Upon first glance at that sentence, I would imagine we all turn our focus to an external enemy… an enemy from across the shores, a physical and political enemy. However, I believe the enemy is actually our own citizens within our society today. O’Reilly wrote this knowing that and has identified the threat as an entity he labels the “Secular Progressives” or S-P for short. I will label this segment of our society as our “insurgents.”

Yes, I label them with such drastic measure because the effects of their ultra liberal policies destroy the basic American moral values which we were founded upon. The American insurgency, aka insurrectionists or secessionists in my opinion, are looking to change the landscape into that of total anarchy. Our way of life, if they have their way, will change forever into something that could split the nation in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. No longer is slavery or women’s rights at stake, our nation’s moral and ethical value system is at stake.

Fighting for our individual rights is one thing, fighting for the continued life of our nation is another. The insurgents are pushing policies which are held by a very small percentage of our society. However, that percentage is growing and is funded by some of the wealthiest people in America. They have the ability to get their message out because they are in de facto control of the nation’s media outlets. They control the television air waves, a large portion of the radio waves, and have created propaganda spewing internet sites which are in place to lure unsuspecting youth into their control.

This is not a fight of Republican versus Democrat. It is not a fight between Conservatives and Liberals. This is a fight between the standard American citizen who holds our moral and ethical value set close to their heart and those who wish to remove all moral and ethical standards while replacing them with what is by default, chaos and anarchy.

Over 80% of our nation’s citizens consider themselves Christians. As such, they are bound by certain basic moral and ethical standards. If our nation has its moral and ethical standards destroyed by a small, but extremely powerful insurgency, expect a revolution by those who wish to uphold what the United States of America stands for.

Creating a society where anarchy and chaos rules serves two major purposes… greed and selfishness. If there are no moral and ethical rules to follow, what exactly is there to keep the average human being in line other than a basic understanding of what is right and wrong? And even then, right and wrong can be argued and litigated until wrong is right and right is wrong. Our society will simply focus on individual satisfaction at all costs because it’s our “right.”

Do we need the government to uphold our standard moral and ethical views? Do we need laws in place to tell us how to live correctly? It appears that we do because if the insurgents had their way, our country would already be in chaos. No longer does it appear that we have the innate sense to know what is right and wrong while living in society. No longer does it appear that we can govern ourselves in a free society effectively as the insurgents continue to gain power. No longer does it appear that we know how to live without greed and selfishness.

In the end, the country will make a decision. Will those of us who stand for something greater than the individual stand up for our country or will we simply allow the insurgency decide for us how to live our lives? I’m not telling you to stand up and start a militia in preparation for a revolution, I am telling you to use the most powerful tool in your arsenal… your vote. Yes, we just finished one our biggest elections, but it never stops. Speak up, write letters, attend a rally, do something other than allow the insurgents have their way because we are too lazy or pacified. They are the weaker force… we must band together and stop them before it’s too late. At that point in time, we may be beyond the simple casting a vote phase and into a full blown revolution.

The American way of life is worth fighting for. No, not the “American life” of greed and selfishness, but the way of life our forefathers fought and died to protect. If we do our part, our country can be reclaimed and once again be that shining beacon of hope to all who want freedom.

Following the title, the book proudly states “The investment guide the Anti-Christ doesn’t want you to read.” Here’s a short excerpt from the book: “…how to exploit the inevitable demise of the world in order to make a tidy profit. Sure, the rivers and seas will run with blood, locusts will swarm, mountains will move all over the place, and famine will strike. But for the five billion of us left behind, the post-Rapture world will be a time of even more unique investment opportunities.”

The writers achieved two things in my case. Number one, they created a book which interested me enough to pick up and revel in complete wonderment about how this pair of authors actually received payment to write such a book. Number two, they made me feel complete disgust towards them and their willingness to prey upon such a topic.

Oh, but it’s a book meant to be sarcastic, or funny even you may say… that’s fine and that’s your point of view. My point of view is much different. Maybe we should write a sarcastic and funny book about paraplegics or other disabled people. Maybe we should write a book about how to make money off the autistic children of our society. Maybe we should write a funny book about how terrorists continually murder innocent people. Different subject matter, but still not a funny topic… am I right? What exactly is funny about the Rapture in the eyes of the faithful Christian? Nothing.

People have made fun of religion since the dawn of time, but there are times when I think sarcasm and wit go a bit too far. This is one of those instances. Each and every situation in our world can be exploited to make money off of, but is it the right thing to do? Is it even right to write about it? Is it right to entertain such ideas even in a joking manner?

I have a problem with the publishers pursuing such a book let alone the writers conceiving and following through on their idea. Has our country become so desensitized that nothing is out of bounds when facing the all mighty profit motive? Has our daily life become so commoditized that nothing is sacred? As I have stated before, America still considers itself a Christian nation. When did we find it ok to make fun of it?

Everything is fun and games as long as it makes money right? I personally love comedy and sarcasm, but this particular book has put me in awe. Next thing we know, I’ll see a book about how to make millions by selling bread and rice to the starving in Africa. But hey, it’s a sarcastic and funny book… you must have missed the point. No, the point is that the subject matter isn’t funny and never will be no matter what looking glass you are peering through. Some things are best left to your inner voice and never allowed to see the public view.

Targets can be a crude way to look at the results of “warfare,” but in reality, people are simply targets while at war. People are a portion of the infrastructure. Bridges, buildings, armaments, communication lines, and people… they are all targets from a military perspective. The United States and other NATO allies choose to separate civilians from military personnel. Our enemies however, do not. Civilian life from their perspective is just a part of the overall military target.

The enemy’s point of view concludes that civilians are at fault for paying taxes that support the war machine or they are by default born into an enemy society and therefore must pay for its transgressions against their way of life. No civilian is free from blame in their point of view. Therefore, suicide bombers who destroy civilian lives are in fact, freedom fighters in their mind. They have been taught this from birth. Their religion supports this and their history only strengthens their points of view.

From our perspective, killing innocent civilians is against our moral code. We believe the fight is with the military and the leadership, not the standard man, woman, child, and elderly person not taking up arms. From their perspective, the enemy is at fault because of their nationality or belief. They believe in killing anyone who does not believe what they believe by any means necessary.

Suicide bombers killing civilians are treated as heroes in their culture. Their families are “blessed” and they receive monetary rewards for such actions. They are in fact, the ultimate freedom fighter in their minds. How can a human being of any nationality or religion subscribe to this blatantly insane doctrine? Human nature involves sympathy for one another. We all have a mother and a father. We all experience relationships with other human beings in our lives. How can an entire culture simply lose sight of the fact that murdering innocent civilians, including women and children, is wrong no matter what you believe? Simply put, it is just morally wrong.

I believe the nations who support and promote suicide bombers as being freedom fighters have allowed their religion to be hijacked by terrorists who are using their faith against them for their own personal gain. Using their faith is the key. They are giving them the ultimate key to their spiritual safety by twisting religion into a radical “get out of jail free” card. Religion and faith is so deeply rooted within their society that they are blindly led by their maniacal leaders. They have simply lost focus on the fact that what they are doing and supporting is morally wrong.

Military action is one thing… destroying innocent civilian life, on purpose, is something insanely different. Terrorists rely upon their faith and religion to justify their actions against civilian life. How can you combat that? Generations upon generations have been led down this path and they continue to grow in size. Until the moderate and true leaders among their society come to the forefront, the radical terrorist spiritual leaders will continue to undermine their nations and the bloodshed will continue. Freedom fighter can never equal suicide bomber when civilians are the targets.

Not long ago, Today was fairly well respected and their hosts performed several pertinent interviews with heads of state, high ranking officials, and many other people who have impacted our country through the news. Now, we get interviews with socialites, actors promoting movies, authors promoting books, and just the general topic of the day or “National Enquirer” type news. This week, our country’s economic crisis has been the number one factor weighing on our collective conscience. On top of that, the final Presidential debate was scheduled and held midweek.

Well, I’ll give it to Today, they did interview the Treasury Secretary in a much needed look into the government’s stance on our economic condition… for all of about two minutes. What other pressing news relegated this particular interview to such a minimal effort? Try a “major event” involving one of the Flying Wallendas performing a death defying stunt live on The Today Show. I gave up counting the minutes attributed to this breaking news story which put to shame the importance of our economic crisis not to mention the Presidential debate later that evening.

I know television shows need ratings and there usually isn’t enough news to fill three hours of time with specific and important information. But, when did The Today Show become NBC’s version of E!? I’m sick and tired of actors hocking their latest movie on the show, listening to socialites speak about their lives, and hearing nonsense interviews with the latest 15 minutes of fame people. If The Today Show had access to the Treasury Secretary, they should have appropriated more time for such an important segment of the show. Sure, they gave the debate some minor attention, but just enough to say they did.

I guess I just have higher standards associated with The Today Show than they do for themselves. In the past, I remember Bryant Gumbel interviewing sitting Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc. I remember Katie Couric doing several important interviews. Matt Lauer has even had his fair share. However, for every one of those segments these days, we are treated with a multitude of interviews with Paris Hilton talking about her latest “funny or die” video. Or we are treated with an interview about the latest Harry Potter book. We are even given special access to gourmet chefs and cooks so we can work on some great recipes for our family.

How do these subjects fit together: interviews with heads of state, actor interviews pitching their latest movie, authors hocking their latest book, concerts featuring the latest music releases, record setting events, cooking segments, and general news reporting? That is the state of The Today Show these days. It’s a smorgasbord of bullet point information. I said information, not news.

If they want a “Regis and Kathie Lee” show, then do a talk show. Stop trying to keep the “rep” up by trying to look important with sparse amounts of important interviews which are given miniscule time segments. Maybe I’m expecting too much out of the show, but when you have the public’s attention and are given special access to important guests who have important information regarding critical issues, they should be given the primary time slots and catered too.

I’m still in awe that I know more about the Flying Wallendas than I do about what the Treasury Secretary is doing to help our country’s economic crisis. They had him in person, in an interview, and gave him two minutes… sad and with a complete lack of direction. The Today Show has deteriorated into the Oprah show of the morning.

We are all subject to a certain level of mind control. Whether it is spoken words, print media, or television, media has always grasped the fact that our minds are available for potential direction and cajoling. Throw in our needs to fit in and we have created a fertile ground for the seeds of control to grow. Most of the time, the controlling nature of media is very subtle. The goal is to “train” us over time and generate a predicted outcome from society. However, there are times when immediate action is sought after. This is where we see extremists in our media “pushing our buttons.” Provocative reports, fear mongering, and violence on television provide the necessary means for pushing the public in certain directions.

Think about it, how do you react to certain cues when you are watching television, listening to the radio, or reading a book? I’m sure there are times that you feel the absolute need to immediately say something to someone. Media is looking for a reaction, they are counting upon it. Sometimes, you may even decide to change the channel, turn the station, or just stop reading a certain book. You may even walk away from a public speech if you are so inclined. This is the process of “weeding out” people who are not agreeable to certain cues. The remaining public however is what they are looking for. They now have a receptive audience who they can utilize additional mind control techniques on. Mind control within the formation of a small society.

Do you know of any societies such as these? I’m sure you do, they exist in our everyday lives and come in all shapes and sizes. There are groups that become quite large and can exact pressure at our highest levels of government. Our two political parties are an example of mind controlling methods at work. Through print, television, and other forms of media, they create a community of “like minded” individuals and work towards adding more to their group. Originally, the intent was to work towards achieving what was best for the country and everyone within it. Now, the goal seems to have become a race for power and money and not necessarily what is best for the individual voters.

Everyone is susceptible to various forms of mind control. It’s in our human nature. Knowing this, we have to be wary of the intent behind what is going on around us and we must ask ourselves if we are truly making up our own mind or are we being led down a predetermined path designed by the media? We will still be affected by our environment, but we can limit the effectiveness of the tools being used against us.

Personally, I try and fight the methods of control by choosing to experience multiple viewpoints. I do not stick to watching a certain news channel. I don’t read a specific author and similar agreeable content. I listen to alternate viewpoints. I do this on purpose, even if the content infuriates me. I have made a choice to open my mind’s horizons by doing such things. Too often, groups of people choose to disregard anything that could possibly be opposite of how they think and they are falling into a trap. They are falling into the mind controlling tools of their society. Without experiencing opposite viewpoints, the mind will only continue down the path of what is known, until some enlightening experience should come along. We’ve all seen it. Groups of people become like each other over time. Why else would parents want to make sure we keep our kids away from the “bad apples?”

To go back to books being a mind control object similar to television, we are missing one important aspect of television when compared to books. Television comes with instant visual and sound cues along with the content. Books require the mind to create the environment within. The simple fact of television displaying the environment to us desensitizes us to our environment. Viewing violence and bad behavior carries with it a much more profound effect upon us than reading and creating a fictional world in our minds. Yes, television is mostly fiction, but society places undue emphasis on the television “reality.” We speak of television as if it were real, we assume because it’s on television, people act that way and it’s acceptable. Television infiltrates millions more of our minds than a single book designed for mind control could ever hope to achieve.

Television is a ubiquitous medium that affects everyone. Reading is limited to those who choose to read. Usually, the people choosing to read are more adept at distinguishing mind control tools. People who read are statistically proven to be on average smarter than those who do not. The general concept of mind control can be thought of as simple “gang mentality.” Focus on the weaker individuals, give them something to grasp onto, and create a community of likeminded individuals. Gangs are the epitome of mind control at work.

In summing up, sure, books can be devices of mind control. But to think books are at the same level of mind control as television is incorrect in my opinion. Television creates a fictional “reality” which people place value upon. Books create a fictional world inside the mind of the individual and this world will be vastly different from reader to reader. Television desensitizes our society where books generally expand our knowledge (yes, even fiction). We can create road blocks to mind control techniques the media uses by making appropriate choices in how we interpret our environment. We must also open our minds to alternative viewpoints or we will risk walking the path like the lemmings they want and believe us to be.

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.”

One of the greatest tricks of the trade in running for President in the United States has become writing a book prior to running which will establish media frenzy and affix a bright spotlight on the up and coming politician. John McCain has five books published under his belt. The first coming in August 1999 (he announced his running for President in September 1999) and the last coming in August 2007 (we already knew he was running at this time). McCain is no stranger to this gimmick. Where does Obama stand? Unless you have lived with no access to television, newspaper, or radio, you probably know he released his first book, “Audacity of Hope,” in October 2006. Barack announced his running for President in May, 2007 (his book has sold well over one million copies). Gimmick number one, publishing a book to instigate attention and hope, tied 1 to 1.

Let’s go to another tried and true method of “gimmickry.” I’m not sure how old everyone is out there or how much they paid attention to the Arsenio Hall show “back in the day,” but one of the greatest highlights from his show involved Presidential candidate Bill Clinton “performing” on his show. Clinton, in June of 1992, utilized the popularity of the Arsenio show with younger voters to reach a demographic which helped him win the 1992 Presidential election. Gimmicky yes, but highly effective. Has anything happened comparable to this in our current campaign? Why yes, and I happened to watch it live. Barack Obama, “danced” his way to daytime stardom on the quite popular “Ellen” show. McCain was given the opportunity to dance on Ellen but chose to walk instead. Ellen, 2008’s version of the Arsenio show, played a part in putting Obama ahead 2 to 1 in the gimmick race.

Moving on to point number three, Obama has recently pursued the ideology that if Americans were more efficient with our automobiles, that we could affect our energy crisis at home. There is not one single person I have read or talked to that disputes efficiency creating savings when it comes to gas mileage, it is true. But, to base a portion of your national energy plan on efficiency of tire pressures and car maintenance is absurd. Sure, there will be savings, but not enough to create the drop of multiple percentage points in demand on 20 million barrels of oil per day the United States currently uses. On the other hand, Obama calls McCain’s support of potential off shore drilling a gimmick. Tire pressure gauges and Jiffy Lube stops are in fact a gimmick. Off shore drilling, while not the best solution, is most definitely not a gimmick. The current standings are Obama 3 and McCain 1.

My last look at gimmickry in our current campaign involves something just announced. Barack Obama, the likely next President of the United States, announced that he will inform the world of his most important political choice since his decision to run for President via text messages on cell phones or an email. There is a nice sign up form on his site which allows you to input your contact information to, and I quote, “Be the First to Know. Barack is about to choose a running mate, and he wants you to know first. You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be part of this important moment. “ Great use of technology which the demographic he must win utilizes as a lifeline to their world. Viral and gimmicky, maybe this should be worth double gimmick points. Have you heard of any such information coming from the McCain campaign headquarters? No. We are now up to Obama 4, McCain 1 on the gimmick score.

If I took the time, I could continue this article focused on campaign gimmickry and I’m sure McCain’s number would increase. But I do not think he could ever “hope” to surpass the effective gimmick utilization Obama has seemed to have perfected. I’ve learned to apply the old saying, albeit crude, of “He who smelt it, dealt it” to politicians. If you hear someone criticizing the opponent on something, more than likely, he is doing the same thing and probably did it first. The idea is to deflect attention to the opponent and away from you. Get all of the hot button issues focused on the other guy so you can join the side promising change. We all know that politicians promise change in every single campaign, that’s nothing new. That is just another gimmick. Politicians want change, but only change which makes them more important. The change we need is the exact opposite. Our politicians need, and deserve, less importance.

Obama has flaunted his ability to verbally defuse attacks and statements about his campaign (see the Reverend Wright fiasco here). He has chosen to deflect the gimmick tag by stamping McCain and his campaign with it, often. As I mentioned before, I don’t think Obama has the right accuse anyone of using gimmicks when the majority of his campaign and media time is littered with gimmicks. What does that say for us, the American public? Everyone assumes Obama will be our next President and rightfully so considering the data overwhelmingly shows he is ahead in almost every poll imaginable. But, where is the substance to his campaign? We all know our public votes with very little research into the candidates and media campaigns largely affect voting segments (swift boat anyone?). Gimmicks are easy, they are effective, and they hit the mark every time with the demographic you are shooting for.

Barack’s winning of the 2008 Presidential election revolves around securing the votes of the younger generation and his gimmicks are aimed squarely at them. We hear about McCain being “old” and “more of the same.” We hear about Barack writing books hitting number one on the bestseller list and offering information via the latest technology and being “hip” on television. Tell me, what does any of that have to do with being President of the United States? I want someone who I can believe in, someone who has morals and ethics, someone we can depend on during a crisis. I don’t want a “He who smelt it, dealt it” President. I want someone who has the backbone to stand up for what is right for our country. The change we need is not political party change. We need real citizens running this country who would die for the United States because it is the right thing to do, and not lifelong trained politicians. Change we need, gimmicks we do not.

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?

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.