Except that only one of them does TV appearances, and I can't remember which one he is! (Levitt, I think. But I doubt I could pick him out of a lineup unless he were holding a copy of the book.)
Spike's Bitches 44: It's about the rules having changed.
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
Except that only one of them does TV appearances, and I can't remember which one he is!
I meant "identify" not so much as in visually, but more as "Ah, because they both put their names on this piece of misogynistic crap, I know how they really feel about women."
but more as "Ah, because they both put their names on this piece of misogynistic crap, I know how they really feel about women."
Somehow that's less satisfying than "identify visually so I know who to throw rocks at if I should ever pass one of them on the street."
Gud, yes, and I know that the Big Answer is that I love it when random people think I'm great, but I usually don't think that I am...
What?
I meant "identify" not so much as in visually, but more as "Ah, because they both put their names on this piece of misogynistic crap, I know how they really feel about women."
What did they write? I never read Freakanomics, but I always got the impression it was like a collection of interesting correlations.
What did they write? I never read Freakanomics, but I always got the impression it was like a collection of interesting correlations.
There was a more recent one that I can't find that was basically wondering why more women aren't prostitutes, since it makes good economic sense to be one, but this one from last December was also pretty bad: [link]
In their new book (Superfreakonomics), they describe one (white, attractive, upper-middle-class) woman who was able to earn a lot of money as a prostitute, and conclude, based on *only* her experience, by wondering why more women aren't prostitutes: [link]
My bad, dude, I think I was aiming that at Typo Boy, maybe? Y'all sort of remind me of each other, and I've been afraid that I might do that...I guess today was the day. Oops. Never mind.
Alternet also has a pretty good takedown of their prostitution chapter:
Their new book also contains a stunningly ignorant chapter on global warming (in which they conclude that we should just pump the atmosphere full of sulfur because that would be cheaper and faster than cutting carbon emissions). Scienceblogs tackles that one here: [link]
My bad, dude, I think I was aiming that at Typo Boy, maybe?
np, I was just wondering if I posted something I forgot about.