SuperFreakonomics Monthly Review

What was the author's purpose in writing this book, how can you tell? How well was this purpose achieved?

The purpose of this book was to describe what different topics that may have seemed irrelevant to each other yet they were somehow tied to one another. Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner wrote this book and still now continue the book on a blog. The book explored topics such as the similarities between Street Prostitute and Department-Store Santa's. Topics like these were some of my favorite but there were many more to choose from in the book.

The book started out with "How a street prostitute like a department-store Santa." It explained the salary of a department-store Santa and a prostitute. It also compared other aspects as well. It also explained how the salary of a prostitute is dropping significantly. The next chapter after that which i also found very interesting was the chapter about why suicide bombers should buy life insurance. In this section they talked about why terrorism is so cheap yet very effective, which is very bad in the long run. Other sections such as these two were very interesting. The whole book kept me on my toes wanting to read more.


The purpose of this book was really just a book for leisure i think. This book and the first on were very irrelevant to any other book i have ever read, because of these discussions of random topics and how they relate to each other the book ended up being really good. Because it was so interesting to read, the reader will never really want to put the book down.


For what audience(s) is this book intended, and how can you tell? (In other words, for whom would you recommend this book?)

I think this book is for an older to teenage audience. I mean i would recommend it to anyone who just wants to hear interesting facts about stuff but i mean i would really recommend it to teens and adults. I find this book more for an older crowd one because of peoples reading levels and also just the topics they talk about seem to be for older people. For instance last part of the book Freakonomics was pretty good. Some new topics came up that were very interesting and some that were not as interesting. Parenting came up as one that stood out to me that young kids or a younger crowd really would not care about.I mean i really thought about english when i read this section because it was all about selecting schools and what not. I think that a younger crowd would not get where the authors are coming from at all when they are reading this book so that is why i direct it more toward a middle to older aged crowd of people.

Another part of this book that just supports my idea of directing this book at an older crowd is the topic "What do hurricanes, heart attacks, and highway deaths have in common?." Like really, what is that? I think that is one of the topics that is really irrelevant but i mean it was somewhat interesting just it seemed like the authors did not have a lot to write about it. I mean do not get me wrong i loved the whole book in its entirety but topics like this and some others are just not meant for younger kids and older adults that do not like things like this.


What are the weaknesses of this book, in your opinion?

I think this book covers topics that are kind of boring. The authors may not think so but i found parts of the book really slow. For example, during the beginning of Freakonomics they talked about Pimps and Realtors and how each of them are alike. This section of the book started with the Pimps. It explained how they started off as a person with one girl and that is all it takes. After getting one girl it explained how going from one girl can get you many. Then they talked about how they could gain more women and what techniques they used. Like they took a lot more time just to say that. So i thought that some of the book was really irrelevant. Here is a quote that i think describes the chapter really well.

It turns out that the typical street prostitute in Chicago works 13 hours a week, performing 10 sex acts during that period, and earns an hourly wage of approximately $27. So her weekly take- home pay is roughly $350. This includes an average of $20 that a prostitute steals from her customers and acknowledges that some prostitutes accept drugs in lieu of cash— usually crack cocaine or heroin, and usually at a discount. Of all the women in Venkatesh’s study,83 percent were drug addicts.

Also when they talked about the Realtors they talked about how they chose to sell a house and who too. Depending on age, race, etc. the Real Estate agents would act differently and would offer different areas according to the way the person presented themselves. I found that disturbing because just if a person presents their self in one way does not mean they are that way. If you get what i am saying. This section was exactly like the first book Freakonomics.

In the book SuperFreakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner pick the most bizarre topics to debate about but in the end the way they use evidence to prove their comparisons is very good. Some parts were way better than others but I really liked the book. I think if we get another chance to do a lit circle again we should read Superfreakonomics it seems just as interesting. Like i also said before in almost all of my posts about this book i would still love to hear what my group mates think about the book as well besides what is on their blogs. The blog also covers the first book, Freakonomics.

SuperFreakonomics (Pt 3)

So the last part of SuperFreakonomics that i really liked was the part, "What do hurricanes, heart attacks, and highway deaths have in common?" I found this part particularly interesting because i would have never thought these things had to do with eachother. During this lit circle blog post i am going to go back to my favorite section in the book which was about "How a pimp is like a realtor," because there were some very good quotes that i could not fit into my other blog posts. I honestly do not understand how someone could think of something like this but the quotes are very helpful for describing.

My first quote i had was very interesting because i never would have looked at these two topics in the same light. Pimp's are never really talked about a lot, and realtors are never really talked about unless trying to buy something. So when put together it is a very odd combination. This quote shows a small overview of what the chapter was about.

A Realtor and a pimp perform the same primary service: marketing your product to potential customers," the chapter reads. "...the Internet is proving to be a pretty powerful substitute for the Realtor. But if you're trying to sell street prostitution, the Internet isn't very good -- not yet, at least -- at matching sellers to buyers.

Another quote that i had was this. I thought this was a good quote because it was short and sweet. It got to the point they were trying to make (how they are alike) and i like that.

So once you consider the value you get for each of these two agents, it seems clear that a pimp's services are considerably more valuable than a Realtor's.

I really enjoyed the book SuperFreakonomics and i suggest it to anyone after reading Freakonomics.

SuperFreakonomics (Pt 2)

So superfreakonomics is goin pretty well. I finished it so i really dont know where exactly to start. The quotes i picked were pretty much ones that were very well known by a lot of people that read the book. So my favorite part of the book for sure was the section where it talked about What do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in common? So i did not know what Mount Pinatubo was because i did not understand how Al Gore could have to do with a mountain. It was very interesting to read about what was said in this book.

The answer is that Gore and Pinatubo’s eruption both suggest a way to cool the planet, albeit with methods whose cost-effectiveness are a universe apart.

This next quote has to do with the section on global warming.

In other words: it’s illogical to believe in a carbon-induced warming apocalypse and believe that such an apocalypse can be averted simply by curtailing new carbon emissions.

This quote also has to do with global warming. This section pretty much told about the science behind it and how everything and everyone is being affected

"A lot of the things that people say would be good things probably aren’t,” Myrhvold says. As an example he points to solar power. “The problem with solar cells is that they’re black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun. But only about 12 percent gets turned into electricity, and the rest is reradiated as heat -- which contributed to global warming.

So far SuperFreakonomics has been an excellent book (Better than Freakonomics). I have already finished the book it was so good. So i am probably skipping around a lot with my quotes. I really suggest this book and the first one to anyone who is interested in reading about interesting facts and statistics. I can not wait for my next post on the book.

SuperFreakonomics (Pt 1)

This book is amazing! I so recommend it to anyone who just can read. I mean its for people probably from the age of 14 and up. I mean it just explores different views that you would not expect as a reader. Like this book does not even have a genre i would say. I could not place it under specific category. So one of the quotes that really stuck out to me which was pretty, "short but sweet" was one that was about global warming and how it is affecting humans, plants, animals, and pretty much every life form on the planet.

Carbon dioxide is the right villain,

Pretty much it explains a lot in just one quote. Carbon dioxide is what is affecting everything! During the first part of the book even before the debate about global warming was about how a Street Prostitute is like a Department-Store Santa?

It turns out that the typical street prostitute in Chicago works 13 hours a week, performing 10 sex acts during that period, and earns an hourly wage of approximately $27. So her weekly take- home pay is roughly $350. This includes an average of $20 that a prostitute steals from her customers and acknowledges that some prostitutes accept drugs in lieu of cash— usually crack cocaine or heroin, and usually at a discount. Of all the women in Venkatesh’s study,83 percent were drug addicts.

So it pretty much showed what the Street Prostitute was like and then later it talked about the Department-Store Santa. I thought this was a very interesting topic considering i would have never thought the two had anything in common at all. So overall the book has been pretty entertaining. I have gotten very far and can not seem to put it down because it is so entertaining. Can't wait for next weeks post and to hear what Ming has to say about the book.

Freakonomics Monthly Review

What was the author's purpose in writing this book, how can you tell? How well was this purpose achieved?

The purpose of this book was to describe what different topics that may have seemed irrelevant to each other yet they were somehow tied to one another. Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner wrote this book and still now continue the book on a blog. The book explored topics such as the similarities between school teachers and sumo wrestlers, how the Ku klux klan and real estate agents are alike, common names for poor and rich areas, and many other interesting topics. Those topics were some of my favorite but there were many more to choose from in the book.

The book started out with Sumo wrestlers Vs. school teachers. This i found interesting because they talked a lot about cheating. The book explained how teachers would do almost anything for his/her class to look really good because if a class does well then the teacher in turn gets better pay or treated better. It also explained how school teachers will cheat for their class in a numerous amount of ways to make themselves look good as teachers (without caring about the students). When teachers do this it affects the students next year which in turn makes next years teacher look worse because of the insufficient teachings of the teacher who cheated. This also helps people figure out who the cheaters are. Cheaters are more easily found when there are patterns in the cheating.

With sumo wrestlers the cheating was kind of the same. The book explained how Sumo Wrestlers have fifteen matches and if they win at least eight out of the fifteen matches then they are considered upper-class wrestlers. The cheating part of Sumo Wrestling is in such occasions as when a 7-7 Sumo wrestler faces a 8-6 wrestler. The 8-6 wrestler will usually throw the match so the 7-7 can become an upper class wrestler.

The purpose of this book was really just a book for leisure i think. Because there is really no point in discussing random topics and how they relate to each other, but it is also very interesting to read and you never really want to put the book down.


For what audience(s) is this book intended, and how can you tell? (In other words, for whom would you recommend this book?)

I think this book is for an older to teenage audience. I mean i would recommend it to anyone who just wants to hear interesting facts about stuff but i mean i would really recommend it to teens and adults. I find this book more for an older crowd one because of peoples reading levels and also just the topics they talk about seem to be for older people. For instance last part of the book Freakonomics was pretty good. Some new topics came up that were very interesting and some that were not as interesting. Parenting came up as one that stood out to me that young kids or a younger crowd really would not care about.I mean i really thought about english when i read this section because it was all about selecting schools and what not. I think that a younger crowd would not get where the authors are coming from at all when they are reading this book so that is why i direct it more toward a middle to older aged crowd of people.

Another part of this book that just supports my idea of directing this book at an older crowd is the topic "Why do drug dealers still live with their mothers." Like really, what is that? I think that is one of the topics that is really irrelevant but i mean it was somewhat interesting just it seemed like the authors did not have a lot to write about it. I mean do not get me wrong i loved the whole book in its entirety but topics like this and some others are just not meant for younger kids and older adults that do not like things like this.


What are the weaknesses of this book, in your opinion?

I think this book covers topics that are kind of boring. The authors may not think so but i found parts of the book really slow. For example, during the beginning of Freakonomics they talked about the Klu Klux Klan and Real Estate agents and how each of them are alike. This section of the book started with the Klu Klux Klan. It explained how they started off as a group of people that went around in sheets and pillow cases and would do harmless pranks to people. Then they talked about how the pranks became no longer harmless. Like they took a lot more time just to say that. So i thought that some of the book was really irrelevant.

Also when they talked about the Real Estate agents they talked about how they chose to sell a house and who too. Depending on age, race, etc. the Real Estate agents would act differently and would offer different areas according to the way the person presented themselves. I found that disturbing because just if a person presents their self in one way does not mean they are that way. If you get what i am saying.

In the book Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner pick the most bizarre topics to debate about but in the end the way they use evidence to prove their comparisons is very good. Some parts were way better than others but I really liked the book. I think if we get another chance to do a lit circle again we should read Superfreakonomics it seems just as interesting. Like i also said before in almost all of my posts about this book i would still love to hear what my group mates think about the book as well besides what is on their blogs. (Also on my last blog post i put the link to the freakonomics blog)

Freakonomics LC Letter (part 3)

France (FDC), Ming (MSG), and Brandon (B. FOK),
The last part of the book Freakonomics was pretty good. Some new topics came up that were very interesting and some that were not as interesting. As france pointed out the parenting thing came up. Race came into play and also parents selecting which schools appealed to their children's learning styles. When i read about the selection of schools by parents i thought of a discussion we all had in english. Sutherland was talking about how if you live in an area with good school's the property tax goes up. In the book this brings up the point that if you live in a nicer area the schools are probably better and the same for the poorer areas.

I think that Freakonomics was overall excellent. I would love to read the second book which i believe is called SuperFreakonomics. I looked it up and i read some reviews about is such as this one:
“This book is a lot like Freakonomics, but better… Levitt and Dubner have a gift for explaining precisely how a researcher discovers something. Their epilogue, on Keith Chen’s attempts to introduce currency to a monkey society, is a model of how to tell a gripping story of scientific research without compromising on accuracy.”
—FINANCIAL TIMES

I also saw online that there was a Freakonomics blog up. I was very interested in this book so i started to read and it is really just like the book. It just extends topics to an extent no one would think about. I will post the link to the blog as one of the comments but i really would recommend the book to anyone. If we do another lit circle i suggest SuperFreakonomics because i thought Freakonomics was good so why not read the sequel. There is not much to say about the book here but i would love to discuss about the book with you guys during class if we get time to do so.

Freakonomics LC Letter (parts 1 & 2)

PART 1

For the first part of Freakonomics they talked about Sumo Wrestlers and Teachers and how each of them are alike. Although they both seem like completely different topics both of the strategies they use are very similar. In the book they use cheating as similarities between the two. They say that teachers may cheat to help their students on exams or SAT's while Sumo Wrestlers cheat to help others in the ranking.

It starts with an Israeli day care center where they do a test on the parents about late pick-ups of children. What i did not understand is in the book they only chose one day care center and so the data did not really prove anything because it had no other evidence besides that one day care center. The data from the one day care center showed that parents would pay a small fee to pick their kids up late rather than picking them up on time.

The next part of the book was about the school teachers. It said how school teachers will cheat for their class in a numerous amount of ways to make themselves look good as teachers. When teachers do this it affects the students next year which in turn makes next years teacher look worse because of the insufficient teachings of the teacher who cheated. This also helps people figure out who the cheaters are. Cheaters are more easily found when there are patterns in the cheating.

After they explained the cheating with payments of Israeli parents and the cheating of school teachers they went to the Sumo Wrestlers. The book explained how Sumo Wrestlers have fifteen matches and if they win at least eight out of the fifteen matches then they are considered upper-class wrestlers. The cheating part of Sumo Wrestling is in such occasions as when a 7-7 Sumo wrestler faces a 8-6 wrestler. The 8-6 wrestler will usually throw the match so the 7-7 can become an upper class wrestler.

In the first part of Freakonomics it mainly talked about cheating and ways to cheat. Sumo Wrestlers do an honor system, teachers do it for themselves, and the Israeli parents that were tested did it for the money. There were also a couple of other examples that were not as big.

PART 2

For the first part of Freakonomics they talked about the Klu Klux Klan and Real Estate agents and how each of them are alike. This section of the book started with the Klu Klux Klan. It explained how they started off as a group of people that went around in sheets and pillow cases and would do harmless pranks to people. Soon after the Klan started it turned into pranks that were more dangerous. Then after the more dangerous pranks came around they were then directed at certain groups of people.

When they talked about the Real Estate agents they talked about how they chose to sell a house and who too. Depending on age, race, etc. the Real Estate agents would act differently and would offer different areas according to the way the person presented themselves. I found that disturbing because just if a person presents their self in one way does not mean they are that way. If you get what i am saying.

In the book Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (i love how they have the same first name) pick the most bizarre topics to debate about but in the end the way they use evidence to prove their comparisons is very good. So far the book has been a pleasure to read and i have some things i would like to discuss with my group because i would like to hear their opinion on these topics.

Monthly review prompt for "First They Killed My Father"

What was the author's purpose in writing this book, how can you tell? How well was this purpose achieved?

The purpose of this book was to describe what Loung Ung's life was like during these hard times. From what i could tell from the book, Luong wanted the reader to know how people were treated in this time by the Khmer Rouge and what life was like in general during the time inside and outside of camp. The quotes she used really made this book excellent. I can not express how well this book was written and how the quotes made described the scenes at hand. She seemed to make it very easy for the reader to tell how she felt, what was going on, and how other characters felt without them even really being in the midst of what was happening. These were just a few of the things that stood out to me. The purpose of showing the reader what life was like was definitely fulfilled from the very beginning of this book.

"This morning, I am stuck at a noodle shop a block from our apartment in this big chair. I'd much rather be playing hopscotch with my friends."-2 This shows that Luong goes to the noodle shop on a semi regular basis in the morning. You can tell this by her writing style and the way she describes the setting. She describes the setting well enough to not make it boring but to also get the point across to the reader that she wants them to be informed about her life.

Throughout the book she shows that her purpose of the book was just to inform people. She emphasizes the key aspects and even the ones that are not so relevant. During this book she helps the reader completely understand her purpose of wanting the reader to enjoy the story but also learn about her culture and how she lived through these hard times.

How would you describe the author's style of writing? What's your opinion of the style?

I would describe Loung Ung's writing more of a suspenseful kind of writer. I find her style very amusing and it always seems to keep the reader (in my case me) on their toes throughout the book. For example during the book this part stood out to me, "Leave me alone. Don't bother me," he yells and comes after me with a large rusty silver cleaver. With my knees shaking i run from him." (199) This part shows the tension in the air and also how the character feels at this time. Pithy's brother is sad and angry because his mother died. I find it ironic that he wants to be left alone but he chases after her.

Another part of the book that stood out to me again that also describes Loung Ung's writing style is this quote on page 183. "You will never be great. What makes you think you will be great? You are nothing. You are an orphan. You'll only be something if you become a hooker." Luong's Foster mother tells Loung that she is worthless. Her new family cares nothing about her. I thought about this throughout the whole book but i wonder why the mother is so petty that she has to make children feel bad about themselves.

One more quote that stood out to me the most over all the others was, "He wants us to follow him to get the water,"...He puts up his palm to stop us. He points to me and waves for me to follow him...I follow him into the woods leaving Chou and Pithy behind." (179) They way Ung describes this situation makes what is about to happen very clear. I could tell right after i finished reading that, she was going to be raped. These descriptions that she uses really helps the reader understand more and focus on her style of writing.

These are some quotes that just show Loung's writing style and how it is different from that of many other writers. She writes in more of a suspenseful thriller genre rather than a biography. I like that a lot more because biography's tend to be boring if the writer does write very enthusiastically, but Luong did a great job writing with enthusiasm while also keeping the book going at a very good pace.

Find out about the author. How did they end up writing this particular book? Is the author's true life reflected in the book in any ways?

I did some research and i found out that Loung does not know her own birthday due to the Khmer Rouge erasing all records of people. This was not put in the book but i found this an interesting fact about what the Khmer Rouge had also done. I also found out that after escaping "the Killing Fields" she emigrated to the United States of America where she wrote this book. She also wrote another book, a sequel to this book called "Lucky Child: A Daughter of Cambodia Reunites with the Sister She Left Behind" which is her second memoir about her struggles with the Khmer Rouge.

Loung Ung wrote this book as a memoir of her memories of being a child soldier. She wrote about how she was trained as a child soldier to become part of the Khmer Rouge. Her life is definitely reflected in this book because it is all about her life. Her personal stories are in this book and you can tell she remembers every single occasion that happened during her life that she showed in the book.

She reflects her life in her writing by explaining some quotes with such emphasis that a reader could tell that it had to be a first hang experience and not just a fictional piece. Loung does not just do this for a few quotes in the book, but for all. She definitely is writing more out of experience and from her heart then she is just trying to make the book sound good.

First They Killed My Father

I forgot to post the last blog post about the book. During this section in the book they were in the village and they were instructed what to do within the village. I found it rather cruel the way the people were treated throughout the book. While they were in the camp i mean. Outside the camp when she had her life they seemed to be quite well off. Luong seemed to be very attached to a few things in this book that seemed to be shown in many different ways. Many of her morals and values were shown indirectly which i liked. The author did a great job of also keeping a great sense of how she felt and also keeping the story along at a very fast pace.

I found parts of this book very sad such as the "picking corn" part. The author described the scenario very well which made it all the more sad. She seemed to do it very well throughout the whole book.

The part where the girls were trained as soldiers was sad as well. I thought they were not treated too poorly yet there was still some really bad things going on within the camp. Even though the girls were treated very well they were also forced into many other things such as marriage.

Overall i thought "First They Killed My Father" was a very well written book. I found the writing style of Luong Ung very unique but it made the book a lot better because of the way she described things. I did have some questions on the book that i will ask my group mates during class but i just found the book very good. I think France was talking about a sequel as well so i would be interested in reading that as well.

First They Killed My Father

So pretty much i thought the first part of the book was pretty good (I left off at probably the most suspenseful part ever in the book). First off i just wanted to point out that the title just seems so sad, but back to the book. I found it rather slow at first because it was just giving an overview of Loung Ung's life. Besides the fact that it was slow and boring for the first part where she explained her life as a child and her daily routines and what not, i found her life quite interesting. How she got up very early every morning and went to eat the noodles at the restaurant. I think the noodles seemed like Pho but i could be wrong. I think for her family's life they seemed to be in the upper class because Loung Ung seems to be not so much to the point of spoiled but in between spoiled and regularly treated. I was somewhat confused about the Khmer Rouge army. Where did they come from? Who sent them? All of these questions were haunting me because these soldiers just randomly popped up into the story and took them hostage and take them to camps to be trained as soldiers. This part where they were taken to these camps kind of reminded me of the Nazi camps and what they did to the jewish people. I am just using it as an analogy. Pretty much the book is getting better than it was before and i am running out of stuff to say about it. I hope Loung Ung and her family make it out alive so they can be together again. It must be hard for her to be without her family all alone in a camp training to become a child soldier for the Khmer Rouge.