Friday, October 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
What Economists Think...
The American Economic Association released a new survey of attitudes of its members toward varying economic issues. The results show high agreement on some questions, and disagreement on others. The first question asks whether the US should eliminate all tariffs and barriers to trade. 83% of economists agree, while 10% disagree. Well...just a couple of weeks ago Obama approved legislation to increase punitive tariffs on Chinese exports. Looks like someone has selective listening when it comes to his economists' expert advice....
I wish, too, that that the survey would have solicited economists their views on gay marriage, i.e. does gay marriage generates more benefits than costs to society? It would be beneficial to see what the members of the AEA think about this highly relevant topic today. I mean, come on, the survey prompts the economists with a question about Wal-Mart and claims that this is an issue of topical relevance today. Seriously? Wal-Mart controversy is so dated.
I wish, too, that that the survey would have solicited economists their views on gay marriage, i.e. does gay marriage generates more benefits than costs to society? It would be beneficial to see what the members of the AEA think about this highly relevant topic today. I mean, come on, the survey prompts the economists with a question about Wal-Mart and claims that this is an issue of topical relevance today. Seriously? Wal-Mart controversy is so dated.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Gay Marriage in Vermont
Gay marriages start.....today, September 1st, 2009! It adds to the growing list of New England states that have taken the intrepid step of legalizing gay marriage....plus incontiguous pastoral Iowa. I'm curious to see how the institution of gay marriage in Vermont will affect the state socially, politically, and most interestingly, economically. Anticipate a report from the Williams Institute in about six months or so!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Another Essay...
Here is an Analysis of an Argument essay.
Prompt: "A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio. “We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous experience has been shooting commercials for a shampoo company. Since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able to shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent on any one scene. In addition, while we have saved money by hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors, this savings in salary will undoubtedly translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew overtime for the extra hours they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers to arrange things. If we don’t get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure.”"
My Response:
The argument that the movie will be a failure without increased funding is not entirely convincing. The memo suffers from numerous fallacious assumptions that render its argument illogical and not persuasive. This essay will expose these gaps in the argument and suggest ways that the movie producer could send a more effective memo to the head of the movie studio.
The first assumption that renders the memo not complete is that the movie producer assumes a causal relationship between the funding and the movie's success. He states that without increased funding, then the movie will undoubtedly fail. In other words, he claims that there is not other cause that can make the movie fail. It is dangerous to assume a causal relationship without quantifying it and without the movie producer considering further factors that, in addition to funding, could make the movie a horrible flop. For instance there are many successful documentaries like Trembling Before God and many of Michael More's movies that are produced on a tight budget. In addition, there exists successful non-documentaries, like the Blair Witch Project, produced by film students that have gone on to win movie awards.
Simply put, a lack of funding is not the only cause of a failed movie. Other components like the quality of the acting, and the timing of the realease can have more of an impact on the film's success than it's funding. Additionally, although the movie procuder claims that funding must be increased by 10%, where does he get that number from and why must it be 10%? If he arbitrary picked a percentage, why not randomly pick a 20%, or even higher, like 50% increase in funding? None of these estimates are cited in the memo and it leaves many questions unanswered.
An additional, and striking assumption that the movie producer makes is that the new director will assuredly be wasteful. His view of the new director, is one, disparaging, and two, rather extreme. To assume that that director will no doubt spend resources wastefully and extravaangtly just because the advertising business is wasteful is spurious and makes no sense. Who is to say that the director will pay any attention to what the advertising business will do with its finances? And is it not important that the movie director not belittle his director simply because the only experience the director has had with film is shooting commercials?
Furthermore, it is left unanswered whether those commercials were successful or not, so it is unfair to judge the director based on his previous experiences without providing the head of the studio with more biographical information of the director. And while the relative scope of a commercial is clearly smaller than the scope of a movie, a director's ability to manage successfully and devotion to a shooting is usually steadfast no matter what project he undertakes.
To conclude, the memo the movie producer sent to the head of the movie studio is not convincing and not persuasive. In order to strengthen his argument that the movie needs increased funding to be successful, the producer could provide the head of the movie studio with studies that show funding is directly proportional to a film's success and that 10% is the necessary increase in funding. In addition, he could provide evidence that perhaps the movie director has in the past been prodigal, which is why he believes he will similarly act recklessly with his film. Overall, without these improvements, the memo is not cogent.
Prompt: "A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio. “We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous experience has been shooting commercials for a shampoo company. Since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able to shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent on any one scene. In addition, while we have saved money by hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors, this savings in salary will undoubtedly translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew overtime for the extra hours they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers to arrange things. If we don’t get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure.”"
My Response:
The argument that the movie will be a failure without increased funding is not entirely convincing. The memo suffers from numerous fallacious assumptions that render its argument illogical and not persuasive. This essay will expose these gaps in the argument and suggest ways that the movie producer could send a more effective memo to the head of the movie studio.
The first assumption that renders the memo not complete is that the movie producer assumes a causal relationship between the funding and the movie's success. He states that without increased funding, then the movie will undoubtedly fail. In other words, he claims that there is not other cause that can make the movie fail. It is dangerous to assume a causal relationship without quantifying it and without the movie producer considering further factors that, in addition to funding, could make the movie a horrible flop. For instance there are many successful documentaries like Trembling Before God and many of Michael More's movies that are produced on a tight budget. In addition, there exists successful non-documentaries, like the Blair Witch Project, produced by film students that have gone on to win movie awards.
Simply put, a lack of funding is not the only cause of a failed movie. Other components like the quality of the acting, and the timing of the realease can have more of an impact on the film's success than it's funding. Additionally, although the movie procuder claims that funding must be increased by 10%, where does he get that number from and why must it be 10%? If he arbitrary picked a percentage, why not randomly pick a 20%, or even higher, like 50% increase in funding? None of these estimates are cited in the memo and it leaves many questions unanswered.
An additional, and striking assumption that the movie producer makes is that the new director will assuredly be wasteful. His view of the new director, is one, disparaging, and two, rather extreme. To assume that that director will no doubt spend resources wastefully and extravaangtly just because the advertising business is wasteful is spurious and makes no sense. Who is to say that the director will pay any attention to what the advertising business will do with its finances? And is it not important that the movie director not belittle his director simply because the only experience the director has had with film is shooting commercials?
Furthermore, it is left unanswered whether those commercials were successful or not, so it is unfair to judge the director based on his previous experiences without providing the head of the studio with more biographical information of the director. And while the relative scope of a commercial is clearly smaller than the scope of a movie, a director's ability to manage successfully and devotion to a shooting is usually steadfast no matter what project he undertakes.
To conclude, the memo the movie producer sent to the head of the movie studio is not convincing and not persuasive. In order to strengthen his argument that the movie needs increased funding to be successful, the producer could provide the head of the movie studio with studies that show funding is directly proportional to a film's success and that 10% is the necessary increase in funding. In addition, he could provide evidence that perhaps the movie director has in the past been prodigal, which is why he believes he will similarly act recklessly with his film. Overall, without these improvements, the memo is not cogent.
GRE Essays
Since the only, and I mean only, issue that the news talks about these days is Obamacare, this dearth of news leave little for me to comment on since, in all sincerity, I am not interested in the health care debate. I just look forward to the end of these irascible town hall meetings and polemical essays for and against healthcare given that it's presence has diluted the news. In light of there being little in the news worth talking about, and since I have been assiduous in my study for the GRE since early July I am going to share with you the practice essays that I have written.
The GRE includes two writing sections: an Analysis of an Issue essay and an Analysis of an Argument essay. The former requires you to give your opion on an issue and the latter requires you to critique the logic of an argument. So here's a sample issue essay I wrote, and please feel free to constructively critique my writing. But keep in mind that this is GRE writing, so it's a "first draft" and overly trite. The issue topic was "Science is meaningless without religion".
The issue of how religion affects science is a controversial one. One the one hand, it can be argued that science is meaningless without religion. On the other hand, however, others argue that the presence of religion renders science meaningless. Although our modern era is marked heavily by atheism and a healthy dose of skepticism towards religion, I believe that science needs religion in order to be meaningful. This essay will explore my reasons that support my final analysis.
First, science can only have meaning with religion when religion does not stifle scientific investigation. In the early Middle Ages in Europe, the Catholic Church stifled scientific inquiry because it believed that its theology was all the masses needed to know in order to understand the world and the universe, and God. On the opposite side of the globe, the new flourishing religion of Islam enthusiastically encouraged scientific investigation. For example, there exists in Islam the principle of itsjihad, which means to devote oneself to philosophic, artistic, and scientific improvement. Clearly, the Muslims believed that the best way to understand God was to unearth the principles of the universe, which is done through scientific investigation and study. As a result, the Muslim world in that age produced great works of science and philosophy, from illustrious names like Averroes and Maimonides while Christendom in Europe stagnated scientifically.
Moreover, scientific discoveries can make religion appear more pertinent, realistic, and less mythological. While many view the texts of Christianity, such as the story of Creation found in Genesis as a fairytale that imitates other Near Easter creation stories, scientific discoveries can, in fact, give these stories more credibility. For example, before the discovery of the Big Bang, many scientists believed that the universe had no real beginning, meaning that the Universe was ageless. However, when two scientists discovered the Big Bang, this proved that the Universe had a definite start. In fact, this theory, although still contentious is many scientific circles, illustrates the story of Creation and gives the story more credibility. Also, in the New Testament, the apostles talk about the end of the universe and now that he universe has a beginning, many scientists believe that is must have an end, and many have postulated theories that the universe will extinguish in the far future. So, it is evident that science can give meaning to religion as well.
To conclude, while many fervent atheists aver that science is meaningless with religion, the arguments above illustrate that science can, alternatively, have meaning with religion. Religion can encourage scientific inquiry and, in turn, that scientific inquiry can give more credibility to religion. So, the two are not entirely irreconcilable, but share a common purpose and that is to better understand the world in which we live.
The GRE includes two writing sections: an Analysis of an Issue essay and an Analysis of an Argument essay. The former requires you to give your opion on an issue and the latter requires you to critique the logic of an argument. So here's a sample issue essay I wrote, and please feel free to constructively critique my writing. But keep in mind that this is GRE writing, so it's a "first draft" and overly trite. The issue topic was "Science is meaningless without religion".
The issue of how religion affects science is a controversial one. One the one hand, it can be argued that science is meaningless without religion. On the other hand, however, others argue that the presence of religion renders science meaningless. Although our modern era is marked heavily by atheism and a healthy dose of skepticism towards religion, I believe that science needs religion in order to be meaningful. This essay will explore my reasons that support my final analysis.
First, science can only have meaning with religion when religion does not stifle scientific investigation. In the early Middle Ages in Europe, the Catholic Church stifled scientific inquiry because it believed that its theology was all the masses needed to know in order to understand the world and the universe, and God. On the opposite side of the globe, the new flourishing religion of Islam enthusiastically encouraged scientific investigation. For example, there exists in Islam the principle of itsjihad, which means to devote oneself to philosophic, artistic, and scientific improvement. Clearly, the Muslims believed that the best way to understand God was to unearth the principles of the universe, which is done through scientific investigation and study. As a result, the Muslim world in that age produced great works of science and philosophy, from illustrious names like Averroes and Maimonides while Christendom in Europe stagnated scientifically.
Moreover, scientific discoveries can make religion appear more pertinent, realistic, and less mythological. While many view the texts of Christianity, such as the story of Creation found in Genesis as a fairytale that imitates other Near Easter creation stories, scientific discoveries can, in fact, give these stories more credibility. For example, before the discovery of the Big Bang, many scientists believed that the universe had no real beginning, meaning that the Universe was ageless. However, when two scientists discovered the Big Bang, this proved that the Universe had a definite start. In fact, this theory, although still contentious is many scientific circles, illustrates the story of Creation and gives the story more credibility. Also, in the New Testament, the apostles talk about the end of the universe and now that he universe has a beginning, many scientists believe that is must have an end, and many have postulated theories that the universe will extinguish in the far future. So, it is evident that science can give meaning to religion as well.
To conclude, while many fervent atheists aver that science is meaningless with religion, the arguments above illustrate that science can, alternatively, have meaning with religion. Religion can encourage scientific inquiry and, in turn, that scientific inquiry can give more credibility to religion. So, the two are not entirely irreconcilable, but share a common purpose and that is to better understand the world in which we live.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Tel Aviv Update
Tel Aviv's astoundingly tragic massacre at one of it's gay youth centers still leaves me distressed and morose. Last Sunday I was at dinner with Jewish friends of mine, one is Israeli, and he asked me why I have been silent about Israel. I told him how I felt candidly. For one thing, I could not contemplate that a Jew would kill another Jew because of sexual orientation. For another, I was angry that the Orthodox incite hatred and malice towards gay Israelis. I could barely hold back my tears as I reticently told my feelings. I don't hold any bitterment towards the Orthodox community: I know Orthodox Jews who are accepting LGBT allies, but just a few hateful words from clergy can have dire, and as we saw, murderous consequences. In short, I'm still recovering.
Here is an article from The Advocate on the paradox of gay life in Tel Aviv. The author argues that this murder could only happen in Tel Aviv because it's the only locale where gay people can meet openly, thus the paradox. He doesn't forget that homosexuals are pursued also in Iran and homosexuality is illegal in almost every contiguous state next to Israel. For instance, gays in Iran are subject to corporal punishment if found engaging in homosexual behavior. But, truly, a poignant reason this massacre is shocking to the world, and myself, is because homosexuality is decriminalized in Israel and gays have rights. Consequently, we expect gays to live freely without fear of intimidation and murder. Let's hope that in the future this is true for all gays, just not in Israel, but everywhere.
Here is an article from The Advocate on the paradox of gay life in Tel Aviv. The author argues that this murder could only happen in Tel Aviv because it's the only locale where gay people can meet openly, thus the paradox. He doesn't forget that homosexuals are pursued also in Iran and homosexuality is illegal in almost every contiguous state next to Israel. For instance, gays in Iran are subject to corporal punishment if found engaging in homosexual behavior. But, truly, a poignant reason this massacre is shocking to the world, and myself, is because homosexuality is decriminalized in Israel and gays have rights. Consequently, we expect gays to live freely without fear of intimidation and murder. Let's hope that in the future this is true for all gays, just not in Israel, but everywhere.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Attack in Tel Aviv
2 dead and 15 wounded in attack on Tel Aviv gay center. I am in complete shock about this. This horrific news has taken my breath away and I can't begin to express the deep sadness that I am feeling. I hope that the US and the world take note of this and that Israel works harder to counter homophobia. As a Jew, I know that we (and I mean all of us from secular to ultra-religious) are better than this inhumanity. This criminal attack just seems so out of place given that it was in Israel, let alone Tel Aviv: the heart of gay life in the Middle East. As a gay, I can't really begin to express how deeply distressed, sad and hurt I am; these teenagers were murdered in cold blood and I can barely think properly. But I seriously hope, demand, that Israel severely condemns this hate crime and its perpetrator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
