Something that will REALLY piss off pro-lifers


From the editorial review:

Economics is not widely considered to be one of the sexier sciences. The annual Nobel Prize winner in that field never receives as much publicity as his or her compatriots in peace, literature, or physics. But if such slights are based on the notion that economics is dull, or that economists are concerned only with finance itself, Steven D. Levitt will change some minds. In Freakonomics (written with Stephen J. Dubner), Levitt argues that many apparent mysteries of everyday life don’t need to be so mysterious: They could be illuminated and made even more fascinating by asking the right questions and drawing connections. For example, Levitt traces the drop in violent crime rates to a drop in violent criminals and, digging further, to the Roe v. Wade decision that preempted the existence of some people who would be born to poverty and hardship. Elsewhere, by analyzing data gathered from innercity Chicago drug-dealing gangs, Levitt outlines a corporate structure much like McDonald’s, where the top bosses make great money while scores of underlings make something below minimum wage. And in a section that may alarm or relieve worried parents, Levitt argues that parenting methods don’t really matter much and that a backyard swimming pool is much more dangerous than a gun. These enlightening chapters are separated by effusive passages from Dubner’s 2003 profile of Levitt in The New York Times Magazine, which led to the book being written. In a book filled with bold logic, such back-patting veers Freakonomics, however briefly, away from what Levitt actually has to say. Although maybe there’s a good economic reason for that too, and we’re just not getting it yet. --John Moe

And this I found while trying to order a book to get super saver free shipping on my A Feast for Crows order.

Just dont mention it on the radio.

Interesting book, very non-PC, looks at things in a different light. Worth the read, even though I’m not at all sold on the validity of some of causation proposals. I’m pretty anti-abortion (don’t like the prolife and prochoice euphanisms) but that part of the book didn’t give me any problems (even if I believed his cause-and-effect on that one was valid, which I question.)

It probably is, but yeah, so what?

Something interesting to note about abortion is that it hasn’t really changed the birthrate much, and doesn’t change the desired birth count for women any. What it does is delay childbearing & rearing to later, when (one assumes) everyone’s more ready.