Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Reading response #3
"Trading up: Where Do Baby Names Come From?" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J.Dubner is a short, fun essay on baby names. As we all know some people chose a name from the bible or a close friend or family member. As for the other names the authors state that most start off as "high-end " names meaning that they are common among the wealthy and work their way down to become "lower-end" names. Soon after that they are no longer being used.
I can imagine that the reason for this name migration is because everyone wants their child to be successful, so we tend to look at those who we view as successful for names. This was my mothers reasoning behind my name. She met a business woman named Lauren and was so impressed by her that she decided to give me her name.
When picking out a baby name for my daughter so many factors came into play. I too wanted my daughter to have a "high-end" name. It was an agonizing decision because I wanted her name to fit her and I wanted it to be different but not so different that she would be tormented in school because of it. At the same time I didn't want it to be 5 other girls in her class with her name. I think every parent considers these things, it was a good point made by the authors.
But whats really in a name? According to Steven and Stephen "The mane itself isn't likely to make a shred of difference." I have to disagree, from my experience people with certain names tend to have similar personalities. For example Brittany's, Ashley's and Brianna's tend to be popular and/or a bit spoiled. Mary's and Karyn's are a bit conservative. And I've never met a Mikaela or Maia that I didn't like. Furthermore we tend to judge people based on their name. For example if someone were to say to you that they were going to introduce you to their friend Keisha you would probably be surprised if you later found out that Keisha was white, or to find out that Loren is a guy (I was very surprised when I found out that there were guys named Loren). This shows the importance of names and the stereotypes that come with certain names.
This essay also provided interesting facts about name's. Who would have thought that some people name their kids after careers for example there were 3 lawyers, 9 judges, 3 senators and 2 presidents. My name made the list for 2000...yay. A list of the most popular baby names in 2015 was also provided based on information gathered from educated people. Some of the names sound a bit odd to me like Clementine for a girl and Finnegan for a boy. I also found out that the name Katrina will soon join the list of nearly 5 dozen hurricane names that have been retired. When a hurricane does great damage a country can request that its name be retired by the World Meteorological Organization. A retired name cannot be used for at least 10 years...who knew.
One thing that is for certain choosing a name for a baby is fun yet agonizing. This essay gives good insight to where names really come from. I would suggest reading this even if you don't plan on having a baby anytime soon, its still a good read.
I can imagine that the reason for this name migration is because everyone wants their child to be successful, so we tend to look at those who we view as successful for names. This was my mothers reasoning behind my name. She met a business woman named Lauren and was so impressed by her that she decided to give me her name.
When picking out a baby name for my daughter so many factors came into play. I too wanted my daughter to have a "high-end" name. It was an agonizing decision because I wanted her name to fit her and I wanted it to be different but not so different that she would be tormented in school because of it. At the same time I didn't want it to be 5 other girls in her class with her name. I think every parent considers these things, it was a good point made by the authors.
But whats really in a name? According to Steven and Stephen "The mane itself isn't likely to make a shred of difference." I have to disagree, from my experience people with certain names tend to have similar personalities. For example Brittany's, Ashley's and Brianna's tend to be popular and/or a bit spoiled. Mary's and Karyn's are a bit conservative. And I've never met a Mikaela or Maia that I didn't like. Furthermore we tend to judge people based on their name. For example if someone were to say to you that they were going to introduce you to their friend Keisha you would probably be surprised if you later found out that Keisha was white, or to find out that Loren is a guy (I was very surprised when I found out that there were guys named Loren). This shows the importance of names and the stereotypes that come with certain names.
This essay also provided interesting facts about name's. Who would have thought that some people name their kids after careers for example there were 3 lawyers, 9 judges, 3 senators and 2 presidents. My name made the list for 2000...yay. A list of the most popular baby names in 2015 was also provided based on information gathered from educated people. Some of the names sound a bit odd to me like Clementine for a girl and Finnegan for a boy. I also found out that the name Katrina will soon join the list of nearly 5 dozen hurricane names that have been retired. When a hurricane does great damage a country can request that its name be retired by the World Meteorological Organization. A retired name cannot be used for at least 10 years...who knew.
One thing that is for certain choosing a name for a baby is fun yet agonizing. This essay gives good insight to where names really come from. I would suggest reading this even if you don't plan on having a baby anytime soon, its still a good read.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Reading Response #2
When I first decided to read an essay from “who wants diversity” I automatically thought that I would not agree with the authors’ viewpoints. I want diversity and I think if you asked almost anyone they would say the same thing. However after reading “People Like Us” by David Brooks I began to question whether or not we really wanted diversity. According to Brooks we don’t really care about diversity we talk about it but we tend to segregate ourselves. The United States may be a diverse country but block by block, city by city we are not at all diverse. Some evidence suggests that areas become more segregated as time goes on. What Brooks is basically saying in his essay is that people don’t want diversity because it is human nature to look for similarities in others. He says that people with similar tastes tend to congregate by zip code. For example recent college graduates in places like Berkley Ca are big consumers of dove bars and Saturday night live, they tend to drive small foreign cars and read rolling stone. Another example he gives is successful blacks are increasingly moving to neighborhoods where other successful blacks live. This essay made me think about how diverse my daily interactions are.
Michigan is one of the most segregated states in the country not by law but by choice. We all know of certain areas that are mostly black or Middle Eastern or white. I guess we don’t want diversity as much as we thought, now that we have the opportunity to mix and mingle with other cultures we still tend to stick with those that are similar to ourselves. After I thought about it most of the people I know are very similar to myself, and I’m sure most people could say the same thing. Most of us tend to choose our friends or partners based on the fact that they have something in common with us. Why is it that we tend to stick with people that we have things in common with, is it because we feel threatened by people with opposing viewpoints? This segregation prevents us from having real discussions about politics or religion because we tend to surround ourselves with people just like us.
One thing this essay brought to mind was the typical high school lunchroom. Jocks at one table popular kids at another, rebels’, smart kids, cheerleaders all sit with others similar to themselves. In a way the U.S is like that high school lunchroom, we stick with people like us. We all say that we want diversity but don’t do anything about it, we still keep ourselves separated from each other. As brooks said “The dream of diversity is like the dream of equality; both are based on ideals, we celebrate them even as we undermine them daily.” This is a very good essay. I suggest that everyone reads it and thinks about how diverse their daily interactions really are.
Michigan is one of the most segregated states in the country not by law but by choice. We all know of certain areas that are mostly black or Middle Eastern or white. I guess we don’t want diversity as much as we thought, now that we have the opportunity to mix and mingle with other cultures we still tend to stick with those that are similar to ourselves. After I thought about it most of the people I know are very similar to myself, and I’m sure most people could say the same thing. Most of us tend to choose our friends or partners based on the fact that they have something in common with us. Why is it that we tend to stick with people that we have things in common with, is it because we feel threatened by people with opposing viewpoints? This segregation prevents us from having real discussions about politics or religion because we tend to surround ourselves with people just like us.
One thing this essay brought to mind was the typical high school lunchroom. Jocks at one table popular kids at another, rebels’, smart kids, cheerleaders all sit with others similar to themselves. In a way the U.S is like that high school lunchroom, we stick with people like us. We all say that we want diversity but don’t do anything about it, we still keep ourselves separated from each other. As brooks said “The dream of diversity is like the dream of equality; both are based on ideals, we celebrate them even as we undermine them daily.” This is a very good essay. I suggest that everyone reads it and thinks about how diverse their daily interactions really are.
Monday, October 12, 2009
academic article summary
In their essay “The economic case against prohibition” (October 11, 2009 Journal of Economic perspectives Vol.9 NO.4 Published by the American Economic Association) Jeffery A. Miron and Jeffery Zweibel suggest that a relatively free market in drugs is likely to be vastly superior to our current drug policy. They support this position first by “analyzing the economic consequences of drug prohibition”; they compare a prohibited market with a free market on drugs. Then the authors discuss the connection between prohibition and violence “prohibition is likely to raise marginal benefits to violence.” Participants in the illegal drug trade cannot use the legal and judicial system so using violence to resolve disputes increases due to necessity. Next they discuss how prohibiting drugs encourages drugs cartels. Lastly they discuss the increased amount of accidental poisoning overdoses during prohibition. This is mainly due to the uncertainty about product quality. Quality regulations do not apply to illegal products so accidental poisonings and overdoses occur more frequently in a prohibited market. Their purpose is to provide a detailed analysis of the benefits of a free market; they want the reader to understand that from an economic point of view it is logical to end drug prohibition. One point that I found particularly interesting was the connection between violence and drug prohibition. Being a business major I appreciated the strong economic feel of the paper.
In the essay “Drug Prohibition in the US: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives” (October 11, 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science) Ethan A. Nadelmann concludes that “though legalization would increase the availability of drugs, decrease the price and remove criminal sanction which would invite increases in drug use and abuse there are at least 3 reasons why these risks are worth taking.” In his essay he discusses both the risks and benefits of legalizing drugs. His first reason is that drug enforcement strategies that rely on the law are limited in the effect to decrease abuse and drug dealing. One example he gives that I found particularly interesting is “since stepping up interdiction efforts have reduced the flow of marijuana into the US and have increased the price to American consumers however the US has emerged as one of the world’s leading producers of marijuana in fact the US producers are now believed to produce among the finest strains in the world.” His second reason is that many of the law enforcement efforts we have in place are limited in value and results but are very costly. Total government spending devoted to enforcement laws amounted to $10 billion in 1990. The third reason given by Nadelmann is that legalization may be less risky than most people think “especially if intelligent alternative measures are implemented.” He provides a somewhat well rounded look at legalization of drugs by including both risks and benefits, though he gives much information about benefits of legalizing drugs he leaves enough room for the reader to come to their own conclusion. Nadelmann states that legalization should be done in an intelligent way but he does not provide an intelligent solution to the problem. He does say that “the success of legalization depends upon two assumptions: most illegal drugs are not as dangerous as is commonly believed and that risky methods of drug use are unlikely to prove appealing to many people because they are so dangerous.” I did appreciate the fact that he made it clear that his reason for supporting legalization of drugs was to help solve the drug problem in this country.
In the appropriately titled “Drug Policy: Striking the right balance” (October 11,2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science) Avram Goldstein and Harold Kalant suggest that drug policies should strike a balance between reducing harm done by drugs and harm that results from strict legal prohibitions and their enforcement. They do this by showing that psychoactive drugs are to varying degrees dangerous to users and society, drug consumption is influenced by availability, availability can be modified in many ways other than prohibition, demand reduction is key to ending the drug problem and drug policy should be tailored to the dangers presented by each drug to users and society. The author’s purpose is to explain how balance is the key to ending the drug problem facing the US. This is my favorite essay of the three because it is the only one that discusses ending the demand for drugs as a way to end the problem. Neither of the other essays mentioned this. I feel that it is a key component to ending the drug problem. This was also the only one to discuss varying policies based on the danger of the drug “the debate is not about oversimplified dichotomy, legalization versus prohibition but rather about the specifics of regulatory policies for each drug.” Goldstein and Kalant provided a more in-depth look at the problem and how legalization could be a solution.
Works Cited Page
Drug Policy: Striking the Right Balance Author(s): Avram Goldstein and Harold Kalant Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 249, No. 4976 (Sep. 28, 1990), pp. 1513-1521 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2877807 Accessed: 11/10/2009 22:44
Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives Author(s): Ethan A. Nadelmann Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 245, No. 4921 (Sep. 1, 1989), pp. 939-947 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1704189 Accessed: 11/10/2009 18:29
The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition Author(s): Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 175-192 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138396 Accessed: 11/10/2009 19:00
In the essay “Drug Prohibition in the US: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives” (October 11, 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science) Ethan A. Nadelmann concludes that “though legalization would increase the availability of drugs, decrease the price and remove criminal sanction which would invite increases in drug use and abuse there are at least 3 reasons why these risks are worth taking.” In his essay he discusses both the risks and benefits of legalizing drugs. His first reason is that drug enforcement strategies that rely on the law are limited in the effect to decrease abuse and drug dealing. One example he gives that I found particularly interesting is “since stepping up interdiction efforts have reduced the flow of marijuana into the US and have increased the price to American consumers however the US has emerged as one of the world’s leading producers of marijuana in fact the US producers are now believed to produce among the finest strains in the world.” His second reason is that many of the law enforcement efforts we have in place are limited in value and results but are very costly. Total government spending devoted to enforcement laws amounted to $10 billion in 1990. The third reason given by Nadelmann is that legalization may be less risky than most people think “especially if intelligent alternative measures are implemented.” He provides a somewhat well rounded look at legalization of drugs by including both risks and benefits, though he gives much information about benefits of legalizing drugs he leaves enough room for the reader to come to their own conclusion. Nadelmann states that legalization should be done in an intelligent way but he does not provide an intelligent solution to the problem. He does say that “the success of legalization depends upon two assumptions: most illegal drugs are not as dangerous as is commonly believed and that risky methods of drug use are unlikely to prove appealing to many people because they are so dangerous.” I did appreciate the fact that he made it clear that his reason for supporting legalization of drugs was to help solve the drug problem in this country.
In the appropriately titled “Drug Policy: Striking the right balance” (October 11,2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science) Avram Goldstein and Harold Kalant suggest that drug policies should strike a balance between reducing harm done by drugs and harm that results from strict legal prohibitions and their enforcement. They do this by showing that psychoactive drugs are to varying degrees dangerous to users and society, drug consumption is influenced by availability, availability can be modified in many ways other than prohibition, demand reduction is key to ending the drug problem and drug policy should be tailored to the dangers presented by each drug to users and society. The author’s purpose is to explain how balance is the key to ending the drug problem facing the US. This is my favorite essay of the three because it is the only one that discusses ending the demand for drugs as a way to end the problem. Neither of the other essays mentioned this. I feel that it is a key component to ending the drug problem. This was also the only one to discuss varying policies based on the danger of the drug “the debate is not about oversimplified dichotomy, legalization versus prohibition but rather about the specifics of regulatory policies for each drug.” Goldstein and Kalant provided a more in-depth look at the problem and how legalization could be a solution.
Works Cited Page
Drug Policy: Striking the Right Balance Author(s): Avram Goldstein and Harold Kalant Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 249, No. 4976 (Sep. 28, 1990), pp. 1513-1521 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2877807 Accessed: 11/10/2009 22:44
Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives Author(s): Ethan A. Nadelmann Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 245, No. 4921 (Sep. 1, 1989), pp. 939-947 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1704189 Accessed: 11/10/2009 18:29
The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition Author(s): Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 175-192 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138396 Accessed: 11/10/2009 19:00
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Reading Response: Orlando Patterson Race Over
In the essay "Race Over" Orlando Patterson states that he believes that race will no longer be an issue in this country and will be replaced with the issue of class. He goes on to say that by the middle of the 21st century America will have no racial problems whatsoever. He attributes this to 4 social patterns in the U.S. He believes that the races will merge due to similar class issues. Lower class whites and blacks would no longer separate themselves because of races issues but unite because of class issues. While I would love to think that this is possible I find this hard to believe. Considering that for the most part of our counrties existence race has been an issue. Race will always be an issue in this country until we are able to have an honest conversataion about it and are able to empathize with the issues of other races. We are no where near that point. Everyone has some amount of prejudioce in them and no one wants to admit it. When we can confront those prejudices that we believe and express them honestly then we can begin to eliminate the issue of race. However I do agree with Patterson in that class will become more of an issue but I don't think it will overtake the issue of race. I agree that Latin culture will become more prevalent and we will become more racially diverse, these things will help us to eliminate the issue of race but the problem wont go away from these things alone. Race is an issue to deeply rooted in our countries history and it will take a lot of work to get rid of it. Though I may not completely agree with Patterson's views, his essay offered interesting points on the issue of race.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Screenshot assignment
Working on a resume is one of the most daunting tasks there is. I often worry whether or not my resume will impress my potential employer and how my resume stacks up against other possible employees. For this reason I decided to do a screen shot of my resume. I did not even know what a screen shot was until today. Though I am not very technology savvy I have an appreciation for the many things technology enables us to do. One of the many benefits of working on a computer is the ability to personalize and edit things in ways you could not otherwise. Though typing an manual writing are similar they are different in many ways. Typing gives you many advantages not available to you when you write manually. Editing a paper is a lot easier to do on the computer, I cant remember the last time I edited a paper manually. I never thought of all the possibilities available to us through digital composition. I am so used to having the technology that in many ways I take it for granted. The best way to gain understanding of digital composing is to experiment. I don't always know how things work but I can usually figure it out by playing around with things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)