“Levitt and Dubner’s SuperFreakonomics: Rather than a Sequel to the Original and Uncanny Economic Stories We Presented in Freakonomics, We’ve Created a Dry Scientific Journal of What Other Economists are Doing and How They’re Passing It Off as Pop Psychology. Also, We’ve Included a Bonus Guide on How to Start Your Own Business as a High Paid Escort Including Suggested Services and Hourly Rates.”

The full title is very long, but funny in a “pick it up off the shelf and show your friend to get a laugh” marketable way. SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner.

Levitt, the economist and presumably “the source” for the material again pairs up with Dubner, the storyteller, to rekindle the magic they made together four years before with Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. I loved Freakonomics. It was, in so many ways, the right book at the right time. Like lightning striking, many factors came together to create the perfect conditions for a dramatic effect. Freakonomics published on the heels of Gladwell’s counter-intuitive bestseller, Blink, into a general resurgence of interest in pop psychology and pseudo-educational non-fiction.

Levitt and Dubner grabbed some literary headlines with their sensational, statistically-based assertions, including the deliberate counter-argument to Gladwell’s explanation of decreased crime covered in The Tipping Point. They had a lot of fun, fresh and surprising discoveries that were shared in a punchy and “radio-friendly” way that is a tribute to Dubner’s writing ability—he was able to convert Umberto Eco into Dan Brown. The masses could enjoy Freakonomics.

But like the old adage about lightning striking, Superfreakonomics is a miss.

UNLESS you are looking for financial data to support your transition from your current career into the thriving industry of High-Paid Escort Service Providers. In which case, the first 55 pages are a “must read.” In these pages, a world-renowned economist will explain to you that prostitution is not about buying sex, but really about limited suppliers seeking to satisfy a decreasing demand for a price inelastic service. It is virtually a cut-and-paste business proposal for you to take your Brothel plan to the investors for your A round.

If you have the time and interest to learn more about effectively selling yourself on the street at an hourly rate, this book is for you. If this does not currently align with your career goals, borrow it and read chapter 5 about global cooling, as this will be the water-cooler topic sometime in the near future where you can impress your friends.

My rating for the book is 20,000 otherwise stable housewives turned drug addicted prostitutes because of inalterable economic incentives out of a possible 50,000 otherwise stable housewives turned drug addicted prostitutes because of inalterable economic incentives.

Also, in my extensive research for this blog (i.e.- “reading wikipedia“), I learned they are making a film adaptation of the first book. This will be bad. I look forward to writing another Inexpert Review in the future, apparently sometime around August 2010.

F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 24-page original story is here and it is a great story in its own right. However, besides the title and the lead character’s name, it has little in common with Fincher’s film. My wife says it borrows heavily from the 2003 novel The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffenegger. I haven’t read it, so you’ll have to take her word for it. Or, if you don’t feel like reading it, you could just wait a few month’s and see it in theaters. I just read that Brad Pitt’s production company has picked up the title, which is set to release later this year. I, for one, won’t be going to see it. Unless I decide I’m in the mood for another romantic time travel film.

What You Can Learn about Job Searching from the Publishing Industry

When you are job searching, it’s easy to get caught up in the process and overlook the big picture. So, let’s look at the way YOU will look to your future employer by examining the old adage

Remember, this is your leave behind, so in most cases, may be the last thing a potential employer sees. Make sure it gets them excited about what you can do for them.

With your packaging covered, it’s time to get started. Create your list of contacts and your list of companies you’re interested in. These are organic lists, which means they WILL keep changing! Each contact has a network that they can lead you to, the goal is to get the names of decision makers, their titles and their business addresses. Then you’re going to write them a letter. Not an email. Write them a letter.

The letter should say:
I’m this guy, I know this person that you also know. I am interested in your company because … (“It is the top performer in the industry”, “It fits my values and interests,” stuff like that. Just communicate that you know the company.) You’d be interested to know that in my past, I have done these things and would like to help your company do these things. Please feel free to reach me by phone or email at your convenience. Or, I will call your office on this day.

Really, write that stuff? Yes. Employers get upwards of 125 emails a day. They read about 20%. They also return about 20% of phone calls. The question you are answering for them is this:

In spite of Thomas L. Friedman’s best efforts to claim otherwise in his newly revised The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, Release 3.0. Just as in his previous books, Friedman showcases his journalistic forte for information gathering, analysis, and insight-laden extrapolation. He supports well his own previous arguments for free trade, market specialization, and classical economic theories regarding absolute and comparative advantage. (Smith, Ricardo, … Reich)

I’ll pause here to acknowledge that I, too, am a strong proponent of globalization. I have seen first-hand the dissolution of geographic and political barriers to trade and the ensuing benefits to the local economy. I find no fault in Friedman’s historical observations, including his 3 eras of globalization, his 10 flatteners, and even his recommendations for new hybrid fields of study he calls “Mash-Ups.” These ideas are spot-on in our global economy of increasing convergence.

But why all the doom and gloom, Mr. Friedman? Instead of telling your readers how the new “flattened” world will make lives better—spurring the economy of our New America into a greater leadership role as the birthplace of ideas and a nation of entrepreneurs—he focuses on the bad. Friedman follows the M.O. of Lou Dobbs, crying wolf over foreign theft of US jobs and a general disappearance of the American middle-class. Rather than pointing to the strengths of our human capital as inventors, creators, and brand builders, he tells readers that the American sky is falling in competition with Indian and Chinese ITs and engineers.

Friedman leans toward the dramatic, but what do you expect from an Opinion Columnist? He opens with this quote from an Indian software CEO: “The global playing field is being leveled… and the US is not ready.” This is followed by other sensational statements of hyperbole. “Today, people in China and India are starving… for your job!” he warns his children. But then, you are given to flights of the inflammatory if you are to make your living as an op-ed writer. The Title The World is Friendlier to International Business because of Improvements in Technology and Transportation doesn’t sell books.
–Shawn Butler

People who know how to use Latin should. Use of Latin makes you look Smart. However, trying to use words you don’t understand is one of the fastest ways to look Stupid. I have taken the time to compile a list of tips on common Latin terms and phrases and how they should be used. I call it:

*Note: This is not a Latin Dictionary. It would be silly to attempt to put all the common words and phrases of Latin that we use into one list. Besides, it’s already been done.

Alumnus: “Nurseling.” A graduate from a school. The trick is when to use Alumnus vs. Alumni. Background: Latin nouns consider not only Number (English’s Singular vs. Plural), but also Gender and Case. Below is an easy-to-use chart that should clear this up for everyone.

So, “Alumnus” is singular masculine. For a girl, you should say “Alumna” pronounced “A-LUM-Nuh.” “Alumni” is plural for a male or mixed group.

If it’s all girls, you could look brilliant by saying “Alumnae,” pronounced “A-LUM-Nay,” but chances are you’ll still look stupid because most listeners will only know enough about this term to think you mispronounced something.

Cum Laude: “With praise.” Indicates exceptional academic standing. This one bothers me for a different reason. The correct pronunciation is this: “Coom LOUD-ay.” However, this word has become part of English vernacular, like burrito and déjà vu. For a lingual Purist, I say go ahead and pronounce this with your best Latin accent, but in the interest of just not looking Stupid while trying to look Smart, the modern vernacular holds this to be said as “Coom Lawd.”

I may as well cover the variations of this here as well:
Magna Cum Laude “With great praise” and
Summa (“SOOM-uh” not “Some-uh”) Cum Laude “With greatest praise.”

Etc. abbreviation for Et cetera: “And the rest.” On this one, I do not follow the decline of modern English vernacular. This is pronounced “Et Set-er-ah,” there is no “Eks” sound.
Also, “Etc.” is used entirely too much. There are three rules for its usage:
1. Do not use “Etc.” if you have already made a full list. Example: “Call me if you have any problems, concerns, issues, etc.” What else is there? More synonyms?
2. Do not use “Etc.” when the rest of the list is unknown. Example: “I enjoy reading, sports, astronomy, etc.” Paleozoology? You know, the Rest of the stuff I enjoy…
2. Do not use “And Etc.” This is redundant as “Et” is the Latin word for “And.” Example: “We are studying Western Europe: France, Spain, Italy, and etc.”
3. Do not use “Etc.” when referring to people. For this purpose, use Et Al.

Et Al. abbreviation for Et Alia: “And Others.” For More on How Not To Look Stupid Using This One, See Previous Blog.

E.g. abbreviation for Exempli Gratia: “For Example.” For More on How Not To Look Stupid Using This One, See Previous Blog.

I.e. abbreviation for Id Est: “That Is.” For More on How Not To Look Stupid Using This One, See Previous Blog.

Ibid. abbreviation for Ibidem: “In the same place.” Pronounced “ib-EED-em.” This is a time saver, usually seen in academic writing when an author is citing passages from the same source. It is a Smart way of saying, “I already gave you this info.” To avoid looking stupid, again we must be careful not to use words we don’t know the meaning of, e.g.- “I have collected some great quotes from Plato, Cicero, Ibid, and Anon.”

M.O. abbreviation for Modus Operandi: “Mode of Operation” Pronounced “MODE-us op-ehr-ON-dee,” there is no “die” at the end, no matter what you heard on C.S.I. It refers to the particular method that characterizes a person.

Per se: “In and of itself.” Pronounced “per say” but spelled “per se.” The spelling is key! For More on How Not To Look Stupid Using This One, See Previous Blog.

Sic: “Thus.” This means “intentionally so written;” in other words, the editor or author knew they were misspelling something or using slang or bad grammar in an otherwise formal document.

Vice Versa: “The other way around.” Again, the correct pronunciation is this: “vee-kay ver-suh.” However, one will sound Stupider by trying to sound Smart. This has fallen into common usage and is typically pronounced as it is spelled. I often hear imbeciles thinking they sound Smart with strange pronunciations like “Visa Versa” or “Vee-say Ver-say.” Unfortunately, the answer is that they are still wrong.

–Shawn Butler