Third Chunk AKA chapters 5 & 6

In chapter 5, Levitt tries to figure out what makes a perfect parent. He explains that no book can teach a person how to be a parent. He claims that there are many statistics that a parent does not know that could be very helpful when it comes to letting their child play with who. He gives an example in which the child can play in either a friend's house with a pool or at a friend's house where there is a gun. He states that the hypothetical character's parents made a smart decision in protecting their child by letting her play at the friend with a pool than at a friend with a gun. He then gives his statistics "In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.)" Later on, he claims that a child's genetics accounts for the child's behavior and such, but later he states that parents can make a difference in such a way that it seems that he does not really answer the question unless you ignore everything except the fact that parents should know more statistics or just keep an eye on their child themselves.

In chapter 6, Levitt attempts an answer to Would a Roshanda by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet? - or basically Does the child's name have anything to do with the their future. Simply put, the answer is no. Levitt mentions of a situation where a man names one child winner and another loser. Winner becomes a loser and Loser becomes successful. He then goes on about "blackest" names and "whitest" names, but in the end he claims that genetics and other factors in the person's background determine their chance for success.

Tone : serious

Rhetorical Strategies : Appeal to logic through statistics and some humour.

Questions : Since people's names don't determine their ability to succeed, then why do people categorize by name?
With no real unrisky paranting situation, how can a parent protect their child while not allowing the child to become too dependent?

Freakonomics Chapter 3 and 4 A.K.A. Chunk 2

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in the third chapter tackle the issue of drug dealers and why they still live with their mothers. Levitt describes how someone he knew from the University did research on the gangs and drug dealers for sociology. Levitt, as an economist, was asked by the sociologist to help him with a notebook given given to him by one of the members. Levitt looked through it and realized that drug dealing is run like any other business - Levitt compares it to McDonald's. According to Levitt, at the bottom are the people that stand at street corners waiting to run at a threat or sell his merchandise, then there are the ringleaders of the gangs - who don't sell drugs, but do distribute the money within the small sector, then there are the ones at the top - the ones that get the most out of it (of course there are people in between these three, but they are not necessary for this precis). The notebook contained numbers that explained the distribution of the money. From this information, Levitt discovered that the actual dealers aren't rich because they get a very small portion of the earnings - they work at about $3.30 an hour - and they need to take second jobs. Clearly minimum wage makes a person struggle to find a home so how difficult would it be at $3.30 an hour? Thus, the low pay for the dealers means that they can't even rent a place so what other choice do they have but to live with their mothers?
In chapter 4, Levitt and Dubner argue that the reason that there was a decrease in criminal activity in the late 1990s and early 2000 was not so much a larger police force or new ways to find who the criminals are, but that there was a case earlier in the topic of abortion. Levitt argues that because abortion was legalized, all of those children who would have been born - and because the parents did not want them, were drug abusers, and/or were raped - unloved and this is a serous marker of deliquency. Most, if not all, of these children who were not born would have become the next generation of crime, but because they were not born, there was not way they could comitt murder or any other criminal activities.

Tone: serious and excited (from saying all of these realizations)

Rhetorical Strategies : appeal to logic, use of numbers & statistics

Questions: Why do people work as a drug dealer if the pay is not good and they would be better off working at McDonald's at minimum wage?
Why can abortion not be controlled rather than legal or illegal?

Freakonomics Precis

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?

Next Assignment

I await the next one

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?

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?

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?