The Wal-Mart You Don't Know

Author Charles Fishman talks about the very popular store Wal-Mart, and how their low prices are running large companies out of business. In the article The Wal-Mart You Don’t Know Fishman beings with the amazing fact that you can buy a gallon jar of pickles for less then 3 dollars, whereas you can buy a quart of pickles for the same price at a normal grocery store. Although this is saving Americans money, it is running companies into closing their stores and just simply importing their goods. For example, Levi clothing began selling their products at Wal-Mart. The clothes were drastically cheaper at Wal-Mart compared to the original Levi stores. This resulted into Levi’s closing all stores by 2004. Fishman states that Wal-Mart does more business than Target, Sears, Kmart, J.C. Penny, Safeway and Kroger combined. Each of these businesses are very popular in their own way; however, Wal-Mart always comes out on top.

            Personally, I agree with Charles Fishman, that Wal-Mart is running other business into bankruptcy. I personally do not shop at Wal-Mart. Although they offer low prices on items, I do not want to spend my money on things that are going to run other business out. People always say positive or negative things about Wal-Mart. From what I heard, it is possible that once major companies are out of business such as Target, and Safeway, these low prices could soon raise. This may be reasons why stores like Target are beginning to not only sell electronics and simple processed food, but they are also beginning to sell fresh groceries; becoming a lead competitor with Wal-Mart. This article has only convinced me more that I shouldn’t spend money into the company Wal-Mart. Keeping business competing is helpful for each company and also for us.

Social Connections

Steven Johnson mentions the lack of communication between people due to the use of technology such as iPod, cell phones, and laptops in the article “Social Connections”.  Johnson is a writer for publications such as Wired, and New York Times Magazine. He gives an example a cab ride taken by a writer named Thomas Friedman who’s driver was talking on the phone and watching a movie while at the same time. Whereas Friedman was wring a column for the paper and listing to his iPod. Johnson concludes that while face-to-face encounters are important the web gives better opportunities to meet new people. While I agree with Johnson that face-to-face encounters are important I don’t believe that the web gives better opportunities to meet new people.

            Today with new websites that are focused on meeting new people such as Facebook, not everyone you meet is a reliable person. Today, with Facebook, employers can view future employee’s profiles and see pictures, which has been a known problem about network sites. Johnson mentions Along with this issue, teens have been common users of iPods and cellular phones. Texting in class, and during meals, teens tend to text to friends more than talking to the one on one. As a teen I find it incredibly annoying when people are texting when you are trying to talk to them or listening to music at the same time you are in a conversation. Growing up I was never allowed to have my phone at the dinner table and the television was never on during dinner. This caused for my family and I to have conversations at the dinner table. Technology never got in the way of a one-to-one conversation with my family or my friends, so I disagree with Johnson that the web or technology gives better opportunities to meet new people. People need to get off their cell phones and observe the world around them. 

Our Tired, Our Poor, Our Kids

            In the article “Our Tired, Our Poor, Our Kids” by Anna Quindlen, she states that facts of those in America who are homeless. Most of these people have multiple children and are living from anywhere including their car, or a hotel or motel. These people not only have their children in either day care or school, but some also struggle from addictions or search for jobs. She goes on to say that people like Ralph Nunex, who runs the organization Homes for the Homeless, are going to try to educate those who are less fortunate. He says, “Shelters are going to be the low-income housing of the future”.

            Throughout this article Quindlen does not provide any ethos. She doesn’t have credibility. She doesn’t mention any relation to being homeless, or knowing someone who is homeless. However, she does provide a good amount of pathos. She gives many examples of those who are homeless and the situations they have to face. For example, in the beginning of her article, her first sentence is “Six people live here, in a room the size of a master bedroom in a modest suburban house”. This gives the readers an insight of how a normal homeless family would live. With such strong descriptions, she gives the readers a picture of how life would be like if we were homeless.

            I believe that homeless should not live in these circumstances. The images that the author provides are deep and moving and allow Americans to sympathize with them. It is specifically sad hearing about the children who become deeply affected by homelessness. Quindlen states that “may never finish high school, and have never held a job”. She also states that if parents get involved in drugs, and that results to children going to foster parents or moving to a relative’s homes. If not for the adults we should try and end homelessness for the children because most adults are recovering alcoholics or drug addicts and the children have a bright future if they haven’t been affected yet. 

Grade Inflation: It's Time to Face the Facts

Author Harvey C. Mansfield argues about Grade Inflation at Harvard in his article called Grade Inflation: It’s Time to Face the Facts. He is a professor at Harvard and he has also participated in grade inflation in his classes. Grade inflation is where academic grades are increased over time no matter the outcome of the work. Mansfield conducted an experiment in which he “gave students two grades: one for the register and the public record and the other which was private”. He discovered that the “private” grades were not as good as the public grades. This is because he graded them by their work, which resulted to some students with lower grades. Mansfield’s final thought is that grade inflation should not happen and that it “signifies that professors care less about their teaching”. I agree with Mansfield. I believe that grade inflation prevents students who work hard the recognition they deserve compared to students who don’t work as hard.

            Author Harvey C. Mansfield is a reliable source because he centers his paper based on his findings from Harvard. He is a professor of Political Science at Harvard and has witnessed grade inflation and has also done it himself. He also points out the different sides of grade inflation giving his point of view and then also mentioning other teachers, “Harvard professors who teach those admirable, self improving souls cannot restrain their own… high grades cost professors nothing.” (60). Teachers who give students high grades are ineffective while students are effective greatly by grades.

            I agree with Mansfield because giving a student an A when they really deserve an F is not teaching them how to be a better student. A student can not pass when they don’t deserve it because when someone doesn’t give them an A and gives them an F like Mansfield would, they won’t know how to change their grade. I also believe that teachers giving grades students don’t deserve make the students lazy because when students realize that all grades are high no matter the quality of their work, they will become lazy and not put their full effort in all their work. 

Violent Media is Good For Kids

Gerald Jones, author of Violent Media is Good For Kids, believes that “sheltering a child from “violence” is okay. Jones, a comic book author and screenwriter states, comics, which involved violence, was good for him.  He also mentions success stories, which involve young children watching “violent” television shows such as, “Sailor Moon” and how these shows help the children through a family crisis. While Jones has valid points, I disagree. I believe that some of these facts could be true; it really depends on the child and how you explain things to them.

            Gerald Jones’ tone seems very easy going. He isn’t just giving straight facts; he is slowly trying to convince the reader that violent media is good. I think this type of tone is good because most people have a very strong opinion about this topic and trying to be easy going is a good way to keep people reading. Also, he states that after hearing about “psychologists insisting that violent stores are harmful to kids…. That’s when I started the research”, he decides to do research on the opposing side. Jones does realize that violent entertainment can be harmful, but he does say that it can help children in desperate need. He states that it can help children who are going through hard times such as the divorce of their parents.

            I disagree with Jones because I believe that a child viewing violence depends on the child. Watching cartoons may be harmless as long as the child understands that what they see isn’t real. However, watching movies that are rated R and is not meant for children shouldn’t be shown to them. Jones also mentions a child’s craving to play with imaginary guns. Guns should not be something that children should pretend with. Guns are something that is usually seen as a weapon that hurts people, and children should not associate guns with killing.

            Jones brings up many good points throughout his article. To some extent I agree with him, some forms of violent media is harmless for children. However, the types of media most children see is not acceptable for their age and should not be shown to children.