Possible Research Topics

1) Should imports of foreign cars or other foreign products be limited or restricted by law? (Business Audience, Consumers)

2) Have the large salaries of professional athletes had a negative impact on the athletes or the sports? (Anyone who watches professional sports)

3) To what extent should individuals have the protection of the law and the assistance of the medical establishment in terminating their own lives? (Psychology, Medical)

Plan for revision

1) Make the paper flow a better using meta commentary
2) Adjust the perspective of the paper, it is a little too business orientated in my mind.
3) Include more quotes, and reference the sources better.
4) Insert a Naysayer

CHANGED TOPIC

Decided that I'll write about Wal-Mart and their negative effect on small business in america, and also on their widely criticized business ethics

I think this may sound a little too much from the business aspect...let me know what you guys think.

The capitalistic ideals that Wal-Mart pushes are first-rate for business. But, when those principles are forced upon the naive of the small business world there is nothing but desolation for those who are trying to fight for the best of capitalism. Sure they are the largest company in the world, but one can argue they simply wield their power for just one purpose: to bring the lowest possible prices to its customers. Until Wal-Mart takes another look at where their current business strategies lie, they will always be known as the company that tolerates the high costs of low prices.

These issues are a problem in every neighborhood across the country that has a Wal-Mart nearby. Due to the fact that they promise “Everyday Low Prices” they have set themselves up to continue in this downward spiraling effect. According to Charles Fishman of FastCompany.com, the retailer has a obvious policy for suppliers: On basic products that don't change in model from year to year, the price Wal-Mart will pay, and will charge shoppers, must drop year after year (Fishman, 68). But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices. Wal-Mart has the power to put a stranglehold on dispensation from vendors. For most small companies and even many larger vendors to survive the price demands, they have been forced into laying off employees and closing U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas. So not only is Wal-Mart putting large vendors in a squeeze, all of the Mom and Pop stores across the nation are being forced out by ruthless competition.

Another issue that is being met with strong opposition from those fighting for fair and honest capitalism is the unfair treatment of Wal-Mart employees. It’s a pretty well known fact that they focus on trying to hire those looking for a first job or senior citizen employees. This is because Wal-Mart does not look to provide all the health care benefits and other standard benefits normally seen in Mom and Pop stores. If they were to provide real benefits consumers would the face the obvious price hike to their in-store product, instead of the “Everyday Low Prices.” The current prices that the consumer is faced with today are due to the lack of fair and legitimate benefits that employees of Wal-Mart have been faced with forever.

With those issues being the most imperative Wal-Mart needs to look at what they can do to try and find the balance between the worst of capitalism and the best. To help tackle the issue of outsourcing and forcing companies out of town, they can look to a few different options. If Wal-Mart were to start expanding their current vendor base and look to more innovative and growing companies and actually used their global name recognition to help these smaller companies grow they would be looked at as more of a goodwill company. What better way to start a positive streak of news in your name then to show the world you are in fact interested in supporting the Mom and Pops of America (Hanft). Not only will you help another business, some sort of referral system could be set up due to the provided support, which could only lead to even more growth for the largest company in the world.

Now faced with scrutiny about their current employee treatment and labor situations out of the country Wal-Mart needs to do something to calm to storm. One choice could be to open up their business to the world as much as possible. Currently Wal-Mart more often then not denies comment on so many questions from reporters that if they were to start answering and defending themselves with the honest truth they would be seen a little higher in the capitalistic world. The most important factor that Wal-Mart must learn and value is that they must stop treating their employees like commodities. If it weren’t for their employees—which most of the time are also parts of their loyal customer base—they would be nothing. The least they can do is to provide some sort of benefit plan to help support them. They also need to change the way employment is looked at in their company. Very few people actually go into a Wal-Mart for their first or second jobs planning on growing as an individual and turning into a long lasting career path, and that is what Wal-Mart must change in order for them to be respected in the business world.

Overall, Wal-Mart does not practice the best of capitalism; instead they have been only focused on running small companies out and delivering the best prices possible. To the untrained eye, one would think that Wal-Mart is a fantastic enterprise that is doing everything in its power to help our economy and deliver fair prices to consumers. But in reality they are accepting trade offs that an honest company looking to better society and the capitalistic world would never consider taking part of.

Bibliography for Violence

American Psychological Association. (2003, February 19).
 Violence in the media - psychologists help
 protect children. Retrieved October 3, 2007,
 from APA Web site:http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.html 

Brown, K., & Hamilton, C. (n.d.). The influence of violent
 media on children and adolescents: A public health
 approach. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from ProQuest database. 

Hatch, O. G., & Majority Staff, Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
 (1999, September 14). Children, violence, and the media.
 Retrieved October 3, 2007, from United States Senate Web
 site: http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/mediavio.htm

Surgeon General. (n.d.). Appendix 4-B: Media violence exposure
 and content. In Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General.
 Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
 library/youthviolence/chapter4/appendix4bsec2.html#MajorBehavioralMedia/

Summary of First Source

From a public-health perspective, there is support that violent imagery has short-term effects on arousal, thoughts, and emotions, increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behavior. However, the research does not correlate as well with older children and teenagers in this case. The research that discusses sex differences, suggests that boys are more likely to show aggression after viewing violent media than girls. That is something that had always been a long argued topic because many feel that boys are naturally more aggressive and therefore more likely to be influenced by violent subjects. Long-term outcomes for children viewing media violence are more controversial, mostly because of the practical difficulties in linking behavior with past viewing. Theories of aggression have been used to explain these effects have predicted a stronger influence of media violence for those with a predisposition for aggressive behavior because of their disposition or situational factors like growing up inside a violent home environment or even both. However, there is only weak evidence from correlation studies linking media violence directly to crime, but certainly enough to be able to claim that media violence does have some sort of negative effect on children and their development.

I don’t necessarily agree with their findings for a number of reasons. I myself grew up pretty well exposed to everything on TV, movies, and videogames including violence. But I cannot honestly say that at any time I felt inclined to imitate what I had seen on TV. If at all, it would be more likely to see me trying to fly like superman or dunk a basketball like Michael Jordan. So I guess from there you can at least make the assumption that media will always have an effect on child development because when we are young it is a “Monkey see, monkey do” attitude, but I don’t think that’s enough to jump to saying violence on TV is the only factor that makes children violent. But don’t get me wrong, I understand exactly what the author is saying, and he also doesn’t feel that media is the only attribute to violence. He also points out how other factors such as environment or a previous disposition, but my response is more to those out there who feel like media is the real villain in the exposition of violence to our children.

Links to Sources

Violence in the Media and it's Effect on Children

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=09-29-2012&FMT=7&DID=803875111&RQT=309

http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.html

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/mediavio.htm

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter4/appendix4bsec2.html#MajorBehavioralMedia/

el topico para mi papel

Violence in media (TV, Movies, Videogames, Newspapers, etc.) and its influence on teenagers

Beauty with Metacommentary

In the essay “The Empire of Images in Our World of Bodies” Susan Bordo brings our media influenced ideals about the “perfect” body to the attention of the reader. In Bordo’s view, media has strayed away from saying that any one can be beautiful at any age, instead we are now faced with the fact that the word “perfect” can now be applied to a human body when it never could have before (151). Specifically she looks to the teens of America, and how we should reach out to them and influence them in positive ways. In my opinion, if we can change how society views the concept of beauty we as a whole can finally grab a hold of our nation’s ever growing image disorder dilemma.

As Susan Bordo puts it, “Inner beauty has become a joke in this culture.” (154) Some believe that our current beauty ambitions are nothing more than simple acts of bettering one’s self esteem and self-confidence. And sure the occasional face-lift, tummy tuck, breast augmentation, or strict diets seem innocent enough in our society today. But Bordo insists that it is much more than that, the possibility of leading yourself down a potential path of eating disorders and addiction to plastic surgery is not worth looking five years younger. In sum, Susan Bordo wants our society to revert itself to where aging beautifully was simply “Wearing one’s years with style, confidence, and vitality.” (150) Certainly something that can be ascertained by our culture, but with the steps we are currently taking, we must come to realize we are ruining the “perfect” image. Which if you ask me, should simply be what each individual wants to see in themselves and not what society demands them to be.

I myself have mixed views on the topic. There are many reason as to why our image of beauty has been so greatly skewed in the last 10 years. But above all, we need to recognize that the image has in fact been changed and we as a society must decide whether or not we want it to stay as is. In my opinion, beauty should involve more than your looks, looking 35 when you are 55 shouldn’t immediately translate to overwhelming beauty. Where did personality, intelligence, and common interests go? Those are the real things that matter to me, not how many times you’ve had botox injected into your forehead. Bordo even mentions, “We confront how bizarre, how impossible, how contradictory they are,” when looking at how much the beauty industry has tweaked images to make them even more “perfect” than the original (161). For instance, I’ve never really had an interest in finding a woman that is simply drop dead gorgeous, because odds are she doesn’t meet the other standards that I put ahead of pure beauty. Pure beauty being basic physical characteristics, or “judging a book by its cover” you could say. Not to say that there aren’t beautiful women out there that can also have amazing personalities, be smart, and enjoy the same things I do. But I’d rather get to know someone, decide that we have more together than physical attraction, and then look for the inner beauty in each and every woman.

Others would argue that the use of plastic surgery is not to merely make a person “perfect” but to enhance or improve certain features that they are unsatisfied with. I can understand that, and for that reason I have mixed feelings about the whole topic. I do feel that if there is something about your body that you really don’t want, and think you’d have higher self-confidence if something were done about it, then in any situation you should always be looking to achieve that change. Don't get me wrong, I'm not siding with the cosmetic surgery addicts who feel that a face lift every week will keep them looking young and beautiful. I am trying to reach out to those who want a nose job, or liposuction, or a smaller procedure that will change one part of their body they are unhappy with and will increase their confidence in the long run. Everyone should have the opportunity to be happy with their body and sometimes cosmetic surgery is the answer.

Overall I believe that beauty in our culture has drastically changed over the years and that we have no one to blame but ourselves. We could blame the media, we could blame Hollywood, but we have always had the option of turning off the TV or ignoring what we’ve seen and heard from Tinsel Town. Our ideal of beauty can always be changed, but it will require a lot of work at this point due to everything that influences our choices. We need to take a moment and attempt to determine what is best for each individual, and stop looking at beauty with such a collectivist attitude. But, with our society being a media driven culture, what we see is what we trust and what we yearn for.
--------------------------------------

MetaCommentary is a great way to add depth to your paper and better defend your argument by helping clarify what you are saying. I had used some metacommentary in my paper previous to adding more for this assignment. I like how it helps you organize your ideas by guiding the reader through your paper and defining what point you are trying to make.

Beauty Summary

In the essay “The Empire of Images in Our World of Bodies” Susan Bordo brings our media influenced ideals about the “perfect” body to the attention of the reader. In Bordo’s view, media has strayed away from saying that any one can be beautiful at any age, instead we are now faced with the fact that the word “perfect” can now be applied to a human body when it never could have before (151). Specifically she looks to the teens of America, and how we should reach out to them and influence them in positive ways. So that we as a whole can finally grab a hold of our nation’s ever growing disorder dilemma.
As Susan Bordo puts it, “Inner beauty has become a joke in this culture.” (154) Some believe that our current beauty ambitions are nothing more than simple acts of bettering one’s self esteem and self-confidence. And sure the occasional face-lift, tummy tuck, breast augmentation, or strict diets seem innocent enough in our society today. But Bordo insists that it is much more than that, the possibility of leading yourself down a potential path of eating disorders and addiction to plastic surgery is not worth looking five years younger. In sum, Susan Bordo wants our society to revert itself to where aging beautifully was simply “Wearing one’s years with style, confidence, and vitality.” (150) Certainly something that can be ascertained by our culture, but with the steps we are currently taking, we must come to realize we are ruining the “perfect” image. Which should simply be what each individual wants to see in themselves and not what society demands them to be.
I myself have mixed views on the topic. In my opinion, beauty should involve more than your looks, looking 35 when you are 55 shouldn’t immediately translate to overwhelming beauty. Where did personality, intelligence, and common interests go? Those are the real things that matter to me, not how many times you’ve had botox injected into your forehead. Bordo even mentions, “We confront how bizarre, how impossible, how contradictory they are,” when looking at how much the beauty industry has tweaked images to make them even more “perfect” than the original (161). For instance, I’ve never really had an interest in finding a woman that is simply drop dead gorgeous, because odds are she doesn’t meet the other standards that I put ahead of pure beauty. Pure beauty being basic physical characteristics, or “judging a book by its cover” you could say. Not to say that there aren’t beautiful women out there that can also have amazing personalities, be smart, and enjoy the same things I do. But I’d rather get to know someone, decide that we have more together than physical attraction, and then look for the inner beauty in each and every woman.
Others would argue that the use of plastic surgery is not to merely make a person “perfect” but to enhance or improve certain features that they are unsatisfied with. I can understand that, and for that reason I have mixed feelings about the whole topic. I do feel that if there is something about your body that you really don’t want, and think you’d have higher self-confidence if something were done about it, then in any situation you should always be looking to achieve that change.
Overall I believe that beauty in our culture has drastically changed over the years and that we have no one to blame but ourselves. We could blame the media, we could blame Hollywood, but we have always had the option of turning off the TV or ignoring what we’ve seen and heard from Tinsel Town. Our ideal of beauty can always be changed, but it will require a lot of work at this point due to everything that influences our choices. We need to take a moment and attempt to determine what is best for each individual, and stop looking at beauty with such a collectivist attitude. But, with our society being a media driven culture, what we see is what we trust and what we yearn for.

Synthesis Revision

Whether we like it or not, the basis of education is becoming more and more technological. But, by instituting computers into the classroom and refusing to acknowledge the usefulness of books, are students still being challenged and learning material as dynamically as before? The Wisconsin Center for Education Research and Clifford Stell have very different arguments, but really they are supporting each other more than they think.

The WCER is strongly in favor of computers being an essential player in the classroom, feeling that with the additional access to information on the internet instantly makes it a better learning tool than a pile of books. Also, the fact that a student is more likely to sit down at a computer and play an educational game then sit down at a desk and sift through books trying to come to the same conclusion, it shows how much our educational system has changed. When a student is ready to go do research, they may be heading to a library, but odds are they will be looking through a online database before checking what books are available to them.

Clifford Stell, the author of "Who Needs Computers", has a very different argument. He points out that computers do everything but help develop students in the classroom. Mentioning that when you look back to the 60's and how filmstrips made their first appearance in the classroom, everyone knew that it was a chance to slack off because you weren't going to be learning anything as a student. But the only reason they were being used is because parents wanted the newest and most advanced pieces of technology readily available to their children at all times.

But are these two arguments really all that different? Yes there is one side claiming that computers are the future and will be the most advantageous tool available, whereas the other wants to see books taking the forefront in education. The similarity here is that computers are the future whether we like it or not. Just as it is with almost any other type of new technology or idea that is brought into question, there will be naysayers and supporters. But in this case the naysayers are those who don't understand the real advantages that computers and advanced technology provides students. My point here--that the majority of those opposed to seeing computers brought into classrooms, are not students, the opinions that should really count in this matter. Beyond this limited audience, however, my point should speak to anyone who cares about the larger issue of individual learning styles. Not everyone can take a book, read it, and pull away all of the main points as easily as others. In some cases, a computer game, or aided study guide helps ease the process for the student. So in essence we have people arguing against the greater good, because years from now you will most likely only see computers in the classroom because as a society that is the direction we are heading in.

OUTLINE

Thesis: Whether we like it or not, our educational environment is becoming more technologically advanced, but is it really helping or hurting the classrooms?

Intro: Hit both authors' main points.

Body: 1) WCER
a. Main stance
b. Support
c. Quote developing argument

2) Clifford Stell
a. Main Stance
b. Support
c. Quote developing argument.

3) Supporting each other?
a. Compare arguments
b. Develop similarities
c. Synthesize and prove how they are really talking about the same issue.

Conclusion: Wrap-up loose ends

Synthesis

Whether we like it or not, the basis of education is becoming more and more technological. But, by instituting computers into the classroom and refusing to acknowledge the usefulness of books, are students still being challenged and learning material as dynamically as before? The Wisconsin Center for Education Research and Clifford Stell have very different arguments, but really they are supporting each other more than they think.

The WCER is strongly in favor of computers being an essential player in the classroom, feeling that with the additional access to information on the internet instantly makes it a better learning tool than a pile of books. Also, the fact that a student is more likely to sit down at a computer and play an educational game then sit down at a desk and sift through books trying to come to the same conclusion, it shows how much our educational system has changed. When a student is ready to go do research, they may be heading to a library, but odds are they will be looking through a online database before checking what books are available to them.

Clifford Stell, the author of "Who Needs Computers", has a very different argument. He points out that computers do everything but help develop students in the classroom. Mentioning that when you look back to the 60's and how filmstrips made their first appearance in the classroom, everyone knew that it was a chance to slack off because you weren't going to be learning anything as a student. But the only reason they were being used is because parents wanted the newest and most advanced pieces of technology readily available to their children at all times.

But are these two arguments really all that different? Yes there is one side claiming that computers are the future and will be the most advantageous tool available, whereas the other wants to see books taking the forefront in educations. The similarity here is that computers are the future whether we like it or not. Just as it is with almost any other type of new technology or idea that is brought into question, there will be naysayers and supporters. But in this case the naysayers are those who don't understand the real advantages that computers and advanced technology provides students. So in essence we have people arguing against the greater good, because years from now you will only see computers in the classroom because as a society that is the direction we are heading in.

WIKI

Click Here for Wiki Article

In this article, Wikipedia and it's value to society as a reliable news source is being questioned. Most people feel that because anyone has the ability to go onto Wiki and add, remove, or edit previous "postings" on a given topic, that immediately drops the accuracy of the provided facts on the website. But when you look at some of the major events in our past few years as a nation and world, you can see just how accurately portrayed they are on Wikipedia. Most facts that are placed onto Wiki come from real news sources, but with Wiki, the speed of the updates are so immediate that it acts as a very important news tool to the world by providing instant alerts and access to important details on major world changing events. This particular article goes into detail about how successful Wikipedia was as a news source during the VT Shootings, and how it had so many "hits" that the website could hardly handle the amount of traffic that it was generating. Most of the information on the website was found to be accurate and when it was found false, there was more often then not a removal or flagging of such info.

I feel that Wikipedia is not far from becoming a widely used and widely recognized news source for all types of topics and information. They simply need to add more administrators and moderators that are willing to sift through the information, good and bad, and make each article's info as reliable and accurate as possible. I myself go to Wikipedia when i'm looking for a simple reference to a topic I just want a little bit of information on. But if Wikipedia took the time and effort to develop thier website to the point where they are recognized as an authentic source of news, then many more users would look first to Wiki instead of another site.