the 1% of active contributors in most everything I do. I cannot sit idly by and “let” things happen to me. I will admit that in my younger years, I was all about being a part of the 90% lurker community. It is so much easier to hold back and not contribute. Your mind is much less stressed. Everyday life is easier because you know the other 10% will take care of what needs to be done. You can depend on those people worrying about the “greater good.” It comes down to one simple fact. People choose to contribute because it’s necessary. Without active contributors in our world, our society would cease to exist. The efforts of those active contributors are serving more than just the individual. The contributions carry over to the sometime contributors and lurkers in life.

Lurkers are riding piggy back. The contributors of society are of course providing the ride. How can we get more people to move from lurker to contributor? Is there an incentive for switching sides? Yes, there is an incentive, but it’s not monetary. The incentive is in knowing that you can, as an individual, contribute to society and make things better for more than just yourself. If everyone chose to be a contributor, the time and effort of those contributing would actually be less because more people would be shouldering the load. Right now, we have a few carrying many. We could reverse that and have many carrying a few.

The question remains, how can we motivate people to switch their alliance? With no money, promotion, etc as a reward for creating more “work” for yourself, why would you choose to switch sides and make your life more difficult when everything is going ok as it is? The above incentive of self satisfaction is not enough for most otherwise we wouldn’t have 10% contributing to society. There has to be something else to motivate our society. I believe it comes down to something I like to call basic training. When we were young, we were taught right from wrong. We learned about our moral and ethical makeup. We had the innocence of being young. These basic lessons of life are evident in contributors. Somewhere, between being young and being an adult, we have lost our need to contribute. Was it taught to us along the line? Did our environment make it ok to accept being apathetic?

We must return to our roots. Bring back our willingness to step out of the shelter of lurker life and join those who are pushing us forward. Without contribution, we will go nowhere. What happens when the backs break of those our society is living on? What happens when the contributors decide they have had enough? Will there be anyone there to take their place? If we begin living our lives with our basic training in mind, we can all become active contributors to society and our lives will be rewarded in many ways that money cannot buy. Don’t sit on the sidelines anymore. Become part of that 1% and grow it by choosing the engage rather than lurk.

For a little background so everyone isn’t lost on the subject, Jose Canseco was a professional baseball player from around the mid 1980’s to around 2000. He had a great career and he accomplished what no other baseball player had EVER done in 1988 by hitting 40 home runs and stealing 40 bases in the same season. He was the initial 40-40 club member. Imagine that, out of the thousands upon thousands of baseball players up until that year, nobody had accomplished that goal. That’s a pretty significant feat. However, Canseco was always followed by rumors of utilizing performance enhancing drugs, which were either illegal by US law or banned by sports jurisdictions. In the first tell all book, he explained that yes, he was on steroids and other forms of performance drugs to alter his performance. He wanted to be the best and he was willing to do anything and everything it took to reach that peak.

After his first book was ridiculed and dismissed by every “knowledgeable” insider and pundit, the Mitchell report was funded and over 20 months of investigation, found that there was actually truth in what Canseco had written about. Really? Wow! Major League Baseball has now instituted various drug testing policies and penalties to help curtail the usage of all kinds of illicit drugs as well as performance enhancing drugs of most any kind. Most that is. Testing is also a touchy subject and has a variety of loop holes. That’s an entire other story though. Firstly, Canseco was dismissed as a reject, a guy looking for revenge. Now, just a few short years later, people are coming to him as a material witness and insider with pertinent information on the subject and wish to talk and listen to his knowledge of just what was happening behind the closed clubhouse doors in MLB.

What a difference a nationally funded report can do right? MLB and all the sports reporters who dismissed Canseco before must have thought the public were nothing more than lemmings. People somehow just believed that baseball players could magically transform themselves from lean and quick players to behemoth linebacker substitutes over a winter of strength conditioning? The only people with the curtains over their eyes were the officials of MLB. The public knew which players were juicing. However, that didn’t make a difference. The public enjoyed the massive home run shows we were entertained with throughout the 1995-2005 seasons. These shows brought people through the turn stiles. They also brought in massive amounts of revenue in jersey sales, ticket sales, and paraphernalia sales. A blind eye was turned to the players because the money was flowing, the baseball strike was forgotten and everything was great again. It was the great American past time once again.

However, how can an institution glorified for being a true American past time allow its players to succumb to such a travesty of using drugs to make them better? They knew and they allowed it. Everyone vilifies the players and blackballs them in the media, but I say the owners and organizers of baseball should be held even more accountable. Their excuse is that the chemicals were not banned during “x” years and thus were “legal.” I say no, not even close. The United States laws classified steroids as illegal. Just because a company doesn’t explicitly ban these substances doesn’t make them immune to US law. That’s beyond my comprehension to use as a valid argument. Illegal for you and I also makes it illegal for everyone, yes, even a baseball player.

Jose Canseco should be sorry and held accountable for his use of illegal substances, but he should not be dismissed as a lunatic looking for fame. He knows the story. He lived the story. He brought the story to us. We should listen to him and then utilize the information to further track down the true story behind what has undermined baseball and its record books. It’s a sad day when you look at your hometown baseball hero and wonder, “Is he on steroids?”

Current and past topics, sports, comedy, religious, it doesn’t matter what topic.  Anything and everything will be a potential candidate to be read and discussed here.  As stated, I am also open to suggestions from readers regarding content and I will try and find the book to read and review.  Reading and reviewing various books will help open our minds to strive for alternate avenues of learning and development.  I hope that by reviewing books, it will encourage some of us to read books we normally would not and enjoy different topics that we have bypassed in our normal lives.

I’m looking forward to our journey ahead.