The True Cost of Walmart

http://news.yahoo.com/really-costs-walmart-comes-town-143801034.html

What It really Costs When Walmart Comes to Town

This article about the great negative impact that new Walmarts often have on local communities really caught my attention, since it reminded me of a documentary, Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price, that I viewed a couple of years ago. I remember that this documentary revealed several problems that Walmarts introduced, including its low wages, monopolistic nature, lack of environmental protection policies, and poor treatment of workers. This documentary, with its numerous facts and interviews, really worked to change my opinion on this large corporation from a lack of interest in their affairs to almost downright disgust with their whole operation.

This article reintroduced the same feelings that I had after watching the documentary. It focused mainly on the fact that most Walmarts that are introduced into an area cause the community to lose millions of dollars in revenue. This sharp decline in revenue is due almost entirely to the lower wages that Walmarts provide compared to the local businesses that they overtake (about a 3 dollar per hour decrease). In addition to these lower wages, the article also introduces studies that assert that communities with Walmarts are much more likely to have more hate groups than a community without one. This occurs since this megastore puts smaller companies in the community out of business, companies which previously had served as “pillars of the community”. While Walmarts can benefit communities that were previous unable to supply enough products to satisfy consumer demand, this article states that in reality there are very few communities that cannot provide for the consumer.

I definitely agree with the arguments that this article is making, since I really believe that in order for a community to succeed, competition is required, not a single monopoly. Walmarts may appear to have lower prices (and, technically, they do), but there is a much higher price that communities have to pay in the presence of these stores, and that is the millions of dollars caused by lower wages.

A Possible Breakthrough in Organ Transplants

http://news.yahoo.com/add-kidneys-list-things-recycled-210438524.html

Add Kidneys to the List of Things That Can Be Recycled

This article struck me as very intriguing since I think that the discovery it discusses can prove to be an important breakthrough in medical science. In addition to this, the article also applies directly to my family, since my dad has a kidney condition and could use a transplant.

The article reveals how a transplanted kidney that was failing in one man was removed while he was still alive and given to another person in need. The man who had first received the kidney transplant only had the new organ for a few days before he found out that a disease in his body had damaged the kidney and rendered it useless. Although it would not work in this man’s body, doctors thought that the damaged kidney could still be used in someone else’s. With the first man’s permission, the doctors removed his transplanted kidney and gave it to someone else in need. After a couple of days, the kidney had begun working and the damage seemed to disappear.

While organs have been transplanted more than once for a couple of decades, this is the first time that the initial recipient was alive when the organ was removed. With tens of thousands of people currently in need of a transplanted kidney, I think that it is absolutely necessary that more kidneys, and organs in general, become “recycled”. This case proves that even if the organ is failing in one patient, it does not mean that the organ is useless for everyone.

It is noted in the article that reusing a transplanted kidney is risky since scar tissue forms around the new organ, making removal of it difficult. Also, it is rare that an organ that is recycled will actually work in another person. Despite these drawbacks, I still think that this method should be actively pursued.  

Exploring Venues/Publications

     The two publications that I have decided to look at are The Huffington Post and TIME. I normally do not spend much time reading either of these online magazines, so much of my analysis is based off of my first impressions of the venues. After looking at the each homepage, what really jumped out at me were the differences in each sites "approaches". The Huffington Post's homepage consists mostly of large, glaring pictures with short captions over each. TIME, on the hand, seems to rely much more on the audience's ability to read text, as much of the homepage consists of words with much smaller pictures. This drastic change in the size of the pictures was very noticeable. TIME also, from my first impressions, seems to take a much more serious approach to the news. This was evident since each publication took an entirely different approach to the same top headline, the failure of the North Korean rocket test. The Huffington Post took a much lighter approach to the whole situation, as the title read "Weapon of Mass Dysfunction", followed by "FAIL: North Korean Missile Falls Into Sea Soon After Launch." TIME seemed to present the story in a much more serious manner, with the headline "Kim's Rocket Fails, But N. Korea's Space Threat Is Scarier Than You Think." After skimming through each article, I noticed that The Huffington Post's article was very short and very critical of North Korea, while TIME's version was much longer and much more careful with the stance that it took on the matter. An aspect of each magazine that further revealed the formality of each was the kinds of articles that were included. In The Huffington Post, it seemed like many of the articles were more focused on popular culture than TIME's were (The Huffington Post still included a lot about politics and other serious issues, but just with a much lighter approach). From the brief amount of time that I surveyed each venue, I noticed a slightly liberal tone to The Huffington Post (just by some of the ads and headlines), while I thought that TIME seemed relatively neutral. There were also many more advertisements in the Huffington Post (big pictures that were a little distracting), while it was hard to find any on TIME's homepage.
    Overall, based on these differences, I would say that The Huffington Post is directed to a much younger adult (not too young though) audience, while TIME is directed an older adult audience. In my opinion, from the time that I spent looking at each one, I would probably be more willing to rely on TIME for a good, reliable article than The Huffington Post, mainly due to the ways in which each present their content.

Great Writing-A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Smith

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/872/modest.pdf

This "proposal" by Jonathan Swift is a satire, where Swift proposes an idea for what should be done to solve the severe economic problem and human suffering caused by overpopulation in Ireland. Swift recommends killing Irish babies at one year of age in order to alleviate these problems. The reason that I think that this essay contains such great writing is because of the way Swift writes in a formal tone and makes his proposal seem valid, when in reality what he is proposing is absolutely ridiculous. Throughout the passage, Swift uses language that dehumanizes the Irish people, making them seem like cattle raised for slaughter, which helps him achieve his underlying purpose of criticizing the way in which the poor were mocked at this time. Swift's proposal is so agreeable and contains so much support that I even found myself somewhat agreeing with the man, until I remembered that it involved something that was morally terrible.

Proposal-Reflection Paper

            The question that I would like to explore in my reflection paper is “Why does the general public decide to treat other people so poorly?” It did not take me very long to decide on this question, since it is something that I notice each and every day of my life.

            I really began to question the attitudes of the people once I got my first job. My job was a caddy at a country club, so my primary objective was to serve the needs of the golfers by carrying their bags and handing them their clubs. Prior to working here, I had always seen other employed people (such as my parents or friends) deeply frustrated at the ways that they were treated by either people who had authority over them, or just normal individuals. After starting work, it astonished me how many people looked down upon me and treated me as if I was some sort of slave. I know I had done nothing wrong to them, so why were they treating me like this?

            After getting my next job at a grocery store, Wegman’s, I really began to question, and even dislike, much of the general public. Whether they are telling me to grab a grocery cart on the other side of the store just because the one they have is wet, or just acting rude by talking on their phone when I am trying to check them out in line, people look down upon me, and surely countless others, numerous times a day. I have even experiences some extreme cases where customers simply walk up to my face, curse me off, and then leave for no apparent reason. I often become very frustrated at times like these, even though I know that I should just brush them off. I have always hoped that my last day of work will consist of me getting back at a customer with some sort of revenge (this would be my last day of work since whatever I do would get me instantly fired), which is probably a byproduct of my built up anger. The bottom line is that working has opened my eyes to the terrible ways in which people treat others.

            In this paper, I really want to discuss how the ways people decided to downgrade others for numerous and profoundly meaningless reasons (taking frustration out on someone else, trying to make themselves feel better about themselves, or the fact that many people inherently just do not care about strangers) is a fundamental flaw in society. I will talk about how working opened my eyes to this nasty reality, and how today I see it everywhere. I will try to find the reasons for why people act so superior to others by treating them in a condescending manner. I will that, of course, not everyone is like this, but it is very surprising how many are. My overall voice in this paper will most likely be very critical and I will try to point just how meaningless degradation is.  

Logical Fallacies

http://www.truthout.org/witnessing-death-republican-party/1330698232

This article, arguing against the Republican Party and its ability to stay relevant in politics, contains a few logical fallacies. The major fallacies used are the hasty generalization and the slippery slope. In using Rick Santorum’s super-conservative agenda to characterize the entire Republican Party as a group of “right-wing nuts”, the author is demonstrating a hasty generalization. One party member does not represent the entire party as a whole. The author also makes a very bold jump from first criticizing the Republican Party candidates today as radicals to then stating that this will inevitably lead to the death of the Republican Party, at least in its ability to win a national election. The ability of the Republican Party to compete for presidential positions in the future really is not dependent on the group of party members running today (and, as was shown with the hasty generalization, it is really not correct to label all of the party members even of today as incapable of contending). Aside from this, the very statement that the Republican Party may be dying is fallacious, since so many of the past elections between the two major parties have been so tight, and since there is such a large base of Republican citizens that it is questionable to state that the party will die with such ease.   

Coffee Inhaler

http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/are-coffee-inhalers-safe

Coffee Inhalers: The New Club Drug?

As I was looking at the Yahoo homepage today, I came across the word “coffee inhaler”. The picture depicted a small, lipstick-like tube with a yellow cap. Since I had never before heard or seen anything like this, I decided to read the article to learn more.

It turns out that the man who invented this inhaler device is a biomedical engineer, which is the same major that I am interested in. The main purposes of this article were to explore whether or not this product is safe to use, in addition to providing some background information on the device. This product works by spraying a powdered substance containing caffeine into the customer’s mouth, where the powder instantly dissolves. This product is designed to increase the energy of the user much faster than through drinking a typical cup of coffee, and it can come in handy in places where coffee cannot be consumed (on an airplane).  

The potential problem with this device is that teens will use the product in combination of alcohol, which can cause many problems since people do not realize how intoxicated they and continue to drink. In response to this concern, the creator of this product simply argues that this product is not intended for these situations.

Another concern with this product is that users will overdose on caffeine with this device, since instead of having to consume large volumes of coffee, all one has to do is spray a small amount of powder into their mouth. For this issue, the founder of this product explains how it would take more than 80 inhalers in a short period of time to potentially cause death, and that moderate amounts of caffeine are actually good for a person’s health.

My opinion on this topic is that coffee inhalers are a great idea, and that they should not be taken off of the market simply because of a small minority of the population that will decide to abuse it. I understand that someone who combines this product with alcohol can endanger the lives of others (if they were to drive under the influence), but I think that the alcohol would be to blame in this situation, not the coffee inhaler. Besides, there are so many other products out on the market that contain both alcohol and caffeine (alcoholic energy drinks). If the FDA is not willing to ban products that contain pre-mixed alcohol and caffeine, why should they ban alcohol-free caffeine products? There is a much wider portion of the population that will benefit from this product.

Another interesting article…

http://voices.yahoo.com/crazy-laws-governing-harrisburg-pa-residents-10934532.html?cat=17

Crazy Laws Governing Pennsylvania Residents