Freakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, is about applying economic questions to normal everyday life. Steven Levitt - the economist - first applied his questioning to school teachers and sumo wrestlers. He claims that everyone wants to take the advantage, to take the upper hand. Levitt found a series of answers from a classroom. According to Levitt, there are teachers who help their students cheat to gain a bonus for an increase in class testing or getting that promotion he/she wanted. According to Levitt, sumo wrestlers enjoy staying at the top of the food chain, so they work together to stay there. Levitt claims that they switch off wins in order to all stay at the top. The entire first chapter compared the sumo wrestlers and the school teachers and ends concluding that they cheat in order to keep the advantage. The KKK was an organization that was based at first in terrorism and later in secrecy. They take advantage of others' ignorance. Real estate agents sell houses at a certain price and they, according to Levitt, settle for less because they don't gain as much at a higher price. A chart in the second chapter displays the decrease in the lynching of blacks over the years. This shows that it is working. The Real Estate Agent would sell their house at a higher price because they are the ones that gain the most. In the second chapter, Levitt compares the KKK to real estate agents and concludes that they both take advantage of others' ignorance.
Tone: excited and fast, the author placed the information in much the same way that one puts known information and makes connections that are important to them.
Rhetorical Strategies: 1. The use of statistics (the lynching chart)
2. The author uses the logical appeal as the information itself appears to be the workings inside of a person's mind.
Question: Why does the finnancial system work against the ignorant? How can a person use this knoledge and find a way to take advantage of the cheaters without blackmail?
Friday, February 15, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
A Question About these Blogs
Do we still have to do stuff on it now as the Winter Break Assignment is over?
Do we still have to do things on this now?
Do we still have to do things on this now?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
RIP: protest films, e-porn, and bimbos by Jonah Goldberg
Article Found Here : http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg1jan01,0,5022246.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
As with the other articles used, this one is found in the LA Times website Opinion section.
Goldberg, in his article, begins by explaining how some people keep track of the year's trends and he argues that this year deserves an obituary for trends that are dead. He argues that three trends are dead or dying. The first is an argument that Hollywood's attempt to sway the public politically is failing. He bases his argument on the low collection of money on the movies based on the war in Iraq. The second part of the article is on how there was a time when feminists movements looked up to famous women, such as his example of how in the "1980s, Madonna was declared a feminist icon because she 'owned' her sexuality and treated men the way piggish men historically treated women." He compares this to today's "stars" such as Britney Spears. In the third and final section, he mentions how the success of the porn industry is falling as another site rises in popularity. He claims that pornography won't die, but porn as an industry will.
On his first argument, I can only say no one should be swayed by a movie. People should do research before joining a side. With the second part, I believe people shouldn't look up to people who do negative things or have lives filled with painful events. Again with the example of Spears, why look up to a woman - who is on the news far longer than news of actual importance - who lost her children, had to go to rehab, among other things. People should no longer look to others as an example and do what they know is better. With the third part, I say it is good that people will not lose money to pornography, but addiction to it remains as a big problem.
Tone : As I am no good at this, I'm going to guess that the tone is informative as he looks back upon what already happened.
Questions :
Do you think other things have "died" this past year that deserved it?
What bad things continue that you feel should also be dead?
As with the other articles used, this one is found in the LA Times website Opinion section.
Goldberg, in his article, begins by explaining how some people keep track of the year's trends and he argues that this year deserves an obituary for trends that are dead. He argues that three trends are dead or dying. The first is an argument that Hollywood's attempt to sway the public politically is failing. He bases his argument on the low collection of money on the movies based on the war in Iraq. The second part of the article is on how there was a time when feminists movements looked up to famous women, such as his example of how in the "1980s, Madonna was declared a feminist icon because she 'owned' her sexuality and treated men the way piggish men historically treated women." He compares this to today's "stars" such as Britney Spears. In the third and final section, he mentions how the success of the porn industry is falling as another site rises in popularity. He claims that pornography won't die, but porn as an industry will.
On his first argument, I can only say no one should be swayed by a movie. People should do research before joining a side. With the second part, I believe people shouldn't look up to people who do negative things or have lives filled with painful events. Again with the example of Spears, why look up to a woman - who is on the news far longer than news of actual importance - who lost her children, had to go to rehab, among other things. People should no longer look to others as an example and do what they know is better. With the third part, I say it is good that people will not lose money to pornography, but addiction to it remains as a big problem.
Tone : As I am no good at this, I'm going to guess that the tone is informative as he looks back upon what already happened.
Questions :
Do you think other things have "died" this past year that deserved it?
What bad things continue that you feel should also be dead?
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Scold the cell squawkers by Amy Alkon
Article Location : http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bigorangephones26dec26,0,5982522.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
This article is located in the LA Times Opinion Section
Amy Alkon is complaining of the multitude of people found everyday yelling into their hands-free head set, their cell, or even their walkie talkie feature. She describes situations in which she tells a loud talker to "use their inside voice" and she - of course - is told to back off in unpleasant manners. She also mentions of the people who state personal information loud enough for any stranger to listen. Though she may be right to feel irritated about these people, it is also her right to ignore them, however difficult it may be.
Tone : Seems slightly humourous
Questions :
Should the government intervene with cell phone loudness?
Should restraunts ban phone use while dining?
Should people just use common sense and avoid saying personal things on the phone?
This article is located in the LA Times Opinion Section
Amy Alkon is complaining of the multitude of people found everyday yelling into their hands-free head set, their cell, or even their walkie talkie feature. She describes situations in which she tells a loud talker to "use their inside voice" and she - of course - is told to back off in unpleasant manners. She also mentions of the people who state personal information loud enough for any stranger to listen. Though she may be right to feel irritated about these people, it is also her right to ignore them, however difficult it may be.
Tone : Seems slightly humourous
Questions :
Should the government intervene with cell phone loudness?
Should restraunts ban phone use while dining?
Should people just use common sense and avoid saying personal things on the phone?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
So a fruit fly goes to a bar... by Marlene Zuk
article is here : http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-zuk19dec19,0,4638124.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
article found in the LA Times website (opinion section)
Synopsis: Marlene Zuk's article begins with the scientific finding that by changing the level of a chemical in a fly, the fly can be made to court other flies of the same gender. She then begins to explain that the fact that the flies' sexual orientation being changed is not the important thing, but rather that now scientists understand more about genetics. Not only that, but that the animals can have their programing altered. She also mentions how any animal's behaviour depends on the surroundings as well and not only the genetics. She also stated, "...I'll admit that it's entertaining to imagine popping a pill to swing one way for a party, the other for a get-together at grandma's. But that dystopian possibility probably isn't in the cards. The truth is that chemicals no more control who we are sexually attracted to than they do anything else." and concluded her article with "I don't know about you, but I find the thought of a cockroach flitting from flower to flower a lot more unsettling than straight/gay flies."
Tone : The tone seems to be serious and simple.But the tone seemed to lean toward irritated or angry with the entire homosexuality issue.
Question: Now that scientists can tamper with the behaviour of animals, should they continue to do this type of research or stop changing nature?
article found in the LA Times website (opinion section)
Synopsis: Marlene Zuk's article begins with the scientific finding that by changing the level of a chemical in a fly, the fly can be made to court other flies of the same gender. She then begins to explain that the fact that the flies' sexual orientation being changed is not the important thing, but rather that now scientists understand more about genetics. Not only that, but that the animals can have their programing altered. She also mentions how any animal's behaviour depends on the surroundings as well and not only the genetics. She also stated, "...I'll admit that it's entertaining to imagine popping a pill to swing one way for a party, the other for a get-together at grandma's. But that dystopian possibility probably isn't in the cards. The truth is that chemicals no more control who we are sexually attracted to than they do anything else." and concluded her article with "I don't know about you, but I find the thought of a cockroach flitting from flower to flower a lot more unsettling than straight/gay flies."
Tone : The tone seems to be serious and simple.But the tone seemed to lean toward irritated or angry with the entire homosexuality issue.
Question: Now that scientists can tamper with the behaviour of animals, should they continue to do this type of research or stop changing nature?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
This blog has been created to fulfill recuiremints fore AP Englich languatch
This is for educational work!!!! HA!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
