After reading about the Boston Molasses Flood, I realized that it shared a few similarities with the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant leak in Japan, in late 2011. This disaster was triggered by the Tohoku Earthquake/Tsunami. Once the earthquake occurred and the tsunami was created; equipment at the Fukushima Plant began to fail. This is obviously similar to the Molasses Disaster because of the fact that the molasses tank and its supporting materials failed which is what led to the streets of Boston being flooded with molasses.

Also, two of six total boiling water reactors located within the nuclear plant were due for maintenance at the time of the disaster. This is similar to the collapsing of the molasses tank because much of the tank needed to be repaired or replaced when it finally collapsed. If the molasses tank had been fixed as soon as the errors were noticed the entire catastrophe most likely would not have occurred. And if the two reactors had been properly maintained perhaps not as much radiation would have leaked from the plant once the disaster struck.

Finally, the two disasters are similar because they both called for immediate evacuation of nearby area after they happened. Some people were killed by the molasses flooding through the streets and it took temporary evacuation to clean the streets. The area surrounding the power plant had to be evacuated because the chemicals were extremely dangerous.

Boston Molasses Flood vs. Karachi Factory Fire

            The molasses flood that occurred in Boston in 1919 and the factory fire that happened in Karachi, Pakistan last year are similar in a few ways. In September of 2012 a fire broke out in a textile factory in the garment district of Karachi, Pakistan. The fire killed almost 300 people. The Boston molasses flood resulted in the death of  21 people and the injury of 150 more. Both disasters could have been prevented. Local residents and even employees voiced their concern of the leaking molasses tank before it burst. In the Karachi factory a 2007 report claimed that the factory needed better fire protection. Over the next few years the owners refused many inspections of the factory. Many of doors were locked shut and most windows had metal bars on them when the fire began. In Boston rescue workers arrived quickly and soldiers aboard the USS Nantucket also helped save those trapped in the molasses. However in Pakistan firefighters did not arrive until 75 minutes after the fire broke out, and by that time it was too late to save most of the people still trapped in the factory. the fire was believed to have begun when a boiler exploded and ignited chemicals being stored in the factory. The cause of the flood in Boston was the poorly constructed and maintained tank. Both of these disasters caused many deaths but were preventable.    

The Great Molasses Flood and the Central Texas Fertilizer Plant Explosion

                On April 17^th a Central Texas fertilizer plant exploded killing fourteen people and forever changing the lives of a whole community.  The explosion occurred in the small town of West, Texas but was heard and felt from miles outside of the town.

There are many aspects of the explosion that can compare to the Boston Molasses flood such as the devastation left in the accidents’ wake. Both accidents resulted in millions of dollars in damage and the emotional toll of the people who lived in both communities. Another similarity between the two catastrophes was the death toll. In the wake of both catastrophes the death toll was not extremely high with 21 deaths resulting from the molasses flood and 14 deaths resulting from the plant explosion. In both disasters the damages were similar, with a lot of property damage involving houses and businesses alike.

The major difference between the two disasters is the cause. The Texas Fertilizer plant explosion was ruled as an accident whereas the Boston Molasses Food can be traced back to faulty rushed construction and the ignorance of those in charge of the tank.

Molasses Disaster vs. Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

 While beginning to read "Dark Tide" another national disaster that came to mind was the Gulf of Mexico Oil spill that accrued in 2006 which was considered the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.  When comparing the two disasters what is obviously similar is the destruction they both had in the United States. The molasses flood filled the streets in the North End of Boston killing 21 and injuring over 150.  It caused high speeds of molasses to sweep through the streets damaging the foundations of buildings and houses on the streets. On the other hand the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill had a large impact on the ocean and animals in it unlike the molasses flood.  The explosion of the oil rigs released over 4.9 million gallons of oil and took the lives of 11 people. Another difference was that the oil rig wasn't capped for 87 days allowing oil to continuously flow because of the great difficulty it took to fix it.  Since there was so much oil in the water it was impossible to remove all the oil so there is still reminisces of the spill washing up on the shores of Mississippi. The molasses flood was able to be removed off the streets in about two weeks.  The
molasses flood brought tragedy to the city of Boston while the oil spill damaged the ocean floor and
effected over 8000 species of animals.  One similarity was that there was nothing people could have done to prevent the explosions but in both cases people wondered if the explosions could have some how been preventable. People in Boston knew the molasses tank would eventually burst but the oil explosions was a freak accident. Finally, both accidents cost millions of dollars to clean up.



. 

Abortion and Crime

In the chapter “Where Have All the Criminals Gone?” , Freakonomics’ authors Levitt and Dubner discuss the crime rate in the 1990’s in America and try to find out what caused the crime-drop. They mention that other sources credited the drop to innovative policing strategies, changes in drug markets, tougher gun laws, and a strong economy, among other things. Dubner and Levitt rule out a majority of the reasons other sources said caused the crime-drop.

            Dubner and Levitt then raise an interesting topic, when they consider abortion as the main cause of the crime-drop. The authors allude to Romania’s 1960’s dictator prohibiting abortion, saying that it allowed the birth of unwanted children which may have led to more criminals and Nicolae Ceausescu being dethroned. Once Roe v Wade ruled abortion legal in the United States in 1973, women were able to avoid giving birth and raising unwanted children. The authors say that unwanted children tend to grow up in houses with only one parent or in other bad situations. With to-be mothers having abortions, these babies that would probably grow up to be criminals weren’t being born.

            Abortion is one of if not the most controversial topics discussed in Freakonomics. Peoples’ views on abortion are always center stage; a prime example would be during elections. Campaign advertisements today tend to make the opponent look worse rather than promoting his/her self, and the most common commercials involve the candidate’s views on abortion and Roe v Wade.

            After reading Freakonomics, I agree with Levitt and Dubner that the statistics on abortion directly correlate to the crime-drop in the 90’s. However, I think that many other factors like the ones I mentioned earlier also played a role in the drop. I believe that it is very controversial to site only one reason as the cause to such a complex problem.

Public Bigotry

When I first came across the word "bigotry" in Freakonomics, I had never heard of it before and had to look it up. To be a bigot basically means that one is so infatuated with their own ideas and prejudices, no one else's is relevant. Usually this has to do with ethnic prejudices and racist opinions. In the book, Paula Deen's charge of public bigotry was used as an example.

I think public bigotry is very controversial in this part of the book because even though it is only one celebrity being caught and charged for it, there are plenty of people who have the same unjust beliefs. As much as people would like to deny it, racism is still a problem to this day. The only difference now is that it isn't politically correct to judge upon race so people try to hide it. People with such beliefs may hide it from everyone or just from those who they know will disagree. Just because racism isn't socially acceptable anymore, people still carry those feelings. Although most cases of public bigotry aren't as straight forward as Paula Deen's remark using the N word, people are still finding trends of racism. In chapter 6 when Levitt and Dubner examine how a name can effect a person's life or opportunity whether they are black or even if their name just sounds black. Having people with prejudice beliefs in charge of companies, businesses, government or basically anywhere is hindering social progress. Could the world be missing out on new inventions or ideas that come from black people just because one person goes out of their way to make sure they are never noticed? Obama becoming the first black president in 2008 was still a major revelation in our country and the fact that so many people were against the idea of having an African American lead our country proves that racism is still a major factor in people's everyday decisions.

There's no denying that the amount of racism in this country has decreased over the past decades but it still has not ceased completely. The hidden racist views are almost just as bad as if they were to be spoken because even though they know it's wrong, they still cannot let go of the hatred and judgement. Personally, I believe racism stems from ignorance and too much pride. Until people realize that and are willing to change, racism will surround our lives and public bigotry will become an even bigger problem as racism becomes less accepted.

Abortions Control on Crime

As i read Freakonomics I could not stop talking to my co workers and family about how Levitt and Dubner looked at topics in ways that people just do not look at things. It makes so much sense its astonishing how experts do not think like they did. As they explained how the drop in crime was so dramatic and no expert predicted nor new what it was caused from brought so many questions to me.

So as Levitt and Dubner went through the top ten reasons experts wrote about in magazines that were the cause of the crime drop rate all made sense to me and were logical in why experts said why they caused the crime drop. But the authors looked at all these alleged causes and discarded then all and took a different view on the case. As they realized that abortion was a major factor in the 1990 crime drop it makes a ton of sense because of the babies who would have been born into the lifestyle of many typical criminals. This abortion situation is very controversial because it is a topic that has been discussed and argued for years between pro life vs. pro choices is a topic that can bring heated conversations because of some background such as religion and culture.

I completely agree with the authors and the view of the book because to me the babies that would have been born without the abortion would have lived hard lives (single moms, low income, teen mom, unsafe environment). While this abortion situation is very controversial i think that it is correct to have an abortion in situations where it would be unsafe to have a baby that would grow up ill nurtured or in a dangerous situation. The way the authors looked at this topic in Freakonomics was very interesting to me and kept me turning the pages and i could not put the book down because alls i wanted to do was see if the questions i had were correct.

The Role of Parents

"If morality represents the ideal world, then economics represents the actual world." (Levitt, and Dubner, 210) This statement appears to be the definition of the book Freakonomics, the contents and claims of this book analyze topics that are considered controversial. One of these controversies, the role of parents: as explored in chapters five and six, grasps the attention of the readers because of the idea that parents can be the determining factor for how their child turns out in the future. Whether the parents are supportive or not, either case could lead the child down the wrong path in life.

The reason this topic is considered controversial is that most parents obsess about making sure their kid(s) grow up successful, yet those same parents assume that whatever choices they make towards their children will positively impact them and that the choices the parents make to benefit themselves will have no effect on their kids. This is a false assumption, or even a fantasy, that most parents will make the mistake of theorizing. The whole idea that what the parent does HAS to be right, is the basic fuel for determining what choices to make as a parent of children. One example from the book is "The child has many books in the home." (Levitt, and Dubner, 175) referring to what factors are correlated to test scores, this is actually a decision to make as a parent: 'Do I want my child surrounded by forms of knowledge? Or do I want him/her to be surrounded by visual pieces of work?' As claimed in chapter five, Levitt and Dubner explored this correlation to understand the link between test scores and this claim.

The most likely reason that Levitt and Dubner decided to cover this topic is that of how absurd it would sound to most and also how oblivious people are to this trend. As previously mentioned, many people believe that each parent has their own way of parenting and there is no set specific method of raising a child, yet there are certain actions that some parents think would not affect their kids but they do like giving them a 'high-class name.' For the sake of forcing others to look beyond the general surface of life and for questioning specific aspects of it, this topic was realized, presented, and analyzed.

I think the intentions both authors have in this book are amazing, to make an attempt to see the world differently is beyond powerful. I think that such controversial topics in this book propose a dramatic realization to the audience of how we accept the world as opposed to how we see it and feel about it.

Deadman Walking

Reading Freakonomics opened my eyes to a number of ordeals that I simply accepted in the world of today. I understood the fight for abortion, I understood that selling cocaine could land you in jail, and I understood that guns could both hurt and aid. But in chapter 4, Where Have All The Criminals Gone?, a major issue that is disputed even now a days came about. Levitt and Dubner approached the subject of the increased use of capital punishment.

A big issue in the U.S. is the constant questioning of the option of execution in states. People believed for decades that this capital punishment helped drive down crime. Citizens thought that the agent of fear of death dropped the crime rate in early 2000. But Levitt and Dubner revealed two very interesting facts that steered this belief into new territory. The first important fact would be that there were only 478 executions in the entire U.S. during the 1990's with prisoners on death row having an annual execution rate of lowly two percent. Shockingly members of the cocaine organization Black Gangster Disciple Nation has a higher percent of death at seven percent. This shows that men who are locked up for the purpose of their death have a higher percent chance of living than a man who is on a street corner in Chicago with forty dollars worth of drugs in his pockets.

The other fact revolves around the math that involves the death penalty. Levitt supplied the readers with the statistic that for every 1 criminal that is executed there are seven fewer homicides that might have been committed. Using this formula with the 2001 homicide rates it showed that execution, death penalty, only had a four percent impact on the total number of homicides that single year. This can show that the death penalty has little to any influence on the works of criminals who have homicidal or an other illegal intentions. With it costing nearly $25,000 a year to keep someone incarcerated on death row, it seems to be pointless in its purpose and long sentences.

The frightening part about this amount of information was that the threat of death doesn't stop the criminals of the United States. When it shows that a homicidal crime committed by a criminal has only a 2 percent chance of death the odds are in the criminals favor. Wasting the countries money on the criminals who are incarcerated, starts the debate of whether execution is worth it or should prisoners be sent to a regular prison. The people of the country then question if it is morally right to kill the criminal that killed another. Is this how the crime rate was lowered, with the lowering of moral? In relation I believe that the authors brought up this matter in this specific part of the book to show that execution has little effect on the country as a whole, only in the crime percentage. They don't take sides on the matter accept for the subtext that ask a question.  If the fear of death is not enough, then what will it take to create such a big drop in crime the next time it peaks when abortion is already legalized?

When Warnings Are Ignored

On April 24, 2013, an eight-story garment factory building in Bangladesh collapsed killing 1,129 and injuring more than 2,500. It is considered to be the deadliest structural failure in modern history. Like the molasses tank in Boston cracks in the Bangladesh structure were discovered and reported but the warnings were ignored.  Supervisors of the garment factory declared that the building was safe and demanded that their employees come to work even though the people in the shops and the bank on the bottom floors had evacuated.   Although the cracks had been discovered just the day before, for months architects had highlighted other potential risks associated with the structural integrity of the building. In addition, the top four floors had been constructed without a permit. The factory manufactured apparel for companies like The Children’s Place and Walmart.

It would be interesting to note the net worth of the USIA in 1919 and Walmart in 2013. It is even more interesting to know that most of the people in both the North End and in Bangladesh were living in poverty. If Isaac Gonzales were alive today he probably would not believe that companies are still sacrificing people for profit.  

The Importance of a Name

While reading Freakonomics there were many things that stood out to me, from teachers cheating for their own benefit to the business of drug dealing. But for me the most controversial topic I came across was the importance of you name. I never really thought much about someone's name, it was always just a way to identify a face. A sound, really, to identify who you are. In the chapter "Perfect Parenting, Part II; Or: Would a Roshanda By Any Other Name Smell As Sweet?" Levitt and Dubner explores how important a name really is.

The first thing I came across that really surprised me was the differences between "white" names and "black" names. On page 189 they talked about a study where a researcher sent two identical resumés, one with a "white" name and one with a "minority sounding" name. Generally the resumé with the "white" name would get more interviews. But why is that? The resumés were identical. Wouldn't it make sense to interview both? It's simple, different names have different connotations. An employer usually looks for someone with an education and no criminal record, often they assume someone with a "white" name is exactly what they are looking for whereas someone with a "black" name would be more of a risk. People do not only discriminate against someone's appearance but also what they assume their name implies about them. But as this book shows, things are not always what they seem.

The other thing I found surprising in this chapter was how the standard spelling of a name usually signified parents with a low education. The example Levitt and Dubner used was the name Jasmine. Mothers who spelled it like "Jazmine" generally had 11.94 years of education whereas those who spelled it like "Jasmyn" generally had 13.23 years of education. Someone's name may not necessarily reflect what they are like but what their parents were like. High education parents tend to go with more unique names that then become popular with other high education parents. After a few years low education parents will start using these names and the high education parents begin using different names.

Of course some people could argue that it is just a name and does not mean anything. For me it raises some questions, would I have been different if I had a different name? If my parents knew this would I have gotten a different name? There is no way of actually figuring out something like this but it is an interesting concept to think about.

Information Asymmetry

When reading Freakonomics, I came across several controversial topics. One of the many topics that really stood out to me was the abuse of information. As I read this section of the book located within the chapter titled “The Ku Klux Klan and Real – Estate Agents,” I found that people with more information often use it to their advantage, at the expense of those with less information.  As the book says, “Information is a beacon, a cudgel, an olive branch, a deterrent, depending on who wields it and how,” (Levitt and Dubner, 67.) This quote basically sums up the two sides of information: it can either be a very worthwhile source or a dangerous weapon that can be used against someone.

               The parlance used to describe the deprivation of information from one party due to another party abusing their privilege of said material is called information asymmetry. A specific definition of the phrase ‘information asymmetry’ is that someone, typically an expert, knows more about something than a consumer, thus gaining an advantage. This is a very corrupt system, for the expert typically has their own best interest in mind rather than being truly dedicated to assisting the consumer in the best way possible.  I also came across a crime involving experts who promote false information, and hide the material that the consumer needs. As the authors of Freakonomics put it, they “…were trying to keep the information asymmetry as asymmetrical as possible” (Levitt and Dubner, 69.)

The dishonest system of information asymmetry has, however, been curtailed by the Internet. The internet provides consumers with the ability to research and increase their own knowledge rather than relying on somebody else. I am completely against information asymmetry. I believe that it is unfair for an expert to deprive a consumer of help and information. How are people supposed to do anything in this world if they cannot trust people to help them in situations, whether it be purchasing a car or selling a house? One of the key facts about information asymmetry and the promotion of false information is the fact that it rarely is detected, thus leading to the fact that it is rarely punished. The idea just confound s me, and I believe that Dubner and Levitt decided to discuss the topic to show how greedy some people can be with specifics and also to show how the information can be easily gained through the use of the internet.

The Great Boston Molasses Flood vs. The Boston Marathon Bombings

      When I first started reading Dark Tide an interesting line in the book stuck with me while I kept reading. In the author's note Stephen Puleo wrote "To understand the flood is to understand America of the early twentieth century." I feel like this can also be said to understand many national or international incidents that happen, the history can show many factors and reasons.
      I was trying to think about another disaster while I was reading "Dark Tide" and I began to find similarities in the Boston Marathon bombing. In comparing the Boston Molasses Flood of 1919 to the Boston Marathon Bombing of 2013, I can easily say that the location was similar. During the time of the flood World War I was going on in Europe which caused controversies. The war in the Middle East is still going on, and was during the time of the Boston Marathon bombing. In both events there are people to blame; obviously the bombers are to blame in the bombings. In the flood you can put some of the blame on Mr. Jell, but also on the people of the North End who kept quiet.
      Throughout the Boston Marathon bombing many people focused on the first reactors and how immensely they helped without thinking. In the Molasses flood many people first ran like many people at the Boston Marathon did, but there were still many people who ran to help. In both dangerous incidents the danger did not scare some people. These people made a difference
      In the Great Boston Molasses Flood there were twenty one people killed and 150 people injured. In the Marathon bombing three people were killed and 264 people were injured. These numbers were different, but they were also not a huge number of casualties compared to other national or international incidents. For the most part these events were unexpected. The bombings were a complete surprise. The flood was unexpected because they did not know when the tank was going to bust, but they knew it eventually would. In both incidents innocent people were injured or killed, and a city was ruined. The damage was physical and emotional. For both incidents the aftermath was similar. There were family members and friends that had the terrifying feeling of not knowing the outcome.
            There were different things too. The places were different, although very close. Also the time was almost one hundred years different. The flood was a more natural incident; it could almost be called an accident. In contrast the bombings were not an accident and there was a motive to the bombers. There were also many other aspects to the incidents that were different.              I was not sure if I wanted to compare the flood to the bombings, because it is still a hard topic to discuss for some people, but that was also true for many people at the time of the molasses flood.  

Teachers that Cheat

I felt that one of the most controversial topics in Freakanomics was that teachers were cheating, and not the students. This was for me the most interesting part of the book because it was surprising to see that a lot of teachers do cheat. All my life, I thought that teachers would never cheat because they are considered role models and always advise students not to cheat. This chapter has helped me see what can happen and was does happen in other parts of our country.

I was thoroughly shocked when I read about how teachers would erase the student's answers and write in the correct ones. They mentioned that the reason most of the teachers cheat is to make the school look better. If they taught the kids well and made sure they were educated, then the teachers wouldn't have to cheat. Teachers always say that cheating is wrong and not allowed, but then they go off and do it! Also, when the student gets caught cheating, they receive a zero and that's it, but when a teacher cheats, they lose their job and is even sometimes mentioned in the news, which gives them a bad rep. If the teachers didn't cheat and the school received a low mark, that would surely be better that "the school with the cheating teachers"

It has also got me wondering that if it happened in Chicago schools, could it happen or is it happening in other major cities like New York, San Francisco, or even Boston. What if it was happening in a nearby city like Brockton? Who knows if its happening in Abington! You can truly never know until the teacher slips up and reveals that they are cheating.

The Power of Information

Much of Levitt and Dubner's Freakonomics is centered around the revelation of controversial or unusual information. For example, their choices of what questions to ask were unconventional to say the least. Just look at Chapter 2, titled, "How is the Ku Klux Klan Like a Group of Real-Estate Agents?". While at first the question may look ridiculous or even offensive to some, it turns out the two groups are similar in that they both proverbially 'hold all the cards'.

The way I see it, this chapter is simply how Levitt and Dubner prove the saying, "knowledge is power". It is revealed that statistically speaking, the Klan was not as rampantly violent as was perceived by the general public. This is not to say the acts of violence they did commit weren't brutal and unnecessary, but instead it shows how powerful cultural perception can be. Levitt and Dubner tell us, "there were actually more lynchings...when the Klan was dormant than during the 1920's when the Klan had millions of members". So it turns out that much of the Klan's 'dominance', if you will, stemmed from their ability to strike fear into the black community using mainly distorted facts. The authors briefly speak about claims the Klan made and how it is very possible these were just to scare people and weren't actually rooted in fact.

Once the two finished unveiling the Klan's secrets, the question of how it all related to modern day real-estate still remained. As it turns out, the two groups are similar on a fundamental level. Neither reveals the whole truth to people other than themselves. Obviously, real-estate agents aren't a hate organization, but they do have their own personal interests as their first priority.

Very early in the book, Levitt and Dubner make the point that people like real-estate agents are merely human and humans respond to incentives. So, the most prominent piece of controversy in this chapter was the revelation of how real-estate agents are happy to do less than their full ability just to close a deal and move on to the next client. Why? Because these agents main source of income is the commission they make from selling houses. So if they can make a faster sale by convincing the buyer the price their being offered is a good value, then they can get to more clients that way and ultimately make more money.

Cheating Teachers

From what I have read from Freakonomics the most controversial topic to me would be how some teachers cheat. Before reading the chapter about how some teachers cheat, I never suspected that teachers actually cheat in order to help themselves. If they ever cheated, I thought they would do it to help the student, but not to help themselves. I realized that the teachers that cheat can be very selfish as they are cheating because they have incentives. The incentives usually involve money or keeping their job. This topic really opened my mind to reality.

If a teacher cheated I thought it would involve giving the students hints to the correct answers, but I never realized or thought that a teacher would go into a students test and erase the wrong answers and substitute them with the correct answers. This is not only cheating, but it is fooling the students and their parents into thinking that they did well on the test when they actually did poorly.

I found it very interesting in determining if a teacher has cheated or not in the book. They took a look at the answer string and they found that a majority of the students in the class with a cheating teacher all got the same questions right. What that meant was that the teacher went into the students tests and changed about a string of 15 questions to the correct answers as it would be to suspicious if he changed all the answers. This chapter definitely opened my mind to things that could actually happen in the real world.

Do parents matter?

In chapter 5 of Freakonmics, Levitt and Dubner take on the effect of parents on children. While there may not be religious protesters and debates in Senate on the topic, by definition, the topic is still controversial. Parents would say that their actions greatly affect a child and how they turn out in life. Most realists, or more progressive people would say that parents do not effect their child, and peer pressure changes the child more. Parents will naturally hesitate to admit that they don't have complete control. They have to justify the $235,000 that they spend to raise the kid for 17 years (not including college). While parents do have an affect on their chid, it is not as much as they think. A lot of realists, who have become adults firsthand, would obviously have the experience to say that parents don't matter as much as they think they do. It makes sense, if parents had as much of a hold on their kids as they think they do, would kids be out doing drugs, drinking heavily, growing up to be criminals, drop out of school, or be different from their parents at all?  

The authors probably decided to cover this topic to throw some facts into the mix. They do not show extreme support for either side, so they probably did it to give people debating it more to talk about. They are basically dealing arms to both armies and sitting back to watch the battle.  Although, they do seem to slightly favor the parents, by revealing what actually helps kids and what doesn't, but, their list shows that what parents are affect a child more than what the parents do.

Personally, I think both sides of the argument have a point. Parents certainly do have an effect on their child, and while it does matter more than a realist would tell you, it is not as effective as the parents think. Kids take what parents tell them and apply it to who they are and the context they have. For example, in the book, it says that having books in the house can help a child do better in school. A house filled with books wouldn't help a child who doesn't like to read. On the contrary, a child who loves to read but doesn't have a single book in the house will find ways to get books and read. A child is not only affected by who the parents are, but who the child is, long before they realize who they really are and who they could be. 

The Oklahoma Tornado and the Boston Molasses Flood

A little over two months ago on May 21,2013, the state of Oklahoma had experienced one of the most severe natural disasters this year. The people had been prepared for the worst, but had no idea that this twister would be the most catastrophic storm in the history of the state.

For the people of Moore, Oklahoma it had been nothing less than a normal day in society. But suddenly, a twister about a mile wide, destroying over 17 miles of land, had destroyed the town . Homes, hospitals, and schools had been destroyed, leaving dozens injured. All of this had unraveled in just half an hour. With 91 people dead and that number STILL  rising, and including over 20 children, the search still continues to find people lost in the rubble and debris of this catastrophe. Lastly, the total cost of the damage is over 1 billion dollars.

When comparing this tragedy to that of the Boston Molasses Flood, one similar and the most important aspect of these situations, is how traumatized the people were in the aftermath of the situations. People had lost family, friends, and also  they had to live with the fear of knowing their loved ones could still be lost in the damage. The number of people injured  and the death toll of both situations could be considered as well. Similar to Katie, the major difference of the two disasters was the geographic location, considering Oklahoma is in the Midwest. Also, the Boston Molasses flood could have been avoidable if the renovations were made to the molasses tank, seeing as  they had been advised throughout the book. Another difference was the atmosphere of the disasters. By this I mean, the people of Boston had been taken by surprise, with no time to take precaution. While the people of Moore had taken some precaution, but were at a loss for how powerful the twister was, underestimating the power of the storm.

 

San Francisco Plane Crash vs. Boston Molasses Disaster

A few weeks ago, an Asiana Airlines pilot by the name of Lee Kang-kook was flying a plane by the name of Boeing 777 from China into the San Francisco International Airport. Flight 214 was flying smoothly up until the point of descent. Apparently, while Kang was trying to land the plane, he cause the plane to accelerate to a speed much to fast for it to land. Kang's judgement was that if they continued at that speed, the plane wouldn't be able to stop at the end of the runway. Kang pulled the plane upwards, trying to avoid impact, but it was too late. The tail end of the plane had hit the rocks at the beginning of the runway and had broken off. The plane went down in a flaming spiral onto the runway, leaving 181 of the 300 passengers injured, and two teenage girls dead.

It was later revealed to the public that Kang was very inexperienced with flying a jet like 777. However he was on his way to getting a license to fly a 777 jet. Kang had only 43 hours worth of flight experience for a 777 jet, alongside a well experienced 777 pilot. On flight 214, he was not co-piloting with an experienced pilot, therefore highly unfit to fly that plane.

The Boston molasses disaster relates to the San Francisco plane crash because they both physically and emotionally scarred hundreds of people. Not many may have been killed in either disaster, but there were many injuries in both. Nonetheless, both disasters differ because the molasses disaster was within the city of Boston, effecting a larger area of land, and destroying a mass of buildings in the city. The San Francisco plane crash happened on a runway, where the falling plane didn't hit any buildings or cause any sort of property damage. Yes, the plane will costs millions to replace, but that is a mess that is faster and easier to clean up, unlike the molasses was in Boston. It is hard to tell whether both the plane crash and the molasses flood were preventable or not. Maybe if the pilot was more experienced, the plane wouldn't have crashed, and maybe if the tank holding the molasses was better structured, the flood wouldn't have happened. Both disasters are similar in the way in which people are questioning whether they were preventable or not.

For more information on the San Francisco plane crash go to: http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-francisco-plane-crash-pilot-43-hours-flying/story?id=19598352

Abortion and Crime

It is true that many of the topics examined in Freakonomics can be considered controversial. One topic indirectly addressed in this book is that of abortion. Ever since Roe v. Wade (by the way I never knew the whole back story) this topic has divided the nation. Pro-choice and right-to-life activists have generally based their positions on the rights of the mother and religious/moral grounds respectively. This topic continues to be controversial because there are so many people who feel very strongly about both sides of this issue.

The reasoning behind why the author addressed such a controversial issue probably was not intentional. While Steven Levitt was researching potential causes for a reduction in crime one of the many things he looked for were any changes in demographics. The author probably did not expect to stumble upon this “unforeseen and long-gestating” demographic change. While I have read or heard about the connection of abortion and economic level (many abortions are performed on mothers who live in poverty) and there have been plenty of studies on the connection of economic level and crime (more perpetrators of crime live in poverty), I have never read or heard anything about the link between abortion and crime. But, if there is a link between a and b and b and c, it would make sense that there is a link between a and c .Even before Levitt raised the issue of abortion in Freakonomics, Anthony V. Bouza had said, “…arguably the only effective crime-prevention device adopted in this nation since the late 1960s.” Even though others have made the connection perhaps Levitt was the first to explain his theory. When most people look at causes or contributing factors, they often look at more immediate or direct links. This link takes almost twenty years to realize (“Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle, causes”) and there are still so many other contributing factors.

Even if others came to the same conclusion, voicing this theory would probably not be socially accepted. During protests it would be unlikely that a sign would read “Reduce Crime, Have an Abortion”. Nor would you be likely to read “Choose Life, Police Need Job Security”. I wonder if that cause-effect relationship was found to be 100% accurate if it would help some women to justify their actions This topic continues to be a highly controversial issue on many different levels.

Another factor to consider from a purely economic point of view in this controversy is funding. Given the premise that most fetuses aborted would have been born into poverty consider this calculation. If the government spends x amount of money to support the average person living in poverty on welfare and it costs x amount of money to capture, prosecute, and punish the average criminal, then will the government eventually find it cost efficient to subsidize or help fund some of these abortions? If this theory is accurate should the government provide free birth control to poverty-ridden areas?

Considering the root of the controversy one could question why Levitt decided to include this theory in his book. After reading Freakonomics I don’t really think he is afraid of controversy. He seems to think outside the box and if he uncovers information that is controversial but relevant I don’t think he shies away from it. I actually think he might like stirring up a little controversy to get people thinking of things other than the obvious. When he comes to conclusions or develops a theory I don’t think he really encourages action one way or the other (after all he is an economist not an activist). Levitt just presents his theory, along with others, and lets the reader make his own assessment. When he determines causality he doesn’t make any recommendations he just presents data. According to Levitt, while the relationship between legalized abortion and the crime rate has not gained the greatest traction in the popular/political discussions (real estate has), it certainly has opened up dialogue. Whether it is correlation or a cause I don’t think his theory of abortion and crime will ever become part of “conventional wisdom” (unless of course it is declared illegal again) but I do think it will add another dimension to the longstanding controversy.  

July Assignment

Hopefully you are well on your way with your reading for the summer.  Here are some suggestions for your July blog post.  Please feel free to deviate from this list and write about something from the readings that is important to you.

Dark Tide: What similarities and differences exist between the molasses disaster and any one of the recent national or international accidents?

Freakonomics: Many of the topics examined in Freakonomics can be considered controversial. Analyze any topic of your choice, considering the root of why it could be considered controversial, the reasoning behind the authors' decision to discuss the topic and your own opinions.

Blog well and be well.

Blog Update

I hope everyone enjoyed their recent Fourth of July celebrations.  The blog work so far this summer has been interesting to read.  I've particularly enjoyed when people set a standard or criteria for their chosen activity.  After all, 10,000 hours is no small task.  It better be worth the investment!

It is good to see that most people have been contributing with their comments on other's posts.  One of the secondary purposes of this summer blog is to get accustomed to collaborating and thinking within our academic community.

Finally, regarding grading the summer blog, I'm going to make some small modifications.  I mentioned initially that you will be graded as a class.  That was different from courses previous and, after some reflection, I don't think it is appropriate.  Instead, you will be graded individually based on your original postings as well as the quality of your comments.  The overall quality of the summer blog will still determine the total point value of the assignment.  The better the blog, the closer the total value to the maximum 150 points.  Obviously, with a higher point total the blog will have a greater impact on your first term grade.  That would be positive!

I will be placing your work into one of four categories for grading: Excellent (95%), Good (85%), Mediocre (75%), Poor (65%).  If you do not participate, you will not qualify for a grade (0%).  You will be graded holistically.  This means I will factor all of your posts and comments into your overall grade.  For example, a student who completes all of the posts and makes the minimum number of comments will earn at least a grade of mediocre.  The quality of your writing, analysis and dialogue will determine what you earn from there.

If you have any questions please feel free to email me.

10,000 Hours of Mind Reading

If I were to focus 10,000 hours on one activity I would choose mind reading and becoming psychic. Being able to do so would help to understand people and their true intentions as well as how they are lead by their thoughts. As Christina said previously, the brain is an extremely complex organ and very hard to understand which is why I would like to master it. Always knowing what others are thinking would give the ability to predict how one's thoughts would affect their future and even how they would affect a relationship. Being able to mind read could give the access to warn one of what lies ahead or prevent a later disappointment which would be beneficial to both the person and myself. Although psychology would be a difficult topic to master, I would enjoy dedicating a full 10,000 hours to studying it along with majoring in it throughout college.