Anyway, for those who follow the story, look for:
- A change of heart
- A lot of answers ...
- ...and a whole bunch of new questions
- Realizations
- Decisions
- Regulus' arrival in Ireland
Friday, November 14, 2008
Chapter 14
Heart of Gold, Chapter 14 is now posted! The chapter brings this story up to 100,000 words ... I can't believe it. I can't believe that I've written something that is 100,000 words, and not even finished yet. Just the fact that I've done it and that people are so fascinated and invested in the story gives me hope for my secondary career as an author.
Anyway, for those who follow the story, look for:
Anyway, for those who follow the story, look for:
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Should the media disclose political bias?
I am working on my third lesson plan for my Social Studies Methods class. This particular lesson plan is based on the SAC (structured academic controversy) model and, as the government class will begin discussion on the media next week, I have decided to create a debate-lesson about whether or not reporters should disclose political bias, either by revealing their bias in their writing or by participating in the political process.
The model breaks students into groups of 4, with 2 students arguing a particular side at any given time, and has both sets of students take either the FOR or AGAINST side for the argument at some point during the debate. The point is to force students to consider the multiplicity of ideas that come from debates so that they can make an informed decision for themselves about the question. Students read a selection during the class and have a few minutes to prepare an argument with the reading, which they present to the other two students in their group, who ask clarifying questions and then take a few minutes to present the other side of the debate. Then, students switch sides, and do the whole thing over again. After all students have had the opportunity to argue both sides, students participate in some kind of culminating activity. I'm going to ask my kids to express their own opinion and choose a side to give them the opportunity to freely debate the topic for the rest of the class period (they've done this sort of thing before).
The readings I chose:
FOR #1: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/080208vote/
FOR #2: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1128354/posts
AGAINST #1: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/05/local/me-parsons5
AGAINST #2: http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2008/02/should_journalists_vote.html?sc=emaf
My take? I subscribe to a little bit on both sides. I don't think journalists should disenfranchise themselves. The honest truth is that everyone has some sort of bias and it's ridiculous to think that we are able to report on anything without being affected by our unique perception of the world around us and by our own history. However, at the same time, I still do not believe that journalists should be involved in political campaigning, or that a journalist involved with Greenpeace (an example from AGAINST #1) should be able to report on their organization.
Journalists should do everything that they can to limit their bias, but they should acknowledge that that bias exists and at times it may be appropriate to acknowledge what that bias is. I know that most American journalists would very much disagree with me on that point, including my journalism professors, and this is a large reason of why I decided not to be a journalist. Talking to people outside the profession has convinced me that a primary reason people do not trust the media is because the media does not reveal its bias. Friends and family have hinted, though not outright stated, that they might trust the media more if the media would reveal how it is biased.
Now, I don't think that every journalist should be out spouting all of their personal beliefs. That's just bad journalism. Part of journalism is learning how to build a boundary for yourself and limiting yourself from taking on a story that you know you are unable to report on objectively. Conversely, journalists shouldn't lie to themselves. No matter how much you try to limit bias, it will still show through.
Personal case in point: grading. I've been going through my first batch of student papers. I thought it would be easy, based on my perceptions from class. WOW! Not the case. After reviewing the papers once, I found that I needed to throw all preconceived notions out the window. They are all great papers, don't get me wrong, every student did very well. But I had completely pegged some kids wrong, and I think that that had a lot to do with what I've experienced in my own past and with my interactions with them over the past two months. I've become much more cautious in class since then, rethinking my perceptions of each student and why I perceive them that way. It has been very eye-opening, and I've been trying to grade their papers very carefully.
However, knowing my students the way that I do assures me that they will be able to handle this assignment, and that they will excel at it. I do not have the answer for them because I can see good points on either side, but I feel that that is how the classroom is supposed to be. It's not about me handing down an answer, but about me structuring the lesson so that they can construct their own learning and perspective on what they think about the question.
Hmm, subject-centered classroom, anyone? :) Go Parker Palmer.
The model breaks students into groups of 4, with 2 students arguing a particular side at any given time, and has both sets of students take either the FOR or AGAINST side for the argument at some point during the debate. The point is to force students to consider the multiplicity of ideas that come from debates so that they can make an informed decision for themselves about the question. Students read a selection during the class and have a few minutes to prepare an argument with the reading, which they present to the other two students in their group, who ask clarifying questions and then take a few minutes to present the other side of the debate. Then, students switch sides, and do the whole thing over again. After all students have had the opportunity to argue both sides, students participate in some kind of culminating activity. I'm going to ask my kids to express their own opinion and choose a side to give them the opportunity to freely debate the topic for the rest of the class period (they've done this sort of thing before).
The readings I chose:
FOR #1: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/080208vote/
FOR #2: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1128354/posts
AGAINST #1: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/05/local/me-parsons5
AGAINST #2: http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2008/02/should_journalists_vote.html?sc=emaf
My take? I subscribe to a little bit on both sides. I don't think journalists should disenfranchise themselves. The honest truth is that everyone has some sort of bias and it's ridiculous to think that we are able to report on anything without being affected by our unique perception of the world around us and by our own history. However, at the same time, I still do not believe that journalists should be involved in political campaigning, or that a journalist involved with Greenpeace (an example from AGAINST #1) should be able to report on their organization.
Journalists should do everything that they can to limit their bias, but they should acknowledge that that bias exists and at times it may be appropriate to acknowledge what that bias is. I know that most American journalists would very much disagree with me on that point, including my journalism professors, and this is a large reason of why I decided not to be a journalist. Talking to people outside the profession has convinced me that a primary reason people do not trust the media is because the media does not reveal its bias. Friends and family have hinted, though not outright stated, that they might trust the media more if the media would reveal how it is biased.
Now, I don't think that every journalist should be out spouting all of their personal beliefs. That's just bad journalism. Part of journalism is learning how to build a boundary for yourself and limiting yourself from taking on a story that you know you are unable to report on objectively. Conversely, journalists shouldn't lie to themselves. No matter how much you try to limit bias, it will still show through.
Personal case in point: grading. I've been going through my first batch of student papers. I thought it would be easy, based on my perceptions from class. WOW! Not the case. After reviewing the papers once, I found that I needed to throw all preconceived notions out the window. They are all great papers, don't get me wrong, every student did very well. But I had completely pegged some kids wrong, and I think that that had a lot to do with what I've experienced in my own past and with my interactions with them over the past two months. I've become much more cautious in class since then, rethinking my perceptions of each student and why I perceive them that way. It has been very eye-opening, and I've been trying to grade their papers very carefully.
However, knowing my students the way that I do assures me that they will be able to handle this assignment, and that they will excel at it. I do not have the answer for them because I can see good points on either side, but I feel that that is how the classroom is supposed to be. It's not about me handing down an answer, but about me structuring the lesson so that they can construct their own learning and perspective on what they think about the question.
Hmm, subject-centered classroom, anyone? :) Go Parker Palmer.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Harry, A History
I meant to give this plug a few days ago, but I got a little carried away with the election. :) Not surprising. Anyway, I wanted to take an entry to plug a new book that I think anyone interested in the Harry Potter phenomenon should read. It's called Harry, a History: the true story of a boy wizard, his fans, and life inside the Harry Potter phenomenon, by Melissa Anelli, the woman in charge over at The Leaky Cauldron.
I have not yet had a chance to thumb through the book myself, but I listen to a podcast that Melissa is a part of regularly, and they interviewed her on the show about the book, so I feel like I have some good insider info about it. Melissa is uniquely positioned to write about the whole affair because of her prominent place as webmistress of one of the biggest Harry Potter sites on the Web. Further, Leaky is more than just a fan site, it's a news site, and Melissa is a freelance journalist. She has treated her job as a journalist and not as a fan, so Leaky has a sense of professionalism that is very rare among obsessed fan bases. That's why I appreciate Leaky the way that I do. Finally, Melissa has had the opportunity to enjoy the books in multiple contexts, and to really be fully involved in the online community. She's probably the most qualified person to write this book.
From the interview, it sounds like Melissa spends time outlining key aspects of the fan community, but she also tells her own story of how she came to be a part of the community. I think the fact that Melissa weaves her own story throughout the book shows what Harry Potter has really been for so many people. Harry Potter has created community. I would venture to say that this is because the books deal with so many core issues of what it means to be human: life, death, family, friends, good, evil, sacrifice, forgiveness, love ... just to mention a few. Trust me, there's more, and when you're dealing with such heavy material, it's natural to seek out other people to discuss it with you.
That's why Harry Potter is so popular. Readers are faced with information, story, and philosophy that requires a response. If one really engages with the books, one cannot help feeling a kind of inner transformation as you read them, the kind of transformation that you want to share. Obviously, it pales in comparison to the kind of transformation that occurs when reading the Bible and interacting with God, but it's a kind of spiritual transformation. We are spiritual people and when something touches us in our souls, we have to share it.
I'm looking forward to reading Melissa's take on everything, especially the online communities and fan fiction. In terms of me, I got into the whole Harry Potter thing while looking for a community. I started reading the books in 8th grade (when the 3rd book had just come out) because a club I was part of at school had decided to read them. I got involved in the online communities and in fan fiction in high school because friends of mine were involved in them and thought that I would enjoy them. In doing so, I had a whole new world opened to me, all at the click of the mouse.
Take a look at Melissa's book and take a look at some of the fan sites. They're rather imaginative and cool. The beginning was a community for me, and my whole HP experience has been shaped by community since. I think it's very cool, and I'm glad that someone has chosen to write about it!
I have not yet had a chance to thumb through the book myself, but I listen to a podcast that Melissa is a part of regularly, and they interviewed her on the show about the book, so I feel like I have some good insider info about it. Melissa is uniquely positioned to write about the whole affair because of her prominent place as webmistress of one of the biggest Harry Potter sites on the Web. Further, Leaky is more than just a fan site, it's a news site, and Melissa is a freelance journalist. She has treated her job as a journalist and not as a fan, so Leaky has a sense of professionalism that is very rare among obsessed fan bases. That's why I appreciate Leaky the way that I do. Finally, Melissa has had the opportunity to enjoy the books in multiple contexts, and to really be fully involved in the online community. She's probably the most qualified person to write this book.
From the interview, it sounds like Melissa spends time outlining key aspects of the fan community, but she also tells her own story of how she came to be a part of the community. I think the fact that Melissa weaves her own story throughout the book shows what Harry Potter has really been for so many people. Harry Potter has created community. I would venture to say that this is because the books deal with so many core issues of what it means to be human: life, death, family, friends, good, evil, sacrifice, forgiveness, love ... just to mention a few. Trust me, there's more, and when you're dealing with such heavy material, it's natural to seek out other people to discuss it with you.
That's why Harry Potter is so popular. Readers are faced with information, story, and philosophy that requires a response. If one really engages with the books, one cannot help feeling a kind of inner transformation as you read them, the kind of transformation that you want to share. Obviously, it pales in comparison to the kind of transformation that occurs when reading the Bible and interacting with God, but it's a kind of spiritual transformation. We are spiritual people and when something touches us in our souls, we have to share it.
I'm looking forward to reading Melissa's take on everything, especially the online communities and fan fiction. In terms of me, I got into the whole Harry Potter thing while looking for a community. I started reading the books in 8th grade (when the 3rd book had just come out) because a club I was part of at school had decided to read them. I got involved in the online communities and in fan fiction in high school because friends of mine were involved in them and thought that I would enjoy them. In doing so, I had a whole new world opened to me, all at the click of the mouse.
Take a look at Melissa's book and take a look at some of the fan sites. They're rather imaginative and cool. The beginning was a community for me, and my whole HP experience has been shaped by community since. I think it's very cool, and I'm glad that someone has chosen to write about it!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Land of the free
Despite all the bad press, really, I'm proud to be an American. As much as I try to remember that I'm also a world citizen, and that my identity as a Christian supersedes any other affiliation that I have, there are some times when being American makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Here are some reasons why I feel that way today.
1. The world goes on. Seasons come and seasons go. Change is inevitable and you cannot continue going in one direction forever. It's natural. Hearing other perspectives is a very good thing. I'm glad that Americans are open to hearing other points of view.
2. We have gracious winners and gracious losers. Barack Obama isn't gloating over John McCain, and John McCain is offering his full support and aid to Barack Obama. The presidency isn't something to treat lightly, folks. This is a job that can literally take years off of your life in stress. Thank God that despite it all, these two men are willing and able to work with each other.
3. I am so proud of our voters for setting records for political participation. That's what it's all about. I helped shuttle 300+ students to the polls yesterday morning in about 3 hours. That's awesome! And over 5 million Facebook users voted! Also awesome!
4. Media coverage last night wasn't bad. The networks didn't call states too quickly and they were showing positive highlights for both candidates. I had to go to bed by 10 and I still really had the feeling that the election could go either way. Props. However, I'm a bit disappointed by the language the AP is using. Landslide? Sweep? Yeah, maybe in terms of the number of electoral votes, but not in terms of the popular vote in key swing states. Virginia came really close, y'all. It's important to remember that honestly, a few thousand changed votes could have produced a different result.
5. Though there is a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, the margin is close enough that there will still be room for substantive conversation and other perspectives. We have checks and balances for a reason, and they work. Obama will still have to deal with the Republicans in Congress. Honestly, this is a government teacher's dream, as my CT said this morning to our class. The government and the parties are going to have to work together to get anything done. My hope is that they will.
To me, the country does feel a bit different than it did yesterday, and perhaps it is, but I know that this life and this country is more than the person sitting in the Oval Office. A good teacher, a good citizen, a good American will be able to look at the trends, take it in stride, and pull out things that we can learn. I'm excited to see what will happen next.
1. The world goes on. Seasons come and seasons go. Change is inevitable and you cannot continue going in one direction forever. It's natural. Hearing other perspectives is a very good thing. I'm glad that Americans are open to hearing other points of view.
2. We have gracious winners and gracious losers. Barack Obama isn't gloating over John McCain, and John McCain is offering his full support and aid to Barack Obama. The presidency isn't something to treat lightly, folks. This is a job that can literally take years off of your life in stress. Thank God that despite it all, these two men are willing and able to work with each other.
3. I am so proud of our voters for setting records for political participation. That's what it's all about. I helped shuttle 300+ students to the polls yesterday morning in about 3 hours. That's awesome! And over 5 million Facebook users voted! Also awesome!
4. Media coverage last night wasn't bad. The networks didn't call states too quickly and they were showing positive highlights for both candidates. I had to go to bed by 10 and I still really had the feeling that the election could go either way. Props. However, I'm a bit disappointed by the language the AP is using. Landslide? Sweep? Yeah, maybe in terms of the number of electoral votes, but not in terms of the popular vote in key swing states. Virginia came really close, y'all. It's important to remember that honestly, a few thousand changed votes could have produced a different result.
5. Though there is a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, the margin is close enough that there will still be room for substantive conversation and other perspectives. We have checks and balances for a reason, and they work. Obama will still have to deal with the Republicans in Congress. Honestly, this is a government teacher's dream, as my CT said this morning to our class. The government and the parties are going to have to work together to get anything done. My hope is that they will.
To me, the country does feel a bit different than it did yesterday, and perhaps it is, but I know that this life and this country is more than the person sitting in the Oval Office. A good teacher, a good citizen, a good American will be able to look at the trends, take it in stride, and pull out things that we can learn. I'm excited to see what will happen next.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The day is finally here
Yes, I am going to echo the sentiments of many others: I'll be glad when this day is over. So much has happened during this election that makes me a bit ashamed to be an American. Honestly. Regardless of your political beliefs, there are things going on here that should never happen.
1. The blatant undermining of female candidates ... specifically, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, and really, you can take it back to Geraldine Ferraro, too. Why is it that whenever a strong woman comes forward for office, she is attacked several times more than the male candidates? I do not understand. Despite what I think about any of these women, I'm just glad that they're taking the initiative. How does being a woman make someone unfit for office? I doubt that any of these people would directly state that sentiment, however, their actions speak louder than their words. What they've done to these women shows what's really in their hearts.
2. A campaign that lasts two years ... the first time I heard about Barack Obama was about a year and a half ago. Again, that should just not happen. The presidential system was never designed for two year campaigns. When did the presidency become about who can spend the most money and beguile enough people? I'm not pointing fingers at either campaign, either. John McCain is just as guilty of these as Barack Obama. Historically, campaigns like this are a very recent blip on the radar. Fifty years ago, the campaign started after the nomination. Can you imagine what a two month campaign would be like? I think it would be heaven.
3. Total underpining of the issues ... despite what anyone would say about Obama and McCain, they're only talking about half of the issues they are covering because of minor candidates who add accountability to the system. If this were just the Obama and McCain show, I can guarantee that we'd have a much shorter list of issues on our plates. The problem that I have run into with this campaign is that I have such little trust in the president to do what he says he's going to do anymore. Actually, it's not just the president, it's really any political figure. Because of the nature of the campaign beast, candidates will say anything to get elected. Will they actually follow through? Who knows. I'd like to believe that they will, but I'm trying not to be that naive.
Regardless of all that negativity, there is one thing about this election that has been incredibly heartening: the response of the American people. Never before has there been such an incredible movement to get Americans to vote. The Student Assembly at W&M conducted such a vibrant campaign effort to get students to register in Williamsburg that we actually have to help out at the polls so that they don't become overwhelmed by extra people. Facebook is asking everyone who signs in whether or not they have voted today, and tracking it here. Organizations like The Leaky Cauldron and HP Alliance have taken advantage of the fact that they have a wide fan base and planned events like Wrock the Vote to encourage their fans to register, if they have not already.
That is just fantastic. As a government teacher (and former student) I know all of the excuses for why people choose not to vote:
1. The blatant undermining of female candidates ... specifically, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, and really, you can take it back to Geraldine Ferraro, too. Why is it that whenever a strong woman comes forward for office, she is attacked several times more than the male candidates? I do not understand. Despite what I think about any of these women, I'm just glad that they're taking the initiative. How does being a woman make someone unfit for office? I doubt that any of these people would directly state that sentiment, however, their actions speak louder than their words. What they've done to these women shows what's really in their hearts.
2. A campaign that lasts two years ... the first time I heard about Barack Obama was about a year and a half ago. Again, that should just not happen. The presidential system was never designed for two year campaigns. When did the presidency become about who can spend the most money and beguile enough people? I'm not pointing fingers at either campaign, either. John McCain is just as guilty of these as Barack Obama. Historically, campaigns like this are a very recent blip on the radar. Fifty years ago, the campaign started after the nomination. Can you imagine what a two month campaign would be like? I think it would be heaven.
3. Total underpining of the issues ... despite what anyone would say about Obama and McCain, they're only talking about half of the issues they are covering because of minor candidates who add accountability to the system. If this were just the Obama and McCain show, I can guarantee that we'd have a much shorter list of issues on our plates. The problem that I have run into with this campaign is that I have such little trust in the president to do what he says he's going to do anymore. Actually, it's not just the president, it's really any political figure. Because of the nature of the campaign beast, candidates will say anything to get elected. Will they actually follow through? Who knows. I'd like to believe that they will, but I'm trying not to be that naive.
Regardless of all that negativity, there is one thing about this election that has been incredibly heartening: the response of the American people. Never before has there been such an incredible movement to get Americans to vote. The Student Assembly at W&M conducted such a vibrant campaign effort to get students to register in Williamsburg that we actually have to help out at the polls so that they don't become overwhelmed by extra people. Facebook is asking everyone who signs in whether or not they have voted today, and tracking it here. Organizations like The Leaky Cauldron and HP Alliance have taken advantage of the fact that they have a wide fan base and planned events like Wrock the Vote to encourage their fans to register, if they have not already.
That is just fantastic. As a government teacher (and former student) I know all of the excuses for why people choose not to vote:
- the weather is bad
- they feel that their vote will not make a difference
- apathy with the system
- do not align with either candidate
- too busy
- they forget about election day
- they cannot get to the polls in time
- among others
- so what? Yes, it's raining outside ... a little rain never hurt anyone
- clearly, your vote DOES make a difference
- I'm apathetic with the system too ... and I voted
- I also don't align with either candidate ... this is about your duty as a citizen
- I have a job, a teaching internship, I'm taking 13 credits, I attend church multiple times a week, I have mentoring appointments, I serve on the Student Assembly ... still think you're busy?
- Anyone who forgets that today is Election Day is clearly hiding under a rock
- The polls are open today from 6 am - 8 pm. You have time.
Monday, November 3, 2008
PGD-I4: The beauty of competition
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but current gas prices are pretty sweet. I took this picture several weeks ago because gas had fallen below $3. I couldn't believe it! Surely, I thought, the trend could not last long, and it had to be documented.
Well, I was driving to school this morning and I saw that two gas stations near my flat have gas for $2.01.
Yes. $2.01.
How is that possible, you might be wondering. Certainly, gas prices aren't that low in Northern Virginia ... not to mention California. Just to add to the ridiculousness of the matter, only a half mile away, there is a gas station selling its cheapest gas at $2.19.
Again. I'm guessing that this is puzzling.
My guess, based on my knowledge of economic theory, draws on a couple factors about the locations of these gas stations. Gas Stations A and B are located on opposing sides of an intersection that is relatively well-traveled, but not a major route through Williamsburg. Gas Station C, however, is located on one of the five or so major roads. There are also no other gas stations on this road for a couple miles. Further, Gas Station A is privately owned, while Gas Station B is owned by a typical gas station that can be found through most of the U.S.
Therein lies the beauty of competition. Gas Station C has no direct competition, even though it is only located a half mile from the other two. Anyone driving down that major road without insider knowledge about A and B will get gas at C. Gas Station C is located next to the entrance to a major highway, as well as a lot of fast food. Tourists come across it regularly, and they're in a hurry. They want to buy gas and get some food quickly. They are also probably coming from larger metropolitan areas so they think that $2.19 for gas is a pretty sweet deal. In contrast, Stations A and B are in a mainly residential and local area. Plus, locals like me compare gas prices and know where to go.
Further, Station B has to match the price of Station A because it is right across the street. Because A is privately owned, it can set different prices. Of course, it has to make a profit, so it can't set a price below cost (whatever that really is). Actually, they probably aren't making much money. Gas prices at $2 are not sustainable for long. But the fact that both gas stations are selling at that price proves the point. Competition is beautiful. I've been watching these two gas stations set steadily lower prices for four weeks now, and my jaw still drops whenever I drive by and see such low prices. Competition is so good for the consumer, as long as that consumer is willing to do some research.
Granted, this is a very simplistic example of competition. I'm sure there are some economic aspects to the argument that have not been covered, and I know enough economists who could correct those points for me if they wanted to. However, it remains interesting. It is a post-graduate discovery because it is an example of something in real life that I learned about as an undergrad.
Here's hoping for a stable economy ... please?
Well, I was driving to school this morning and I saw that two gas stations near my flat have gas for $2.01.
Yes. $2.01.
How is that possible, you might be wondering. Certainly, gas prices aren't that low in Northern Virginia ... not to mention California. Just to add to the ridiculousness of the matter, only a half mile away, there is a gas station selling its cheapest gas at $2.19.
Again. I'm guessing that this is puzzling.
My guess, based on my knowledge of economic theory, draws on a couple factors about the locations of these gas stations. Gas Stations A and B are located on opposing sides of an intersection that is relatively well-traveled, but not a major route through Williamsburg. Gas Station C, however, is located on one of the five or so major roads. There are also no other gas stations on this road for a couple miles. Further, Gas Station A is privately owned, while Gas Station B is owned by a typical gas station that can be found through most of the U.S.
Therein lies the beauty of competition. Gas Station C has no direct competition, even though it is only located a half mile from the other two. Anyone driving down that major road without insider knowledge about A and B will get gas at C. Gas Station C is located next to the entrance to a major highway, as well as a lot of fast food. Tourists come across it regularly, and they're in a hurry. They want to buy gas and get some food quickly. They are also probably coming from larger metropolitan areas so they think that $2.19 for gas is a pretty sweet deal. In contrast, Stations A and B are in a mainly residential and local area. Plus, locals like me compare gas prices and know where to go.
Further, Station B has to match the price of Station A because it is right across the street. Because A is privately owned, it can set different prices. Of course, it has to make a profit, so it can't set a price below cost (whatever that really is). Actually, they probably aren't making much money. Gas prices at $2 are not sustainable for long. But the fact that both gas stations are selling at that price proves the point. Competition is beautiful. I've been watching these two gas stations set steadily lower prices for four weeks now, and my jaw still drops whenever I drive by and see such low prices. Competition is so good for the consumer, as long as that consumer is willing to do some research.
Granted, this is a very simplistic example of competition. I'm sure there are some economic aspects to the argument that have not been covered, and I know enough economists who could correct those points for me if they wanted to. However, it remains interesting. It is a post-graduate discovery because it is an example of something in real life that I learned about as an undergrad.
Here's hoping for a stable economy ... please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
