Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner

It’s a bit hard to briefly describe what this book is about when one is asked. Fortunately, it really doesn’t matter. This is a book that makes a lot of interesting observations about every day life, and how if one takes a bit of time to research statistics and talk to people, you can learn an awful lot about what makes things tick, and how certain things and events happen the way that they do.  If I could attempt to sum up this book in one word, I’d be tempted to use the word “clickbait”.  Let me explain….

If you’re like me, you find yourself electronically surfing through news sites on a semi-regular basis.  Quite often you come across a headline that says something like “Studies show that red-haired middle children are more likely to gain weight during the Holiday season”.  Or “People who are born when the moon is full have the most success in getting into college if the university name contains the letter ‘R’.”   Now I confess, that when I come across such headlines,  I usually give in to the temptation, and will spend a few minutes perusing such articles.   Do they really matter?  Does the average person really care?  Well, probably not, but our brain is wired to be interested when presented with such bizarre statements that someone is trying to convince us that they are, indeed, facts.

Well, this is basically what this book is.  The authors state about 8 or 10 interesting factoids, and back up their conclusions using a host of statistics. I seem to recall there was a very interesting story on why schoolteachers were tempted to cheat and report higher grades for their students.  Even more interesting was why these teachers wanted to do this, and how this particular scheme was unmasked.  We also read accounts about why Sumo Wrestlers cheat, why Crack-addicts still live at home with their mothers, how giving your child a “white” name is more advantageous than giving your child a “black” name, and how the passing of Roe-Wade actually ended up decreasing crime in the United States over time.

If those last two made you raise your eyebrows and become slightly offended, well the authors are aware, and they try to cover themselves by maintaining that they aren’t stating their personal opinions, yet stating (what they try to prove as) facts.  So, yes, you may come away feeling offended by some of their conclusions, but I was left with the impression that the authors have a strange hobby of trying to learn the unknown, and then revealing their findings to anyone who wants to listen while providing pages of information that backs up their conclusions.

I believe the edition that I read contain a “bonus” section, which was almost as long as the actual book.  In this bonus section, we read about even more observations, follow-ups to what was in the main book, as well snippets from the authors’ blog, which is up and running somewhere on the interwebs.  I believe the authors even broadcast a regular podcast as well.  There simply is an unlimited number of conclusions one can make about their surroundings as long as enough data exists, and one has the tenacity to meticulously study it all.

I wouldn’t call this book essentially necessary, but I thought it was a fun, almost mindless read.  Also, if one has an inquisitive mind, I imagine that they might be inclined to learn more about their surroundings and their hobbies by taking the same efforts that the authors presented here.  Who knows, maybe a news site would then hire you to write snappy “clickbait” articles?

The Skin Collector

The Skin Collector – by Jeffery Deaver

OK. I’ve used this analogy before with other authors that tire me out after a while: Imagine you discover a great vacation spot. You love it so much that you go back the next year. It soon becomes a staple and you continue to go year after year.  Then, one year it hits you.  You’ve become tired of this wonderful vacation spot. Not only do you not really enjoying going anymore, but it seems to now be a bit of a drag.  This is how I felt after reading my 25^th (or so) Jeffery Deaver book.  It’s not a bad book. I’m just becoming tired of the overly familiar formula.

Lincoln Rhyme and his entourage have a new psychopathic killer haunting the streets of New York City.  He’s a bizarre tattoo artist who, after kidnapping his victims, tattoos them with some sort of poison concoction as opposed to ink.  He has a bizarre skin fetish apparently. Of course, he always leaves an encrypted message on his victim’s skin which gives the crime solvers more to ponder as they try to solve the mysterious case.

If you know Jeffery Deaver, you’re aware that he had a similarly titled book called “The Bone Collector”.  The likeness with the title of this book is not a coincidence. It seems as though the perpetrator also has some bizarre likeness for the older, now solved case, and this allows for comparisons and connections when solving the caper as well.  This is ok, I guess, but it also relies on readers to have also had read the earlier book (which I had) and remember key elements (which I had not).  There’s also a sub plot involving another Lincoln Rhyme book “The Cold Moon”.  I won’t go into details, but I wish the author would have crafted the story a bit differently and not have to bring up past stories in order to flesh (pardon the pun) this story out.

Jeffery Deaver is famous for throwing a massive curve ball near the end of his stories that show us that very little of what we have been reading is actually as it seems. For the most part, these abrupt detours work. There have even been some books of his that I found rather sub-par, yet when the big “revelation” appeared, it gave me a much higher opinion of the book.  Sadly, this book does the opposite. Throughout the first 2/3 of this book, I actually enjoyed it overall, but when the “twist” came, I felt a bit cheated.  I remember thinking “Really??”  “Seriously??”  It was pretty stupid and hoaky.

Again, though, my disgust could be that I’ve seen and read all of this so many times.  I mean, it’s now somewhat expected.  We read about the crime supposedly being “over” and “solved”, yet we read about Lincoln Rhyme staring at his evidence-filled whiteboards at the conclusion of the case.  He feels “something isn’t right”.  He then has a sudden, immediate revelation and then goes into an immediate panic.  He then manages to save himself/Amelia Sachs/a random stranger/the entire civilized planet with only seconds to spare.  We then read about how Lincoln had his brilliant epiphany and how all can now relax that he managed to save the day yet again.

I’ll still give this book a somewhat favorable review.  I’m guessing you’ll like this book more than I did if you haven’t read all of the other Lincoln Rhyme adventures already.  I used to really like whenever Jeffery Deaver released a new Lincoln Rhyme book.  I now wish he would retire his character and move on to something fresh.   Faithful readers know that Deaver HAS actually done this with his newer Katherine Dance books, but those are hit and miss as well.   Perhaps he should focus on stories with only fresh, new characters and not have them show up in multiple works.  That might be the trick.

Bush

Bush – by Jean Edward Smith

"Mr. President, you cannot reverse the Supreme Court." - Condoleezza Rice

Of all the presidential biographies I have read (about 60+), this was by far the saddest. Sad because George W. Bush really was a compassionate president, and truly spearheaded some bipartisan initiatives and did some great things, yet his gaffes were so strong and so detrimental that recent history has judged him to be one of the worst presidents ever.  Author Jean Edward Smith agrees with this assessment and does a very good job explaining why and how he and others have come to that conclusion.

Despite what others have said, I didn’t find this book to be a hate-filled slinger of mud. The author did a very good job convincing me of his conclusions.  He gives credit where credit is due and points out some of the great things that Bush did during his presidency.  It’s just that everything is overshadowed by Iraq. Iraq takes up an awful lot of this book. At times I forgot I was reading a biography and thought I was reading a retrospective of the Iraq war.  It seems like nothing Bush did during the Iraq war worked.  

Contrary to what many left-wing pundits have stated, the author never paints bush as “stupid”, and definitely not “evil”.  The author describes him, in a roundabout way, as being “intellectually lazy”.  There were so many times when Bush refused to listen to anyone else, let alone his advisors and his cabinet, and his lack of knowledge where foreign affairs were related, largely contributed to his doom.  This was ironic because there were plenty of times when Bush did consult experts (stem cell research and the financial collapse of 2008 come to mind) that allowed him to make professional ‘presidential' decisions.  You have to wonder, why, then, was he so obtuse about world affairs? Especially Iraq?

Although this is, in fact, a biography, there’s not a whole lot here pre-presidency. Although Bush definitely was born into a wealthy, well-known family, you get the feeling that he truly was responsible for many of his early successes. True, having money gives you a big leg-up in the world, but why should that matter?  His irresponsible behavior as a young man is covered here, but again, nothing really new nor surprising.  His big break comes when he becomes Managing General Partner of the Texas Rangers baseball club in 1989.  The team's fortune soon changes, and Bush is soon elected Governor of the State, surprisingly beating popular incumbent Anne Richards.  Whispers start that the presidency of the U.S. should be the next step.   After a tumultuous contested election, Bush manages to prevail beating Vice-President Al Gore to become the 43^rd president of the United States pitching something called “Compassionate Conservatism”.  Essentially, he wants to bridge the partisan sides and unite the bickering.  His first several months in office have minor successes and failures. 

Then, 9/11.

The few months that followed the attack essentially defined George W. Bush’s early years in his presidency, yet this is one area where the author simply glosses over without giving the reader the full understanding of the state of the nation. For me, this was the major weakness of this entire book.  You never get the sense of how scared, panicked, and uncertain the country was, and how Bush was able to rise to the challenge and unite the country in the face of uncertainty. Perhaps this is because the author isn’t a native of the United States.  Instead, his overall assessment of this time period was that Bush “overreacted”.  Well, perhaps, but most people, including the majority of Republicans and Democrats in both halls of congress, disagreed.

The best thing Bush did when he became the 43^rd president was put together a stellar cabinet.  The worst thing he did, particularly around this time, was not listen to the advice that many in his cabinet provided.  This seemed to be very obvious with Secretary of State Colin Powell.  In a sense, one has to wonder (and I’m sure Secretary Powell did as well) whether or not Powell’s appointment was simply a token gesture. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney seemed to want to call the majority of the shots themselves.  This led to the Iraq War, which led to Bush’s downfall.

It seems as though all of Bush’s biggest blunders were either directly or indirectly related to Iraq.  Had Bush decided to merely liberate Iraq, a lot of problems could have been avoided.  Bush, however, changes his mind mid-course, and then chooses to occupy Iraq, and tries to install this thing called ‘democracy’.  Several members of his cabinet and the congress then became, obviously, incredulous.  George W. Bush simply couldn’t understand that you couldn’t drop a few bombs on an Islamic theocracy and expect the entire nation to fall in behind you and end up looking like the State of Vermont.  He tries, though, and nothing good comes out of it.  We read about the Patriot Act that violated privacy rights, the torture (“enhanced interrogation procedures”) performed by the CIA on POWs, overseas “black sites”, Abu Ghraib, and the supposed existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction that never materialized. Essentially, an entire crop of failures that could have been circumvented had the Iraq War been avoided.

Had Bush not gone to war with Iraq, would Iraq have implemented terrorist attacks similar to what occurred on 9/11?  We’ll never know for sure.  Supporters of Bush (and Bush himself) would argue ‘yes’, most others became increasingly skeptical as the war dragged on.  Bush thought he was doing the right thing, but when one (along with VP Cheney) digs their heels in and becomes ridiculously obdurate, things can (and did) get messy in a hurry.

It truly is a shame.  The author concludes saying that the last year of Bush’s presidency (2008) was, in fact, his best.  He touches on the economic collapse of the year as an example.  Those who know how the markets work understand that the economy is cyclical, so the recession that happened that year can’t really be blamed on a sitting president.  By pumping over 700 billion dollars into the economy, the author argues that Bush did, in fact, prevent a worldwide depression that could have been much more catastrophic than what occurred in the 1930s.  What makes this achievement even more memorable is that stalwarts in his own Republican party fought him the hardest on this initiative. So Bush proves that there were, in fact, times when he could reach out for help when an issue was beyond his comprehension, and he could also achieve bipartisan support.

I really loved this book.  Had I picked it up over a holiday weekend, I could have devoured the entire 800 pages over a long weekend.  Yes, it is fairly negative, but I didn’t find the writing style to be overly vitriolic.  I’m sure there are much more upbeat reflections of the George W. Bush presidency out there, but the author convinced me of his overall thesis.  (NOTE: For those interested, you can find many online  that debunk many of the author’s convictions, most notably here: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/15/its-impossible-to-count-the-things-wrong-with-the-negligent-spurious-distorted-new-biography-of-george-w-bush/ ). Since this was the first biography I’ve read on the 43^rd president, I’ll definitely try at least one more to see how the events compare.

One final strange, but good, observation: In the hardback format, the book was filled with pictures that were interposed along with the actual words within the chapters.  Most non-fiction books that have pictures/illustrations have one or two supplemental sections stuck together in one or two parts of the book.  It was nice to not have to “flip back and forth” to see the pictures.  More books should try this!