poetics.info » Life Itself

The Message I Got from Gladwell’s ‘Outliers’: Don’t Give Up

Allison Taylor — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:25:28 +0000

I just finished listening to Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers: The Story of Success, which is really the story of extraordinary success—the kind that lies outside the bell curve, the kind achieved by Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, or the Beatles.

I had been meaning to listen to Outliers for a while now because I really enjoyed Gladwell’s other books, Blink and Tipping Point. Gladwell has a gift for storytelling. He is one of the few non-fiction authors I know of who can create a feeling of suspense usually only experienced with fiction. (Jon Krakauer is another example.)

Gladwell’s books are largely about connecting patterns in human behavior (patterns we don’t always recognize) in an attempt to find correlations that expand our understanding of the world. He enjoys questioning the basic assumptions we make about ourselves and about others, and challenging us to see things differently. He doesn’t always present enough evidence to prove his hypotheses, but he lets the fieldwork of other psychologists and social scientists lead him closer to answering some of the more bewildering psychosocial questions of our day.

As I listened to Outliers, I found myself both fascinated and slightly offended. He is, after all, openly attacking the American idea of rugged individualism, the idea of a self-made man—the protagonist of the classic rags to riches story. Instead of an innate gift, he argues, extraordinary success is almost always the result of an equally extraordinary opportunity made available to the achiever.

Now, the achiever still must work hard and be prepared to seize upon the opportunity. Chance, as Louis Pasteur observed, does tend to favor the prepared mind. But, as Gladwell argues, extraordinary success can often be traced to a series of remarkable opportunities that resulted from somewhat random circumstances, like date and place of birth, parenting practices, family connections, socio-economic status, laws of the land, cultural norms and traditions, etc. The achievers are often unaware that the opportunities afforded to them could lead on to greatness. They seize upon a relatively small opportunity, such as the chance to practice playing music seven days a week for eight or more hours a day (as the Beatles did in Hamburg, Germany) and their hard work (literally thousands and thousands of hours of practice) pays off big.

That’s not to say choices, hard work, and innate talent don’t have prominent roles in success—Gladwell admits they do—but he wants us to see that external circumstances also play an important, if not equal, role. In other words, we are just as much products of our environment as we are our nature. As a result, the brightest among us sometimes fail through a lack of opportunity rather than lack of talent. If we can understand how our environments sometimes thwart the most talented (or potentially talented), maybe we can enable more people to reach greater levels of success. We do have more control over our environment than we do our nature.

A child who misses the January 1st cutoff date but who is born during the earlier months may gain as much as 10 to 11 extra months of practicing and growing before joining the age-class league. Naturally, the older players born January through March tend to stand out as better players. Hockey playing, of course, does not have that great of an impact on quality of life, but what about when such random factors influence a child’s educational opportunities?

Gladwell offers similar examples throughout the book and makes a fairly compelling case for what some people might call “luck.” Bill Gates, he points out, had access to a mainframe computer in 1963 at age 13—something most college professors didn’t have at that time. Of course, the young Bill Gates had to be talented and industrious enough to take advantage of the extraordinary opportunity.

Ironically, none of Gladwell’s findings negate the idea of the self-made man. Instead, they seem to reinforce it. There are two common elements underlying all the extraordinary success stories he cites: hard work and an almost tireless drive to figure things out. In other words, successful people don’t give up.

Gladwell (and the social scientists he cites) observe that great success is almost always associated with a “10,000 hour rule”—that is, to be great at something almost always requires about 10,000 hours of practice. This level of practice typically takes 7-10 years to achieve. It’s having the opportunity (as well as focus and drive) to put in your 10,000 hours that provides the extra leverage that can later lead on to extraordinary success.

People who are extraordinarily successful often had an opportunity to begin putting in their 10,000 practice hours at an earlier age, so that by the time they reached their twenties, they were able to seize upon other opportunities that led to more and more opportunities to do what they were good at. Again, they had to be willing to put forth a huge amount of effort.

After listening to Outliers, I saw more clearly how the “victimhood” mentality is so damning in life. Instead of practicing an art, the victim wastes time blaming metaphysical factors (things they generally cannot change) such as the circumstances of their birth, their cultural baggage, their parents, unjust laws, etc.

Ultimately, to be great at something (or even just really good) you need an intense resolve to not give up, to keep practicing at an art and figuring things out. Eventually, hard work and dedication will pay off on some level. Sometimes we just have to create our own opportunities, or be better prepared and more open to them when they do show up.

I just finished listening to Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers: The Story of Success. It’s really the story of extraordinary success that lies outside the bell curve—the kind of success achieved by Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, or the Beatles.

I had been meaning to listen to Outliers for a while now because I really enjoyed Gladwell’s other books, Blink and Tipping Point. Gladwell has a gift for storytelling. He is one of the few non-fiction authors I know who can create a feeling of suspense usually only experienced with fiction. (Jon Krakauer is another example.)

Gladwell’s books are largely about connecting patterns in human behavior (patterns we don’t always see) in an attempt to expand our awareness of our world. He enjoys questioning the basic assumptions we make about ourselves and about others, and challenging us to see things differently. He doesn’t always present enough evidence to prove his hypotheses, but he lets the fieldwork of other psychologists and social scientists lead him closer to answering some of the more bewildering psychosocial questions of our day.

As I listened to Outliers, I found myself both fascinated and slightly offended. He is, after all, openly attacking the American idea of rugged individualism, the idea of a self-made man—the protagonist of the classic rags to riches story. Instead of an innate gift, he argues, extraordinary success is almost always the result of an equally extraordinary opportunity made available to the achiever.

Now, the achiever still must work hard and be prepared to seize upon the opportunity. Chance, as Louis Pasteur observed, does tend to favor the prepared mind. But, as Gladwell argues, extraordinary success can often be traced to a series of remarkable opportunities that resulted from somewhat random circumstances, like date and place of birth, parenting practices, socio-economic status, laws of the land, cultural norms and traditions. The achievers are often unaware that the opportunities afforded to them will lead on to greatness. They seize upon a relatively small opportunity, such as the chance to practice playing music seven days a week for eight or more hours a day (as the Beatles did in Hamburg, Germany) and their hard work (literally thousands and thousands of hours of practice) pays off big.

That’s not to say choices, hard work, and innate talent don’t have prominent roles in success—Gladwell admits they do—but he wants us to see that external circumstances also play an important, if not equal, role. In other words, we are just as much products of our environment as we are our nature. As a result, the brightest among us sometimes fail through a lack of opportunity rather than lack of talent. If we can understand how our environments sometimes thwart the most talented (or potentially talented), maybe we can enable more people to reach greater levels of success. We do have more control over our environment than we do our nature.

He offers as an example the statistical fact that a large number of great Canadian hockey players (around 40 percent) have birthdays in January, February and March. This has to do with the January 1^st cutoff date for joining an age-class league, when a child is at least 8 years old. Coaches will observe the 8 or 9 year olds who join the league and will begin making coaching decisions for the more talented players, often giving them special training and more practice opportunities. A child who misses the January 1^st cutoff date but who is born during the earlier months may gain as much as 10 to 11 extra months of practicing and growing before joining the age-class league. Naturally, the older players born January through March tend to stand out as better players. Hockey playing, of course, does not have that great of an impact on quality of life, but what about when such random factors influence a child’s educational opportunities?

Gladwell offers similar examples throughout the book and makes a compelling case for what some people might call “luck.” Bill Gates, he points out, had access to a mainframe computer in 1963 at age 13—something most college professors didn’t have at that time. Of course, the young Bill Gates had to be talented and industrious enough to take advantage of the extraordinary opportunity.

Gladwell (and the social scientists he cites) observe that great success is almost always associated with a “10,000 hour rule”—that is, to be great at something almost always requires about 10,000 hours of practice. This level of practice typically takes 7-10 years to achieve. It’s having the opportunity (as well as focus and drive) to put in your 10,000 hours that provides the extra leverage that can later lead on to extraordinary success.

People who are extraordinarily successful often had an opportunity to begin putting in their 10,000 practice hours at an earlier age, so that by the time they reached the age of 20, they were able to seize upon other opportunities that led to more and more opportunities to do what they were good at. Again, they had to be willing to put forth a huge amount of effort.

After listening the Outliers, I saw more clearly how the “victimhood” mentality is so damning in life. Instead of practicing an art, the victim wastes time blaming metaphysical factors (things they generally cannot change) such as the circumstances of their birth, their cultural baggage, their parents, unjust laws, etc.

Ultimately, what you need to be great at something (or even just really good) is an intense resolve to not give up, to keep practicing at it and figuring things out. Eventually, hard work and dedication will pay off on some level. Sometimes we just have to create our own opportunities, or be better prepared and more open to them when they do show up.

Share/Bookmark

Embracing Corporate Obsolescence

Allison Taylor — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:47:53 +0000

Change is an immutable force. Some of us embrace it, some of us resist it, but no one escapes it. In today’s Information Age the speed of change is accelerating at such a dizzying speed that it’s rewriting the rules of business.

“Corporate bureaucracy is becoming obsolete,” writes Alan Murray, in his WSJ article, “The End of Management.” Businesses built to thrive in the Industrial Age must now adapt to the Information Revolution. Murray observes:

Corporations are bureaucracies and managers are bureaucrats. Their fundamental tendency is toward self-perpetuation. They are, almost by definition, resistant to change. They were designed and tasked, not with reinforcing market forces, but with supplanting and even resisting the market.

Yet in today’s world, gale-like market forces—rapid globalization, accelerating innovation, relentless competition—have intensified what economist Joseph Schumpeter called the forces of ‘creative destruction.’ Decades-old institutions like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns now can disappear overnight, while new ones like Google and Twitter can spring up from nowhere. A popular video circulating the Internet captures the geometric nature of these trends, noting that it took radio 38 years and television 13 years to reach audiences of 50 million people, while it took the Internet only four years, the iPod three years and Facebook two years to do the same. It’s no surprise that fewer than 100 of the companies in the S&P 500 stock index were around when that index started in 1957.

Hangzhou, China

Access to information 24/7 has unleashed a new era where ideas can be developed, tested, launched, succeed and fail all in the span of less than ten years. Innovations and new information can spread in seconds via new channels, rendering age-old companies or even entire industries obsolete. To paraphrase D.H. Lawrence: Cool, unlying life is rushing in and institutions are curling up like burnt paper. Industrial Age corporate rules simply no longer apply.

We all knew this day was coming. In 1970, Alvin Toffler, opened his seminal work, Future Shock, with these prophetic words: “In the three short decades between now and the twenty-first century, millions of ordinary, psychologically normal people will face an abrupt collision with the future.”

“Future shock,” as he called it, is a “time phenomenon.” It is “a product of the greatly accelerating rate of change in society.” In terms of technological innovation, where knowledge is fuel, change is measured as the span of time from idea to practical application — that is, “time-to-market” or “time-to-takeoff.”

Toffler used a study by Robert B. Young at the Stanford Research Institute to illustrate the speed of innovation and the diffusion of technology:

Young found that for a group of appliances introduced in the United States before 1920–including the vacuum cleaner, the electric range, and the refrigerator–the average span between introduction and peak production was thirty-four years. But for a group that appeared in the 1939-1959 period–including the electric frying pan, television, and washer-dryer combination–the span was only eight years. The lag had shrunk by more than 76 percent.

Another futurist, Ray Kurzweil, in his book The Singularity Is Near, asserts that the “rate of paradigm shift (technical innovation) is “doubling every decade.” (This was in 2005.) For information technologies, he says, “there is a second level of exponential growth: that is, exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth.” He illustrates his point:

Thus, the twentieth century was gradually speeding up to today’s rate of progress; its achievements, therefore, were equivalent to about twenty years of progress at the rate in 2000. We’ll make another twenty years of progress in just fourteen years (by 2014), and the same again in only seven years. To express this another way, we won’t experience one hundred years of technological advance in the twenty-first century; we will witness on the order of twenty thousand years of progress (again, when measured in today’s rate of progress), or about one thousand times greater than what was achieved in the twentieth century.

As Kurzweil points out, all this rapid evolution is not necessarily dystopian or utopian. Human traits can never totally be submerged even as we gain more control over the universe and ourselves. Reality, its existents, and reason remain absolutes. We will never be infallible or omniscient, and there is no historical inevitability when it comes to man-made things or events. Much of our future will depend on the value of our ideas and on our ability to remain free and defend against overreaching government power or despotic movements. Heavily regulated or government-run industries will always lag behind the technology curve, bogged down by their bureaucratic, self-perpetuating natures.

In a sense, we are all becoming businesses of one, each with our own unique brand, yet we are part of a vast, interconnected community. No one is quite sure what the new “Wikinomics” will look like. As our lives improve and last longer, we only know the economic rules will keep changing. Like businesses, we will have to adapt—fast.

Share/Bookmark

Sunset in the Bahamas

Allison Taylor — Sat, 22 May 2010 14:42:05 +0000

I recently returned from a trip to Nassau, Bahamas. It was my first cruise, and it was a blast. The highlights were definitely two snorkeling trips and the exquisite views from the both the ship and the beaches at Coco Cay.

I have a slight phobia of sharks, being of the “Jaws” generation, so I was a little nervous about snorkeling. It didn’t help that I’d heard about the shark-feeding excursions in and around the islands. But the only thing close to a shark I saw was a sting ray. I was so overwhelmed by the underwater beauty that I think my shark phobia is cured. Now I can’t wait to go snorkeling again, and I am even contemplating SCUBA certification. I’ve heard the Keys have amazing diving and snorkeling.

I didn’t take any underwater photos of the colorful fish, but the pictures below are of the sunset we saw on the first night of the cruise. I can’t wait to paint these!

The yellow-tinted photo was taken only a few seconds after the first.

Amazing.

Share/Bookmark

My Trip to Shanghai

Allison Taylor — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:17:55 +0000

I was fortunate enough to be able to go on a business trip to Shanghai this past week (December 5-13). The company where I work was putting on a conference to help investors meet up-and-coming small-cap companies — companies like American Lorain, the number-one producer of chestnut products in China; China Natural Gas, the first China-based U.S. listed natural gas company; and China GengShen Minerals, Chinese-based manufacturers of industrial materials for the steel, oil and solar industry. After business was done, me and John were able to fit a little sightseeing in Shanghai in. So, here are my impressions…

Shanghai is a fusion of New York and Paris, only bigger. The city is bustling; it never sleeps. And, almost everything (as of the winter of 2009) is under renovation due to the upcoming World Expo 2010 in Shanghai. I imagine the city by then will be absolutely stunning. The fashionistas in Shanghai are more fashionable than NYC or Paris, and the skyline is more grand and more vast. Incredible. If you never saw anywhere outside of Shanghai, you’d think China was beyond superpower status. But I’m told by natives that there are much more rurals areas. And, lest we not forget that average family’s disposable income in 2007 was about $3,375. Living space in Shanghai is about 140 sq. ft. per person. (Think about that the next time you complain you need a bigger house.) And, official minimum wage is set at about US$1 per day. I’d say China is probably the equivalent of America in the 1920s. They are certainly beyond starving in the streets, but I’m not sure the entire nation has TVs, cell phones, or indoor plumbing yet. But, there is definitely a wonderful sense in the air that they are on the rise — and capitalism is not to be quelled.

At the same time you feel the individualism, you also feel the government’s heavy hand. The paper daily told of executions — drug smuggler, porn seller, Madoffian embezzlers –all executed. There is vitually no crime, no doubt from fear of execution. And, when I overheard an American businessman asking a Chinese businessman how he could buy his land or mineral rights in China, the Chinaman said, “Oh, I can’t sell my land to you. I must sell my land to the government.” So, property rights are nil.

Interestingly, I found Internet access fairly good. I could get my Yahoo! email, and I had no trouble logging in to work on my company’s website. I was even able to read RealClearPolitics.com and DrudgeReport.com, though I am not sure if this is because I was accessing the Internet via a 5-Star hotel or not. I was not able to access Facebook or Twitter. These sites are blocked; and, I think MySpace is blocked too, though I did not check this site.

BBC, CNN and other news sites were shown on our hotel TV; but, for what it’s worth, no Fox News.

We managed one side trip to the city of Hang Zhou, which used to be the capital of China. It reached its peak around 1179 A.D.

Pictures say a 1,000 words…I’ll post more when I have time.

We are all Iranians

Allison Taylor — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:23:21 +0000

I’ve been watching this story on Iran’s “election” build for weeks now; and I, like everyone in the U.S. just assumed that Friday’s vote would come and go and that Ahmadinejad would be reinstated, as dictators always are, and that would be that.

Then, when I started to see images on blogs of rallies starting at Tehran University, I thought it was just a few rebellious youth. But then I started to see streams of Twitters from people in Iran talking about the police coming for them, and in their communication there was a determination I did not expect. Then, to my horror, I started to see images of bullet-riddled dorm room doors, bloody fighting, fires, continuing police brutality–there were reports of police firing into crowds and at least one person confirmed dead.

I notice that many of the larger news outlets were not reporting the uprisings much until last night, but instead on Saturday many were leading with stories like crowds hold “celebrations for Ahmadinejad.”

But then social media outlets dominated and broke through. I think the government in Iran cracked down on the Internet, but people were still able to Twitter using mobile phones. It’s almost as if the youth (those under 25, who are reportedly 70% of Iran’s population) have seized on a rare opportunity to let the world know what is really happening in their country. I fear they only have a few days left before the remaining foreign reporters are expelled or quieted. The foreign reporters who were allowed in to cover the “election” will be sent home now. I fear the government will become more violent at that point, and I hope the international community will not forget what it happening there and what has happened to the people.

No matter the outcome, I think it is too late for the Iranian government to escape without injury. The current regime has lost any remaining respect they had, and I believe the days of dictatorship in Iran are numbered. The people want to be free, and this is clear.

I just read on Bloomberg.com that “[H]undreds of thousands of people demonstrated today in downtown Tehran at a rally led by Ahmadinejad’s defeated opponent, Mir Houssein Mousavi, who charges widespread fraud in the June 12 vote.”

This is a huge movement of brave dissenters! Now, I don’t know Mousavi, and I don’t know how he would rule under the clerics. But I still think the revolt itself is a hopeful sign in the right direction.

In honor of the protestors, and as we approach July 4th, here are the opening words of our own Declaration of Independence…

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…

Share/Bookmark

Gary Kaltbaum Let’s Loose: Government Needs to Get Out of the Market’s Way

Allison Taylor — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:46:04 +0000

Part II: Why Obama Scares Me

I’ve been remiss in my blogging but that doesn’t mean I haven’t been following current events closely. I’m in shock. I can’t believe how fast the Obama Administration is moving toward a socialist economic system. I’m outraged that the Bush Administration set the stage. It seems like yesterday I wrote that Obama scares me, and while I was working to gather up evidence to show why he is a hardcore leftist, i.e. as hardcore as his cohorts, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, et al; he came into power and starting passing horrible, stupid laws.

I wanted to think that maybe he had risen to power pretending to be a liberal but that he might actually govern pragmatically. I was hoping for this because even though a pragmatist is dangerous, at least a pragmatist is not necessarily consciously evil. But the events of the past few weeks leave me no choice but to conclude that Obama is dangerous for this country. He is, as Robert Tracinski said, “[N]ow preparing to lead the left’s effort to reconstitute itself in the first serious way since the Fall of Communism.”

I am very concerned now. I am not afraid yet. Fear will come when as a writer I am silenced with threats. I do believe we are at a tipping point, though; and, we are perhaps nearing a state of censorship, if not now, then in the next three to five years for sure.

So, why am I so afraid of socialism as an economic policy? What, after all, is wrong with socialized medicine or free health care for all? Why not redistribute wealth to the less fortunate?

Because it is a bad idea and it never works. And, worse, wherever socialism is tried, it leads to total bankruptcy of body and mind. Socialism destroys life. It sucks the life out of people until they are rioting in the streets or standing in line for a loaf of very expensive bread. It expands insidiously, like inflation, until there is no entrepreneurship, innovation or passion left.

Socialism, like any truly bad idea, is anti-life because it goes against human nature. With socialism there is no justice. Socialism brings out the worst in people, not the best, as with capitalism. With capitalism, I work and I keep the fruits of my labor. If I want to give my money to you because you are struggling, nothing in a capitalist system stops this transaction. When government steps in and forces me to give up my money to countless, nameless, faceless others, it is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme intended to extract money from my bank account into the public coffers so that politicians can use that money however they want. Socialism is legalized theft; it is slavery. Slavery is bad.

Tonight, I happened to be listening to one of my favorite radio personalities, Gary Kaltbaum of Investor’s Edge. A great show if you are into economics and markets at all. Gary went into a rant during part of the show, and his words summed up my thoughts on these recent events and Obama pretty well. The only thing he left out was Greenspan’s treason in all this.

Here is an excerpt from his February 19th show: (His full webcast is here.)

So, I will ask the same question that I asked when George Bush and Hank Paulson came out with the TARP — otherwise known as ‘Taxpayers Again being Raped by Politicians’ — Hey, Barack, why do I, Gary Kaultbaum, handsome and buffed…have to pay for somebody else’s mortgage? Why? Why do I have to pay?

Hey, George Bush, why do I have to pay for GM, and Chrysler, and Citi-puke and Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers? Why?

Somewhere along the line, ladies and gentlemen, there has got to be enough of us, because I got news for you, 95% of us pay our mortgages! And we vote! Do any of you know they have taken $1.5 trillion bucks out of this economy to pay off crooks? And now a scamulous-stimulous plan that does nothing for nobody except a bunch spending pork bills that should be in separate bills to be voted on, shoved down your throats with scare tactics by Obama and his people just like the Bush people did his scare tactics with that stupid TARP plan.

Have any of you gotten it yet? That since their proposal of the TARP we’ve gone from 11,388 on the Dow to 7,465? So forget my opinion, forget everybody’s opinion. How about the market? This thing is screaming! This market is screaming at the Bush Administration and now the Obama Administration. It’s screaming, ‘Get the heck out of the way! Leave us alone! Stop creating money out of thin air and destroying what is left of what we have!’

And I heard Obama today with this Canadian Prime Minister, the next move is they’re going to fight ‘global warming.’ What global warming? The last decade was the coldest in god knows how long. What are these people reading? They’re insane! All of them! And we all sit there, and I’m so worried now that they’re going to tip us over! Obama said this is just the beginning, not the end! So you know what’s next: 50% tax rates! You know, we used to have 80% tax rates! They’re going to destroy us! All in the name of sacrifice. I’ll tell them to take sacrifice and stick it!

I work my butt off to earn the money that I make, and I pay a ton in taxes! And they want more, to give to GM, who has mismanaged their company for god knows how long! To give to Citigroup! Criminals! These are criminals! They committed crimes! Out in plain sight! And nothing!

Blah, blah, blah, blah, Barack Obama…65% approval….Not in my household! Yeah, I’m the guy that has lost no money in this bear market, but I want bull markets! I want to meet people throughout my day that are happy and are loving life and are creating jobs and are working hard and realizing that when they make a dollar they’re going to keep a lot of it!

And I watch this Barack Obama, ‘change and hope’, this guy’s talking about the end of the world every minute of every day! And don’t get me started on George Bush again — he’s gone — the numskull that he was!

Y’all out there better start listening and get off this politics thing, Democrat/Republican — put them all on the bottom of the ocean and that will be the good start! I am going to get louder and louder about this! Hopefully, somebody’s listening! Before the Dow goes to a 1,000!

Thank you, Gary, for saying this. (Read more by Gary at http://www.garyk.com.)

Make no mistake — a socialist agenda like the one Barack is leading is nothing more than a power grab over everyone’s freedom. If you do not have economic freedom, i.e., the ability to choose how you make and how you spend your own money, you have no freedom at all.

And, when a society loses freedom, especially freedom of speech, it gets ugly. By ugly I mean you see more and more violence. In a full socialist system, we all work for the State, and the State controls us. During the transition from freedom to statism, people get angrier and angrier because they sense the injustice of it all. They start to resent that they have less money, but they don’t understand why they make less, why there are fewer jobs, or why things cost more. They start lashing out. And then government uses that violence as an excuse to grab more power.

Is this what we want? Because we have to decide that answer now. Time is running out. We are at a tipping point. We have two years to vote back in supporters of a free market and to vote out the Democrats, who are obviously more interested in saving crooks and supporting their own elitist agendas than worrying about the average person working for a living. When inflation hits because they are printing money, it is going to be ugly.

Margaret Thatcher once said, “Socialism works until you run out of the other guy’s money.”

We’ve run out of money. We are broke. To start down the path to total socialism (and nationalism) now is really to destroy America and to begin down the path to totalitarian dictatorship with all the bloody implications of that prospect.

Does that sound like hyperbole? Ask yourself why they (Bush and Obama) use scare tactics to move their policy changes along so swiftly. Have you ever seen such speed in Congress? No, they are seizing on the moment, i.e., the housing bubble burst that they created with their crookedness and lies; and they are making a good old-fashioned power grab. A power grab just like Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, has opined he doesn’t want to miss: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is that it is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

The Democrats never thought they could get socialized medicine or nationalized banks in this country. Now, with majorities in both the House and the Senate and control of the executive branch; they are like kids in a candy store, frothing at the mouth over our money. And they just got $1.6 trillion or $1.7 trillion of it, give or take a few billion.

The actions of the current administration are clear: They do not have your best interest at heart. And I mean any American, regardless of ethnicity or religion. People who want power over people don’t care what color you are. They just want to take your money and give it to other people while they surreptitiously scrape a few million or billion off the top for themselves. They want to create a massive, helpless social welfare class so that they can create an even more extravagant ruling political class system for themselves.

I agree with Gary Kaltbaum — throw them all into the ocean. Vote out anyone and everyone who does not fight against these so-called “bailouts” and “stimulus packages.” Vote out anyone who talks doom and gloom. Vote in anyone who supports more freedom, freer markets/less regulation, capitalism, and more self-responsibility.

Don’t let it go.

Share/Bookmark

Hurricane History

Allison Taylor — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:12:25 +0000

Growing up on the Gulf Coast and now living in Florida on the Atlantic side, hurricanes are just a part of life. I experienced Frederic in 1979, which hit Mobile, Alabama, directly as a category 3. I remember walking outside during the eye of the storm and being overcome with awe at the pink-tainted stillness. There was absolutely no wind in the eye, but the approaching black wall of the storm packed winds of 120 mph.

Frederic’s most powerful winds lasted five hours, which my family spent holed up on our hallway with a radio, water, blankets and pillows. We tracked the storm’s longitude and latitude on a map, which is how we knew when the eye was over us.

Mobile lost power and water for nearly three weeks after Frederic, whose name is now retired along with the names of other killer storms like Camille, David, Andrew and Katrina. I learned to respect the power and the unpredictability of these storms and have had a fascination with tracking them as they evolve out in the Atlantic.

This chart by Unisys shows the history of Atlantic Tropical Storms by year. It’s interesting to compare the quiet years, like 1913 with the more active years, like 1926 or 2005.

I hope everyone in Gustav’s path takes heed and gets out if they are close to the coast.

Share/Bookmark

Why the World Will Not End: A Great Letter from John Mauldin

Allison Taylor — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:25:37 +0000

I love John Mauldin’s newsletters. I am not his typical fan, I’m sure, as I am not a venture capitalist and my investing doesn’t go much beyond an IRA. But I learned of him one day while reading Thrutch by Amit Ghate and have been enjoying Mr. Mauldin’s newsletters ever since.

This past week he had a great one entitled, “The World Will Not End” — an intriguing headline for a typcially bearish analyst. His letter made me really grateful to be alive right now, at this point in history, and very optimistic about what the next 20 years will bring.

Yes, there are economic events occurring that are not good. A mixed economy is never a pretty sight: The value of money slowly trickles away and it gets harder and harder for hardworking people to get rich. I know inflation is real, and I know a huge hunk of my paycheck goes to Uncle Sam.

Mauldin acknowledges these facts too. He writes:

It is easy to find bad news these days, and the torrent that seems to keep coming can ruin a person’s summer (or winter, for my southern hemisphere readers). The credit crisis, as noted last week, is nowhere near an end. Housing, as we will see, is actually getting worse. Foreclosures, auctions, government bailouts, higher taxes, inflation, the price of energy and food — the list goes on and on.

The list, of course, does go on. But I believe in the power of psychology and philosophy to shape human history just as our own personal psychologies and philosophies — (the good, the bad, and the ugly) — shape our own lives.

And I believe that any individual (and, therefore, any culture) has the ability to turn on a dime. In other words, you can be a train wreck and you can stop the train. You can then get off the train and move on to your next destination. You can decide where you want to go.

Of course, the pessimists will point out that sometimes there really are train wrecks. True. They happen, and they can be fatal for some people, perhaps through no fault of their own. Still, you pick up the pieces and go home. The pessimists point to an endless list of statistics that “prove” a train wreck is coming. (Think Al Gore.) They either want to scare you into action or inaction depending on their own philosophies.

Mauldin’s July 18th letter wisely reminds us to “take a deep breath” and “remember that things will work out.”

He writes:

Markets will adjust, and the world will be a better place. Things will work out better for you as an individual if you anticipate the problems and make the proper adjustments, as much as possible, in advance.

The next 20 years are going to be the most exciting time that the human race has experienced. Yes, there will be issues, but we will adjust. That is what we do.

And, he has this really inspiring line:

We are on the verge of a revolution in biotechnology that is going to truly revolutionize medicine. No one in 20 years will look back on today as the good old days.

I am very grateful that I live right now and in such a historically optimistic country. If we don’t get an optimist as Commander-in-Chief in November (and I’m not sure one is even running), we can still be optimists.

Share/Bookmark

Quincy the dog

Allison Taylor — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:34:00 +0000

I’m still on hiatus from hardcore blogging (for personal reasons), but I couldn’t resist posting this picture drawn by my niece. It made me smile. Thanks, KJ!

Share/Bookmark

Sam Harris Says Reject “Atheist” Label

Allison Taylor — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 04:23:41 +0000

Sam Harris recently gave a lecture at an “atheist” conference where he shocked his audience by telling them their use of the label “atheist” is a huge mistake — “a mistake of some consequence,” to be exact.

To understand the magnitude of his “seditious proposal,” you have to know that Harris is considered one of the leading public voices for atheism — along with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett — but, therein lies his point — you cannot be for something that is by definition simply an absence of belief.

He called for anyone using the concept “atheist” to reject it forthright:

We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar — for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

His entire lecture is worth reading, whether you use any of these labels or are just intellectually curious. You can find a full transcript of it at Washington Post online.

Sam Harris is one of my favorite writers. He is currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience, and I look forward to reading his books in the years to come. He is an extremely honest intellectual, and he is not afraid to go where the evidence takes him.

He gets criticized by fellow scientists for his desire to explore “spirituality,” despite his lack of religion. I admit, I am sympathetic to his soul-searching. I agree we can learn much about the human mind and experience by exploring phenomena usually associated with the mystics — meditation, hypnotism and the power of prayer, to name a few.

He makes a fascinating point about what we can learn from the mystics, or “contemplatives”:

Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves.

Most us think that if a person is walking down the street talking to himself — that is, not able to censor himself in front of other people — he’s probably mentally ill.

But if we talk to ourselves all day long silently — thinking, thinking, thinking, rehearsing prior conversations, thinking about what we said, what we didn’t say, what we should have said, jabbering on to ourselves about what we hope is going to happen, what just happened, what almost happened, what should have happened, what may yet happen — but we just know enough to just keep this conversation private, this is perfectly normal. This is perfectly compatible with sanity. Well, this is not what the experience of millions of contemplatives suggests.

I think he may be on to something — something that could add to our body of knowledge about health and well-being.

In any event, as a result of Harris’ lecture, I will cease using the term “atheist.” I have only used that term in the last few months, and, oddly enough, I was emboldened to use it after reading Harris’ book, End of Faith.

But, he is right. It is intellectual honesty and reason that need to be brought to the forefront of the current conversations.

For what it’s worth, I have been without organized religion for nearly 20 years now, yet consider virtue and pursuit of the good paramount. While I am non-religious now, my past is a mosaic of religious, mystical and philosophical pursuits.

I was raised Southern Baptist, attended Catholic masses during middle school, converted to Lutheranism in high school, dabbled in tarot and delved into Buddhism before finally letting religion go altogether — but only in exchange for psychology and philosophy.

There were too many religions to explore, and what I was always after was simply inner peace. I have found the best way to inner peace is living virtuously, or taking the “right action,” as Abraham Maslow called it. And, the idea of living virtuously brought me full circle to Aristotle, who had come to that conclusion in the 4th Century B.C.

My whole path could have been a lot shorter had I been taught Aristotle’s philosophy in high school, but they don’t teach philosophy at that level anymore, at least not at public schools.

And, the few brave souls who take philosophy at the universities today are lucky if they avoid brain damage. They don’t generally emphasize Aristotle at colleges either. (I learned about Aristotle and Epicurus indirectly, through my study of art history.)

Modern philosophy (post Kant), as taught by academics, can be summed up as follows: You can never know anything for certain because you cannot perceive reality directly; and, therefore, there is no reality.

If you laugh at this statement, then you have not studied philosophy at the college level. I assure you, if you do, you will be taught this at some point. And, yes, it is egregious. It’s even scarier when you realize that there are people graduating from Ivy Leagues who actually believe this nonsense, and scarier still that they are running our country.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that philosophy is useless or esoteric. It is, as I learned from Ayn Rand, an inescapable influence that shapes our lives and ultimately the course of human history.

Epicurus said it well:

Let no man be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more.

And, in our quest for answers, we would all be better off if we we follow Harris’ lead, going only where the evidence takes us, correcting our errors along the way.

(hat tip: Joseph Stewart)

Share/Bookmark