FREAKNONOMICS, 1st Chunk

Approaching the the world of economics from a new viewpoint, Freakonomics applies the basic principles of economics to society. With the most basic of economic principles, Freakonomics is able to explain why teachers and sumo wrestlers cheat and how the KKK and real estate agents utilize agents to maximize their profits and gains. By using these examples, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner are able to explain the concept of incentives and the utilization of information that is ubiquitous in economics. Incentives run the economic world, they can either stimulate business or scare it away. Sumo wrestlers help each other out (win some and lose some(on purpose)) in order to stay in the elite class. Meanwhile teachers cheat for students on standardized tests to receive more money. Information can be used to foil the plans of a national terrorist organization or sell your own home for more profit than someone else's. Real estate agents take advantage of their knowledge and the ignorance of the average home owner to sell their home at a higher rate. The business of one bagel man, a former executive, illustrates the morality involved in economics. People feel more obligated to stay true to their morals when they're closer to the significan other, people lower on the executive ladder appear to have truer ethics than their bosses, and people neglect payment less and steal less when in a more tightly knit group. A unique book, Freakonomics is able to dissect the complicated concepts of economics and demonstrate them through practical every day occurrences and history. All this is said in the first two chapters of the book.

What makes you happy?

Happiness is different for every individual, and what makes one happy is also unique to everyone. However in an Opinion piece from the LA Times entitled "Finding Your Happy Place"(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-weiner2jan02,0,1501976.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions) by Eric Weiner states that happiness originates from external factors of one's life, environment, and society like the "quality of government, social interactions and, to an extent, money" (Maybe that's why Americans are so unhappy). In the first ever happiness map (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uol-uol072706.php) made by the University of Leicester in Britain, countries are listed in chronological order according to the happiness of its citizens. In today's materialistic society, trivial chattels like luxury cars, I-Pods, or MONEY increase one's "subjective well-being, " so do these external factors really matter? If looked at from a broader perspective, it is the government and society that allows individuals to have such material goods. However, monetarily challenged Latin countries are happier than America. A democratic America, ranked 23rd fairs well in comparison to the decadent chaos into which countries such as Zimbabwe (177th) and the "Democratic Rebublic" of Congo (176th) have fallen in. According to this article, the amount of happiness one can achieve depends on where one is situated. So if one wants to be happy, visit countries such as Denmark (VIKINGS and haven for homo-sexuals (1st country to allow same sex marraige)), Switzerland (watches and Alps), and Austria (Einstein and "I'LL BE BACK")

Tone: enthusiastic

What is happiness to you? What makes you happy? Why?

Heaven: Fact or Fiction?

Heaven is what one wants it to be. An imaginary salvation that is anticipated by those who have a hard time in life and expect a reward for being a good samaritan. Just like the religions that force individuals to believe in an non-existent utopian fantasy, the thought of going to heaven makes people feel better and more secure. In an Opinion piece by Joel Stein entitled "A Little Bit of Heaven on Earth" (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-stein21dec21,1,5522577.column?ctrack=1&cset=true), Joel Stein preaches to the public about the outdated version of heaven. "Heaven is totally overrated. It seems boring. Clouds, listening to people play the harp. It should be somewhere you can't wait to go, like a luxury hotel. Maybe blue skies and soft music were enough to keep people in line in the 17th century, but heaven has to step it up a bit. They're basically getting by because they only have to be better than hell." This quote by Joel Stein which was published on Starbucks cups sparked an outrage that suggests that "heaven is a mere fantasy custom tailored to the desires of each individual One outraged indivudual responded to the quote on the Starbucks cup: "I was thinking it was sad that you looked at heaven that way. I wanted you to know about the heaven I know about and I look forward to go to" . So is heaven a fixed utopia that one reaches after a righteous life? Or is it just a dream of which everyone has their own version that can be obtained on Earth? An article that first questions the contemporary views of heaven leads to a debate about the existence of heaven and which ultimately challenges the existence of "God." Religion provides salvation for people during life and heaven is a facet of religion that ensures salvation after death. This practical and potentially controversial article challenges the existence of heaven, ridicules the existence of Jesus and forces one to question...Does heaven exist? Which may lead one to inquire: Does "God" exist?

Tone: casual and mocking

Do you think heaven exists? Why? How do you visualize heaven?

Rid the English Curriculum of the Past Tense

Analysis
In this satirical piece from the Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/underfunded_schools_forced_to_cut), an anonymous author addresses the controversy over cutting the past tense from English programs in underfunded schools. Although seemingly unintended for a particular audience, this article is directed to people aware of underfunded schools and offers an alternative to cutting "unessential" music and art programs. The past tense is a thing of the past and society should look towards the future rather than linger in the past in order to progress. According to a satirically invented quote by Utah's Republican senator, Orrin Hatch, "Our tax dollars should be spent preparing our children for the future, not for what has already happened . . . It's about time we stopped wasting everyone's time with who 'did' what or 'went' where. The past tense is, by definition, outdated." A typical Republican defined by pro creative education cuts and the supposed "No Child Left Behind Policies," Hatch has defended the actions of the pedophile Mark Foley. The article's satirical point attacks the paradoxical views of the Republicans like Orrin Hatch in the field of educational reform. If art and music programs are so unnecessary that they are deserving of cuts, why not omit the past tense from the English curriculum?

Does the author’s mocking tone make the argument more powerful?
Why do people see art and music programs as inessential?