Recent orders
Fred Davis article, Blue Jeans
Blue Jeans
Name
Course
Professor
Date
Blue Jeans
Fred Davis’s article, ‘Blue Jeans’, follows the evolution of jeans and the social symbolism attached to them from when they were first fashioned about seven hundred years ago to their current status. The author writes that initially jeans were made by Levi Strauss for gold miners and outdoor laborers who were involved in physical labor. In the 1960’s, however, the perception towards jeans changed and people started viewing them as clothing items that could be worn for leisure, casual occasions and comfort instead of just physical labor. They became more popular and were worn universally. There after trends for making jeans more stylish and popular came up to fulfill different symbolism. While in the previous years, a good fit did not matter; jeans manufacturers started producing jeans that were more fitting and had different styles on them such as fading and fringing, embroidered, designer labels among other trends. They also produced feminine jeans and skirt jeans for women as opposed to the previously masculine ones. Fashion therefore creates a distinction of status.
Jeans underwent change from a garment that was associated with work to one invested with many of the symbolic attributes of leisure, ease and the outdoors1. Major sales and public relation campaigns were carried out by jeans manufactures to convince people that they were suitable for everyone and many different occasions2. It enabled them to gain worldwide popularity.
However, fashion and social status came into play to change the declaration of equality and fraternity projected by an unmodified blue jean3. This led to customization of jeans to fit different groups with one pole continuing to emphasize blue jeans symbolism of democracy, utility, classlessness and the other seeking to reintroduce traditional claims to taste, distinction and hierarchical division4. Fringing and fading of jeans was done to evoke a kind of poor look while labeling, ornamentation and eroticization were done to show taste, distinction and class. These were usually more expensive. Fashion therefore creates the distinction of social status and class5.
Notes
1Fred Davis, “Blue Jeans.” In Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2006), 101.
2Fred Davis, “Blue Jeans.” In Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2006), 102.
3 Fred Davis, “Blue Jeans.” In Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2006), 103.
4 Fred Davis, “Blue Jeans.” In Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2006), 104.
5Fred Davis, “Blue Jeans.” In Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2006), 106.
Bibliography
Davis, Fred. “Blue Jeans.” In Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers, 5th edition (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2006), 101-108
Freakonomics a revolutionary group effort between Levitt and Stephen Dunbar
Freakonomics
Freakonomics is a revolutionary group effort between Levitt and Stephen Dunbar who are award wining journalists and economists. They have started with having a collection of a variety of data and a few simple unasked questions. A number of these questions concern issues of life and death while other has freakish quality. These are what have formed the base of the book: Freakonomics. The two have used the art of forceful storytelling and sardonic insights. They try to show that economics is a study of incentives at root. That is, how people get what they require more so when there are other people who want the same things. They try t explore the hidden side of say everything in what can be termed as an inner work of a crack gang. This includes the truth about real estate, the telltale of a cheating schoolteacher, the campaign finance myths and the secrets of the Ku Klux Klan.
All these are united frm the belief of the modern world that it is not impenetrable and are unknown despite the great ever-changing complexity and deceits. They believe these would change if people ask themselves the right questions and be more intriguing than they are currently. They just need to think and look at things from a different perception. The book establishes this unconventional premise: they claim that if morality represents how the world should operate the economics would be how it exactly operate. There are enough riddles and stories to back these claims that are said would last quite a number of cocktails to exhaust them. It does this with the aim of changing how people view the modern world.
The book was published in the United States in the year 2005 and sold more than 4 million copies globally in thirty-five languages. This inspired the duo to do a follow-up book called SuperFreakonomics which is a high-profile documentary film, a radio program, and an award winning blog. That has been referred to as the ‘most readable economics blog in the universe.’ The book is brilliant, provocative and investigative to motives by trying to find out what they are, what people do, or how they affect. It is also deceptively an easy read since it uses a light style, a sunny tone, and has a lot of sense of humor. This is a motive that is seen to make it difficult to realize how the concepts of Freakonomics challenge the most common basic assumptions about how people and the society works.
Most economists have critics the duo for misleading a lot of innocent people who rely on their information on climate change. John Abraham (2013) who is an economist feels that misguiding the people on matter s on climate change would cost the real money of clients and audience. There are investors who pay respect to what they find published and they should not be misled by a few errand professionals. It is important for people to use the right information while they are making decisions. John claimed that misleading information from the media houses would not be much of a course of alarm but misleading information from sources regarded as reliable would have adverse effect to those who use it.
John also felt that by Stephen and Levitt should have consulted the environmental scientist before writing on issues of climate change since the information that they ignored would deny the investors great opportunities to protect and grow their assets. He condemned Levitt for using case studies to yet he is a business professor from the University of Chicago. John said that Levitt is infamous among other professors since his work has very many errors that are so elementary that students in their first year of college would identify them. John has identified some of the errors that Levitt who is a business professor has done. In their book Freakonomics, Levitt claim that human account for two percent of the atmospheric greenhouse gases against the correct figure of over forty percent. As a business professor, Levitt did not differentiate between the gross and net emissions thus this was misleading.
There is a chapter on global warming that has a significant part that involves a description of entrepreneurs that attempt to find geo-engineering solutions with regard to the problem of global warming. Dr. Levitt has written that the carbon dioxide gas is not poisonous and continuous to claim that the amount of carbon dioxide in the modern building can be significantly higher than the atmospheric levels. He also claims that it would be safe for human to breathe it. This is in contrast to what the carbon dioxide gas does to the atmosphere by causing global warming. He claims that the gas does not cause global warming. He continues further and writes that the solar panels cause global warming. This is wrong and would contradict the right information that states that the solar technology reduce the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This means that it would not be advisable to invest in the solar panel as alternative to the fossil fuels like natural gas and coal.
He advised, in the Freakonomics book, that instead of investing in reducing the greenhouse gases, the investors should trust the fate of the unproven technologies for the purposes of geo-engineering the planet. He proposed that geo-engineers should spray particles into the atmosphere to reflect light back into the atmosphere. Basically this is wrong since this would be polluting the environment and the pollution would still cause further pollution in the sky. John claims that Levitt did these mistakes since he did not consult with a climate scientist who would have explained the concept of the solar cell technology. This was misleading to possible geo-engineers and investors who would want to venture into solar cell business since he would discourage them or give them wrong information thus misleading them.
Describing Levitt as “Contrarian” would be more opt than calling him a “Rogue”. He is misleading the smart people who could know nothing about climate change. In fact, Levitt has relied upon another “contrarian” who was the form CTO of Microsoft called Nathan Myhrvoid. With close analysis of what is included in the Freakonomics, it contains wrong information about the technologies that have been invested into amounts of billion dollars. This is with regards with the environmental crisis that have affected the way business work and the risks that they are exposed to. By following the content that is in the Freakonomics, it would mean that people would not address the real issue of climate change and would dwell on unreliable data that would cause further climate crisis. Therefore, it is true that this book relates to investment and finance since it tries to encourage solutions in geo engineering and climate change that would cause more problems and hence leading to collapse of the economy or investors lose their real money.
Frankenstein Book Review and Summary
Name:
74734331
Course:
Date:
Frankenstein Book Review and Summary
Shelley, M. W. Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Penguin Classics, 1992 (originally published in 1818)
Frankenstein Review and Summary
Frankenstein is a foray into the genre of Gothic-horror fiction and largely focuses on the ethical issues of advancing technology. It explores the relationship between human beings and God at an allegorical level. This book was written by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, the wife of a famous English poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley and published in 1818. She was born in 1797 and died in 1851.
In this book, Shelley used various elements of literature to bring out themes that largely focused on the impact that industrialization had on moral and societal values. She commented about persecution of people based on their physical appearance and their failure to take responsibility for their actions. Importantly, she talked about playing God and the impact of such an action. Evidently, these themes are still relevant today where fiction can be based on modern conflicts and society. This book is written in a series of narratives in the first person. The language used is representative of English typical in the 19th century. However, it is easy to understand and its prose is free-flowing. The story has a plot that is masterfully build and has two major characters that are well sketched.
Frankenstein starts with letters of Captain Robert Walton to his sister, Margaret Walton Saville, telling her about how he saw a monstrous figure one day fleeing across the ice and about Victor Frankenstein. Walton takes a ship to explore the North Pole and as he is on his way into the Arctic Ocean, the ship gets trapped in ice. He and the crew watching around them see a monstrous figure walking across the ice. Later they see Victor lying on the ice near the ship, suffering from hypothermia and starvation and rescue him. As he recovers, Victor narrates a story to Walton about his life’s miseries.
Victor is brought up in a Swiss family is loving and gentle. He builds close relationships with his dear friend, Henry Clerval, and Elizabeth Lavenza who has been adopted by his parents from a poor family because she is beautiful. As a young boy, Victor becomes obsessed with reading literature and scientific theories that focus on achieving natural wonders, especially those that describe what gives human beings their life spark. He attends college at University of Ingolstadt where he excels in chemistry and other sciences. He combines scavenged body parts, makes a human creature that is about eight feet tall and gives it life. He thinks that the creature would turn out to be beautiful but it turns out to be ugly. Disgusted by the ugliness of this creature, Victor runs away from it. This experience makes him exhausted and ill over many months. The monster starts looking around for friendship but human beings reject him. After several encounters of harsh treatment from people, the monster becomes afraid and spends time near a cottage, observing a family that leaves there. He subsequently learns that he is very different from humans, which makes him very lonely. He decides to seek friendship with this family but he is rejected. This leads him to seek vengeance. He moves to Geneva, finds a boy in woods and seeks to kidnap him and make him his companion. The boy is Victor’s brother and thus, he decides to kill him to get back to his creator. He removes a necklace on the child’s body and plants it on a beautiful girl, who is later executed for crime.
Victor’s father informs him about his brother’s death and thus, he goes back to Geneva to be with his family. He then sees the monster in the woods where his brother was murdered. The monster tells him about his brief life, about the unkind treatment he has received from humans. Victor is ravaged by guilt for creating this monster and goes on isolation into the mountains to find peace. The monster approaches him and demands that he creates a female companion since all humans have rejected him for disfiguration. Victor regretfully accepts this challenge but changes his mind before completion and destroys it. The monster vows to revenge on victor by destroying his wedding but kills Clerval by the time Victor comes back. Victor marries the adopted girl, Elizabeth, and prepares to kill the monster. Before taking any move, the monster kills Elizabeth and the grief of her death kills victor’s father. Victor vows to pursue the monster and kill him and that is how he ends up near the place where Walton’s ship is trapped. As Walton and his crew plan to go back home, Victor dies and the monster appears in the room where he was placed, mourning for the loss of his creator. The monster briefs Walton about his reasons for vengeance and his plans to burns himself to death than to live. He moves out of the ship and disappears in the waves, never to be seen again.
Clearly, the major theme in this story is the persecution of the monster based on physical appearance. It reflects the writer’s desire to address the false emphasis of the society on outside beauty. One of the situations where this connection is evident is when Victor’s parents adopt Elizabeth because she is beautiful. Such actions leave Victor with no sense of inner beauty. After creating the monster, he runs away from it because it is ugly. He exclaims, “But now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (26) He does not consider its inner beauty. Victor’s reaction to reject the monster brings out the theme of failure to take responsibility for one’s actions. The writer, however, allows the reader to make own judgment about the society by bringing out the struggle that the monster goes through, thereby developing sympathy for him. He is denied love due to his physical disfiguration. It is on this basis that he decides to take revenge. He says “I will revenge my injuries; if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear, and chiefly towards you my arch-enemy” (80). This makes the reader to value inside appearance and brings out the mistake that Victor is making.
Generally, the ability for the writer to put the reader into the monster’s head and description of society’s opinion of beauty makes the story interesting and helps to drive her point home that it is not good to judge a person or a thing by its outside appearance; the inside counts more. Given that this book is a classic piece of literature, mistakes are rare in the original version in Shelley’s original 1818 release. Weaknesses often appear when reading other versions that leave important details. However, all versions date back to the original version that was published in 1818 and Frankenstein is generally an excellent read.