Harris Teeter

I normally shop at Wal-Mart for groceries, but they don't have one near where I am, so I went into Harris Teeter. It was like entering the first world. The signs were all painted in a functional yet pleasant colour scheme. The person at the deli counter volunteered to help me as soon as I came near, and actually seemed anxious to do so, unlike the reluctant Wal-Mart employees. Instead of the cheap and overprocessed meats found at Wal-Mart, Harris Teeter offered a delightful collection of succulent meats, complete with many prepared meals. There was a nice salad bar, a refrigerator with an array of international cheeses, and even an olive bar. (That one really struck me -- how many different kinds of olives does one really need?) The shopping aisles seem enormously long -- I'm not sure to what purpose, but it certainly looks like they have an intimidating stock of items. The cashiers not only ring up and bag your groceries, they take your cart on their side of the register and unload the items for you first.

I've been in stores like Harris Teeter before, but only when looking for particular items that I can't find in Wal-Mart (or whatever the local discount chain is). It's very seductive as a shopper, and I could easily get used to it. Of course, there is a price -- a literal price, in that everything is more expensive. Actually, quite a few items were reasonably priced; I imagine that a careful shopper could keep the weekly grocery bill within bounds. But what a temptation there is to buy the many premium and store-prepared items. I'm afraid my days of shopping at Harris Teeter are over, since I noticed a Food Lion not far from here. Perhaps someday I will have enough money to shop at upscale grocery stores and not think about the cost of food; for now, I feel like I'm throwing money away if I don't go for the least expensive option.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Three stages in liberal denial of media bias

I was 15 years old in 1984, and an avid follower of politics and the news. When Reagan was making his decision whether to run for re-election, I was opposed to it. It wasn't that I didn't like Reagan; I loved him. But I was convinced that he wouldn't stand a chance in the election, and I didn't want to see him lose. Of course, he went on to win one of the most lopsided elections in history. Why was I so wrong? Because I had been watching network news (the only kind, back then) and the coverage was overwhelmingly negative. Since that time, I have watched with disbelief as liberals have criticized Fox News as unbalanced, culminating in the amazing spectacle of the president himself declaring that Fox is not a legitimate source of journalism. Meanwhile, these same liberals refuse to acknowledge that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. (ad nauseum) have any bias of their own. What makes this all the more incredible is that a number of studies have been produced demonstr
Read more