Elizabeth,
Sorry for the tone of the previous post, my intent was not to offend you at all. The following is a revised version of my workshop of your essay. Hope this helps.
1. Who is the author's audience?
I read the essay several times and it is still hard for me to determine with any specificity, the author’s target audience. Having said that, I believe the author may be attempting to connect with just about anybody who shares her personal, but, unsubstantiated opinion pertaining to legalized prostitution. Further speculation on my part leads me to believe that she may be attempting to reach females in general, and/or female victims of sex crimes.
2. Will the audience already agree with the author, or is the author writing to the opposition?
As stated above, I was not able to clearly define who the target audience was. However, I can state with certainty, that I definitely qualify as the opposition in this case, and based on my interpretation of the question and my direct personal knowledge derived through years of experience in law enforcement and felony criminal investigations, the author is not writing to the opposition. The author has not introduced any evidence, whatsoever, to support the claims asserted in her thesis. In my opinion, if she had introduced empirical evidence from adequate research that supported her claim, I (the opposition) would be more inclined to hold the opinion that the author was in fact attempting to address the opposition in an attempt to persuade the opposition to change sides. From the perspective of an audience that maintains the same opinion as the author, I would say that the audience would agree with the author. However, this audience would have to be just as misinformed as the author is regarding the topic being purported in the essay. Essentially, I am of the opinion that anybody who thoroughly researches the multitude of variables surrounding the argument as purported by the author, would not agree with the claim being made in this essay.
3. How can you tell?
I can tell by many years of experience in this industry, specifically, felony criminal investigations, as well as extensive research and training pertaining to sex crimes and sex crime investigations. Prostitutes and others in the sex industry seldom report instances of abuse or assaults classified as sex crimes. Unfortunately, for many, these events are considered and accepted to be the nature of their business. In other words, it comes with the territory. I am not stating this position is right or should be acceptable, but, I am saying it is a fact that is statistically supported. For a small example, see information cited below.
1. Prostituted women have long been considered "fair game" for sexual harassment, rape, gang-rape, "kinky" sex, robbery, and beatings....A 1991 study by the Council for Prostitution Alternatives, in Portland, Oregon, documented that 78 percent of 55 prostituted women reported being raped an average of 16 times annually by their pimps and 33 times a year by johns. Twelve rape complaints were made in the criminal justice system and neither pimps nor johns were ever convicted. These prostitutes also reported being "horribly beaten" by their pimps an average of 58 times a year. The frequency of beatings...by johns ranged from I to 400 times a year. Legal action was pursued in 13 cases, resulting in 2 convictions for "aggravated assault." http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/Wuornos.htm.
2. "Prostitution is not a victimless crime... Prostitute rape is rarely reported, investigated, prosecuted or taken seriously." Gender Bias Report, 1990, Florida Supreme Court.
Reasons:
1. List below the author's supporting reasons for holding his or her opinion.
The author lists the supporting reasons as indicated below:
A. Legalizing prostitution would create a safer environment for the women involved in the business of prostitution.
B. Sex crime rates would decrease as a result of legalizing prostitution.
C. Viruses, I assume sexually transmitted diseases, would decrease with the legalization of prostitution.
2. Are they listed in the thesis, or in the body of the paper? (They should be listed in the thesis, and expanded upon in the body of the paper.)
The author lists the supporting reasons in the thesis; however, while she attempted to justify her opinion that legalizing prostitution would create a safer environment for women involved in prostitution, she failed to provide any argument or evidence pertaining to whether sex crime rates and viruses would decrease as a result of the legalization of prostitution.
3. Can you suggest any ways to strengthen the supporting reasons?
Sure, the author could do adequate research regarding the stated claim.
Counterargument:
1. List the counterarguments (arguments of the author’s oppositions) used in the paper.
There were none utilized in the paper.
2. How many are there?
Zero.
3. Does the author adequately address these arguments? No.
4. Do you think there are other arguments that could be addressed? (If the author doesn’t counter argue, consider where doing so might be appropriate. Help the writer anticipate any alternative judgments or reservations that have been overlooked, and offer advice on how to respond to them.)
The following is my response to Elizabeth's comment after she read the previous workshop. I think this answers the question above.
As expected I got your comment and there's no doubt you got fired up after reading my post. As I said in my post my intent was certainly not to bash you at all, really, I don't even know you and this is a college class. So, again I apologize if I offended you. You picked a "hot topic" to write about though and I'm sure you know this. Perhaps I was the wrong person to workshop your essay but were here now and that's life. Also for the record, my use of the word ignorant was meant to be interpreted as lacking knowledge, education, or comprehension of something.
We were given the opportunity to complete these workshops as a tool for better grasping the subject matter, right? Ok then, I truly don't care what your personal opinion is because this is not a personal attack. In an effort to perhaps help you understand what I as the reader of your essay felt and thought, I posted it like it came to mind. I wanted you to see what I was thinking as I read your essay as someone who opposes your opinion.
For what it's worth I'll add the following, and I think you should think about it. (You have since explained to me that you are in-fact from Nevada, have worked in corrections in Nevada, and know people in law enforcement from Nevada.)
Listen, your essay implies to me the reader that you purport the nationwide legalization of prostitution, right?
So, if the aforementioned: 1) residing in Nevada, 2) working for corrections in Nevada, and 3) having personal relationships with law enforcement officials in Nevada, provided you with the experiences that have shaped the opinion you are trying to argue, then somehow, make use of these experiences in your essay. These experiences should be the "evidence" in your essay that supports your claim. Like I said, whether I agree with you or not really doesn't matter, but if you supported your claim with specific experiences (evidence) derived from the three things mentioned above, your opposition may be more inclined to take give your essay and opinion further consideration.
Well, thanks for listening. One last thing, below I have attached a link to some information related to Nevada and legalized prostitution there. You may or may not be familiar with it but take a look anyway. I would be interested to know what you think after reading through it. Take care."
http://www.nevadacoalition.org/factsheets/LegliznFactSheet091707c.pdf"
Flow/Transitions:
1. Does each paragraph expand upon the thesis?
I think the author attempts to expand upon the safety issue but fails to adequately touch on any of the other areas cited in the thesis.
2. Do the paragraphs flow? Which paragraphs have bumpy transitions?
The first paragraph begins alright, but transitions to irregularity as the essay continues.
3. Suggest how the organization of the paper might be improved.
By addressing each supporting reason for the claim, and doing so in sequential order throughout the essay.
4. Suggest another logical sequence of reasons and counterarguments to the author, and discuss whether this rearrangement is an improvement.
See my answer to number 4, under counter arguments above.
Introduction and Conclusion:
1. Is there a catchy lead sentence at the start of the paper? If there isn't one, what would you suggest?
I think the lead she wrote was absolutely awesome! To me, this was a major factor in my decision to read on and thoroughly review the essay. Good job with this in my opinion, although, I am not the instructor for this course.
2. What do you think of the author’s conclusion?
I don’t feel there was a conclusion. Rather, the author repeated the thesis.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Privatized Military Housing - The Answer to Adequate Quarters.....or Window Dressing? - Essay #1 Final
“In many housing neighborhoods, the infrastructure (heating, electrical, water and sewage systems) relies on inefficient technology and obsolete equipment” – Soldiers Magazine, August, 2005
Whoever your are or wherever you happen to be living, there should be no doubt in your mind that your quality life, as well as that of your children and family, is greatly impacted either negatively or positively, by the place you call home; wherever home is for you.
For those of you reading this who happen to be familiar with the military lifestyle, and most adults in general nowadays, it is pretty much common knowledge that the military provides housing for military members and their families. What appears to be not so common knowledge is the fact that service members pay for their housing each month, just as civilians pay their rent or mortgage each month. When you pay for a product or service aren’t you therefore entitled to the guaranteed or specified obligations your money purchased?
Passed by Congress in 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 established the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI). RCI authorized the military to enter into agreements with private contractors to own, maintain, and operate military housing on a fifty year lease program throughout the U.S. RCI was lauded as being the cure all to the military’s housing problems such as those cited in the above quote from Soldiers Magazine. Consistent with the Army, RCI touted its major goal as being "the elimination of inadequate Army family housing in the U.S." Although the private company under contract with the U.S. Government to own, operate, and maintain the privatized military family housing units on Fort Belvoir claims all of their housing units are adequate and energy efficient, the housing units in the Dogue Creek Subdivision of Fort Belvoir are inadequate and lack appropriate energy efficiency because of inadequate furnaces, inadequate windows and doors, and improperly installed thermostats.
Having resided in military housing in virtually all climates for over fifteen years, this writer has acquired sufficient knowledge regarding the appropriate furnace for a specific housing unit. Additionally, there is the personal experience in the Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning (HVAC) industry, as well as being a current resident of military housing in the Dogue Creek Subdivision of Fort Belvoir, that uniquely qualifies this writer to discuss this subject.
The current furnace units in the Dogue Creek homes are inadequate and substandard in their installation and efficiency because they are all up flow model furnaces that lack timely preventive maintenance, are assembled unprofessionally, and are not adequately sealed. Furthermore, aftermarket re-configuration of these furnaces has resulted in their inefficiency. (See photos below)
Substandard Installation & Assembly
Inadequate Seals
Up Flow furnaces are designed for ground floor residential installation in single or two story homes. All of the homes in Dogue Creek are now three story homes with the furnaces installed on the second floor. These furnaces were designed specifically to facilitate the flow of hot air along its normal path; upward, and worked rather well when they were installed on the ground floor of these homes during their initial construction as two story homes. To enable an Up Flow furnace to blow air back down to lower levels, significant aftermarket structural changes to the furnace configuration needed to be made. These changes involved reconfiguring and adding duct that turns downward 90 degrees from the top of the furnace to allow a chamber for air to flow downward. Making these changes, however, has resulted in the furnaces operating in a manner that is in contravention of the manufacturer’s specifications and recommendations, further affecting their efficiency. (See photo below)
In 2001, the Dogue Creek homes were converted to add a third floor, which resulted in these Up Flow furnaces being relocated to their current location on the second floor. It would appear that there was little or no consideration given to the additional square footage achieved during the conversion, or the need to install a down flow furnace to compensate for the loss of warm air to the lower level because the aftermarket changes were ineffective for the additional square footage of the homes. The result; significant temperature and humidity variances throughout the Dogue Creek homes. For example, on January 17, 2009, the following temperatures and variances were observed in one Dogue Creek housing unit. (See photos below temperature differences)
1st Floor Temperature Differences:
• Kitchen thermometer @ 58 degrees Fahrenheit while Living Room thermometer @ 70 degrees Fahrenheit and unit thermostat located in living room @ 75 degrees Fahrenheit.
• These temperatures on the 1st floor demonstrate temperature variances of 17 degrees Fahrenheit within an approximate 20-40 square foot area.
2nd Floor Temperature Differences:
• 2nd floor hallway thermometer @ 89 degrees Fahrenheit while directly across hall in Laundry/Furnace Room thermometer @ 100+ degrees Fahrenheit with humidity @ less than 10%, well below normal ranges of 35% to 60%.
3rd Floor Temperature:
• 3rd floor hallway thermometer @ 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Also affecting adequacy and efficiency of the homes is the lack of proper maintenance of the furnaces. A visual inspection of the affixed service records, along with the interior of one Dogue Creek furnace unit, indicated the last time a full service and maintenance check was completed on the furnace by a licensed HVAC professional, was in 2001 or 2002. (See photos below)
Under these conditions, the lack of maintenance has resulted in numerous housing units suffering a serious degradation in efficiency, effectiveness and overall functionality, causing the affected quarters to be viewed by tenants as a potential threat to health and safety. (See photos below)
By far, the most critical part of any heating system is the furnace. There are, however, other elements that work in conjunction with the furnace to facilitate efficiency in the home. Three of these elements are windows, doors, and thermostats.
The windows of a particular residence need to be of the proper efficiency rating for the geographic area in which the home is located, and need to be installed correctly. Dogue Creek homes are located in northern Virginia, therefore, they have two specific recommended ratings as determined by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC), and U-Factor. The SHGC rating is SHGC≤ (less than or equal to) 0.55, while the U-Factor rating is U≤ (less than or equal to) 0.40. In layman’s terms the U-Factor is defined as the amount of heat that flows through a particular material, and the SHGC is defined as how much heat from the sun is blocked by the window. The scientific jargon and in depth explanation of these ratings is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue in the Dogue Creek homes is that the aforementioned ratings should be clearly visible on the manufacturer’s label which is required to be affixed to each window. These labels were not present during an inspection of the Dogue Creek home that maintained the furnace mentioned above. In the simplest of terms, installed correctly, means that the correct sized window is installed in the correct sized window opening cut into each home, and each window is installed so that it is “plumb,” or level. Additionally, further inspection detailed serious mechanical and maintenance issues with several windows in the residence. These issues involved improper leveling, improper seals, and improper sash spacing due to faulty latch mechanisms. From a maintenance perspective the caulking and glazing around the window panes and frames were found to be deteriorating due to age and failed maintenance on the part of the contractor. (See photos below)
By far, the most critical part of any heating system is the furnace. There are, however, other elements that work in conjunction with the furnace to facilitate efficiency in the home. Three of these elements are windows, doors, and thermostats.
The windows of a particular residence need to be of the proper efficiency rating for the geographic area in which the home is located, and need to be installed correctly. Dogue Creek homes are located in northern Virginia, therefore, they have two specific recommended ratings as determined by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC), and U-Factor. The SHGC rating is SHGC≤ (less than or equal to) 0.55, while the U-Factor rating is U≤ (less than or equal to) 0.40. In layman’s terms the U-Factor is defined as the amount of heat that flows through a particular material, and the SHGC is defined as how much heat from the sun is blocked by the window. The scientific jargon and in depth explanation of these ratings is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue in the Dogue Creek homes is that the aforementioned ratings should be clearly visible on the manufacturer’s label which is required to be affixed to each window. These labels were not present during an inspection of the Dogue Creek home that maintained the furnace mentioned above. In the simplest of terms, installed correctly, means that the correct sized window is installed in the correct sized window opening cut into each home, and each window is installed so that it is “plumb,” or level. Additionally, further inspection detailed serious mechanical and maintenance issues with several windows in the residence. These issues involved improper leveling, improper seals, and improper sash spacing due to faulty latch mechanisms. From a maintenance perspective the caulking and glazing around the window panes and frames were found to be deteriorating due to age and failed maintenance on the part of the contractor. (See photos below)
The window issues noted above also add to the overall inefficiency of the heating system. Additionally, there are two remaining areas of concern related to the Dogue Creek housing units; improperly sealed entry/exit (E/E) doors, and improper location of thermostats. These two issues complement one another and together, adversely impact the overall efficiency of the homes.
An inspection of several dogue Creek homes revealed torn and deteriorating E/E door seals which allowed for a constant flow of cold air into the homes. Furthermore, the thermostats designed to control the Up Flow furnaces in these three story homes were located in the center of the main floor of each residence; directly between the front and rear E/E doors. When combined with the continual cold air flow due to bad door seals, the problem of inefficiency is compounded because the constant drafts from the E/E doors opening and closing because of the entry and exit habits of tenants, ultimately resulting in thermostats igniting the already inadequate and dangerous furnaces. The premature and unnecessary ignition and consistent stopping and starting of the furnaces was responsible for the excessive heat on the second and third floors of the residences. (See photo below)
While the contractor maintains their position that all of their homes are energy efficient, the indications as documented above, clearly demonstrate the contractor’s position is false.
Several tenants of the Dogue Creek Subdivision were interviewed and stated they have made numerous complaints to the contractor regarding the same issues over a period of several years which resulted in mediocre responses on the part of the contractor. The tenants stated that after attempting to contact the 24 hour maintenance staff on numerous occasions, the contractor would only dispatch maintenance technicians who performed “window dressing” maintenance. Essentially, these technicians were unable to fix the problems reported by the tenants, and only succeeded in completing minor things describes as attempting to lock windows, replacing thermostats, closing ceiling vents, or providing electric space heaters in an attempt to compensate for heat losses experienced by tenants. These technicians should not be faulted as further inquiry has established that each technician maintained the highest levels of professionalism and dedication to their duties, however, each technician lacked the necessary training, experience, and/or certifications for the type of maintenance required in homes that lacked proper maintenance or service for a period approaching ten years.
Two technicians were also interviewed and stated the issues identified in this document were consistent with numerous reported heating problems throughout the residential community at Fort Belvoir. During interviews these technicians disclosed that they were not qualified to perform any work outside the scope of the work mentioned in the previous paragraph. Both indicated they were directed by management to do minimal work on the quarters in the Dogue Creek Subdivision because the priority for the contractor was the construction of new homes on Fort Belvoir, and, this directive was predicated by the plan that the Dogue Creek homes would eventually be destroyed and replaced with new homes. Additionally, one technician stated the maintenance office frequently receives similar complaints from tenants in newly constructed on Fort Belvoir, pertaining to similar heating and cooling issues.
Living in a Dogue Creek home, as well as having interviewed both tenants and technicians, has clearly shown that the contractor's focus is on their newly constructed homes, and not the older homes still housing numerous residents on Fort Belvoir. The contractor's focus is clear; keep the tenants residing in Dogue Creek at bay as much as possible. In doing so, the contractor still purports their newly constructed homes are Energy Star certified, but, there appears to be serious doubt about this claim because of the number of tenant complaints from these subdivisions pertaining to the same heating efficiency issues experienced by the tenants of Dogue Creek. Is this a systemic problem involving contractor fraud that requires further investigation? Who knows for sure?
Dogue Creek homes are clearly inadequate and certainly lack proper energy efficiency. As for the newly constructed homes on Fort Belvoir, there are standards for Energy Star certification, and, perhaps the tenants simply need to wear a sweatshirt or don a blanket in order to be more comfortable. The bottom line is that the contractor is limiting its capital outlay toward the Dogue Creek homes in an effort to keep the tenants at bay while they continue to build new housing units.
In closing, the contractor must realize that the lack of adequate maintenance in the Dogue Creek Subdivision and other subdivisions that are pending reconstruction needs to continue to be a significant focus in the contractor's eye. It is absolutely unacceptable to think that a tenant must put sufficient pressure on a contractor in order for the contractor to act in good faith to correct insufficiencies that have been identified in a set of quarters. Does the contractor remotely realize that the tenants could make things really bad if the contractor fails to legally and adequately remedy legitimate issues with individual housing units?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Week 4 Reading Response; Part 1
To describe the kinds of people who are the intended audience of the New Yorker presents a unique challenge. However, a little research into the magazine has helped me to confirm my opinion that the magazine’s target audience is comprised of the social elite. The wealthy upper class, or aspiring middle class, who perhaps, have not reached the ivory tower often associated with the New York elite, but, who nonetheless, are consistently in the game of life striving to reach the pinnacle of their desires.
The lives of these individuals, the target audience of the New Yorker, can best be described as zesty, driven, directed, fast paced and affluent. These people have their minds made up, they are decisive and calculating, they know exactly what it is they seek, and they are going to acquire it! Don’t get in their way; be part of the solution, not the problem. They are successful, and their lifestyle is predicated on this mindset. They seek success in every aspect of their being. After all, aren’t they too entitled to the good life? After all, aren’t we all entitled to the good life? This question, in my opinion, is best answered by the individual’s definition of the word entitled. Indeed, we are all entitled to the good life; a life of wealth, prosperity, health and happiness. However, make no mistake, there is a definitive line between the have’s and the have not’s in this world, and the individuals comprising the target audience of the New Yorker, have most likely risen above the have not’s in this world, and understand the simple principles of poise, precision, and audacity in attaining their desired “good life.”
I am of the opinion that the majority of these individuals maintains some semblance of an honor code, or a set of predefined values that they apply to their daily lives. Things such as loyalty, duty, respect, honor etc. These are critical factors to individual and team success in life.
Starting with the basics, these individuals are concerned first and foremost with self image. Their hair, eyebrows, make-up, nails, and the individual items of clothing they choose to don on a daily basis. The list of concerns these individuals possess or develop is most likely extrapolated exponentially based upon their own preconcieved perception of other people’s perception of them.
Living life by a strict set of values does have a tendency to cause people to become prejudicial in their views or actions. Therefore, I believe individuals who possess integrity, take this, as well as the aforementioned, into consideration in their daily interactions, whether in business or on the home front. These are some of the things that people at this level of society are expected to know. This is not all inclusive by any means, however, those who make a conscientious effort to remember where it is they came from as they climb the ladder of success, are more often than not, highly successful in their endeavors and interactions with others, and come to know the subtle nuances required to enter and remain in this arena.
The lives of these individuals, the target audience of the New Yorker, can best be described as zesty, driven, directed, fast paced and affluent. These people have their minds made up, they are decisive and calculating, they know exactly what it is they seek, and they are going to acquire it! Don’t get in their way; be part of the solution, not the problem. They are successful, and their lifestyle is predicated on this mindset. They seek success in every aspect of their being. After all, aren’t they too entitled to the good life? After all, aren’t we all entitled to the good life? This question, in my opinion, is best answered by the individual’s definition of the word entitled. Indeed, we are all entitled to the good life; a life of wealth, prosperity, health and happiness. However, make no mistake, there is a definitive line between the have’s and the have not’s in this world, and the individuals comprising the target audience of the New Yorker, have most likely risen above the have not’s in this world, and understand the simple principles of poise, precision, and audacity in attaining their desired “good life.”
I am of the opinion that the majority of these individuals maintains some semblance of an honor code, or a set of predefined values that they apply to their daily lives. Things such as loyalty, duty, respect, honor etc. These are critical factors to individual and team success in life.
Starting with the basics, these individuals are concerned first and foremost with self image. Their hair, eyebrows, make-up, nails, and the individual items of clothing they choose to don on a daily basis. The list of concerns these individuals possess or develop is most likely extrapolated exponentially based upon their own preconcieved perception of other people’s perception of them.
Living life by a strict set of values does have a tendency to cause people to become prejudicial in their views or actions. Therefore, I believe individuals who possess integrity, take this, as well as the aforementioned, into consideration in their daily interactions, whether in business or on the home front. These are some of the things that people at this level of society are expected to know. This is not all inclusive by any means, however, those who make a conscientious effort to remember where it is they came from as they climb the ladder of success, are more often than not, highly successful in their endeavors and interactions with others, and come to know the subtle nuances required to enter and remain in this arena.
Response to Grammar Girl
The Grammar Girl website is AWESOME!! Not!! I never thought there was so much stuff out there on the internet about writing and grammar. Guess I was wrong, and the host of the site is undoubtedly much smarter than me, so as stated by me earlier, my hat’s off to her.
After listening to the Grammar Girl podcast while following along with the written copy, it became clear that without realizing it, I often apply some of the techniques she described when reviewing my own work. I guess I’m lucky today, I had an epiphany. I had no idea these were actual "techniques" applied by the professionals out there.
One technique that I almost always use is to print a hard copy of my draft to use for review. When I do so, I almost always read it aloud. For some reason, this always helps me to hear how the piece flows, and let’s me determine if it sounds like it will make sense to someone attempting to read it. Additionally, I have found that the fewer distractions I have around me, the better I can concentrate on the task at hand. If I turn off all devices that produce unnecessary noises such as the TV or radio, I am better able to draft and proofread my own material.
Today I went back and reviewed some of my previous blog posts that I have not paid much attention to since their inception, and found a few issues. What became clear really quick, was that time away from your writing can have a major impact on the end result of your project. When reading one of the posts backwards (as awkward as this was) I did identify a few mistakes, most related to comma placement. I then read another posting aloud from start to finish, and identified a couple of mechanical things with sentences, that while not wrong per se, could have flowed much better had I changed some of the verbiage. All in all things didn’t appear too bad; in my humble, but, accurate opinion.
After listening to the Grammar Girl podcast while following along with the written copy, it became clear that without realizing it, I often apply some of the techniques she described when reviewing my own work. I guess I’m lucky today, I had an epiphany. I had no idea these were actual "techniques" applied by the professionals out there.
One technique that I almost always use is to print a hard copy of my draft to use for review. When I do so, I almost always read it aloud. For some reason, this always helps me to hear how the piece flows, and let’s me determine if it sounds like it will make sense to someone attempting to read it. Additionally, I have found that the fewer distractions I have around me, the better I can concentrate on the task at hand. If I turn off all devices that produce unnecessary noises such as the TV or radio, I am better able to draft and proofread my own material.
Today I went back and reviewed some of my previous blog posts that I have not paid much attention to since their inception, and found a few issues. What became clear really quick, was that time away from your writing can have a major impact on the end result of your project. When reading one of the posts backwards (as awkward as this was) I did identify a few mistakes, most related to comma placement. I then read another posting aloud from start to finish, and identified a couple of mechanical things with sentences, that while not wrong per se, could have flowed much better had I changed some of the verbiage. All in all things didn’t appear too bad; in my humble, but, accurate opinion.
Week 3 Reading Response
For me, the definition of writing style is hard to pin down because everything I have read (which is not all that much) pertaining to writing style has proven to be very subjective. I think the audience and the message that the writer is attempting to convey play a huge role in determining the style of a particular piece.
In “Shitty First Drafts,” Lamott’s style appears to be solely based on her audience, “the uninitiated,” or those who are new to writing. The audience Lamott is targeting most likely includes people of all ages and demographic circles, to include college students or even those who have wisdom and experience, yet, remain apprehensive when crossing the mental line to undertake the daunting task of writing. In this sense, I do believe Lamott’s writing style clearly helped her drive her point home.
Lamott’s suggestions are right on target and I agree with them. Without knowing all of the mechanics, methodologies, history or rules behind why these suggestions work, I have used these techniques described by Lamott, and the results are always the same; magically, I am able to develop a better sense of purpose and direction for whatever it is that I am writing.
There is one problem though, and it is my problem, but nonetheless here it is. I only like to write when I like to write. That’s it, period! Does that make sense to anybody out there? In other words, there has to be a really strong point that I need to make, or some other compelling reason for me to devote that much time and effort to writing. Perhaps this is due to my career and the untold hundreds of pages of investigative notes, case reports, and other miscellaneous documents I have scribed over the years, but, whatever the reason, I don’t like it. Who knows for sure the reason why? For those of you reading this I understand that you probably couldn’t care less about why I don’t like to write, and I got it, however, perhaps you too share this same feeling and can as least empathize with me.
For those of you who write for a living or simply write because you enjoy it, my hat is off to you. After reading the piece by Lamott for this assignment, I was absolutely dumbfounded. For the life of me, I just can’t understand why you would want to keep going through that crap day in, and day out. Is the money that good?
In “Shitty First Drafts,” Lamott’s style appears to be solely based on her audience, “the uninitiated,” or those who are new to writing. The audience Lamott is targeting most likely includes people of all ages and demographic circles, to include college students or even those who have wisdom and experience, yet, remain apprehensive when crossing the mental line to undertake the daunting task of writing. In this sense, I do believe Lamott’s writing style clearly helped her drive her point home.
Lamott’s suggestions are right on target and I agree with them. Without knowing all of the mechanics, methodologies, history or rules behind why these suggestions work, I have used these techniques described by Lamott, and the results are always the same; magically, I am able to develop a better sense of purpose and direction for whatever it is that I am writing.
There is one problem though, and it is my problem, but nonetheless here it is. I only like to write when I like to write. That’s it, period! Does that make sense to anybody out there? In other words, there has to be a really strong point that I need to make, or some other compelling reason for me to devote that much time and effort to writing. Perhaps this is due to my career and the untold hundreds of pages of investigative notes, case reports, and other miscellaneous documents I have scribed over the years, but, whatever the reason, I don’t like it. Who knows for sure the reason why? For those of you reading this I understand that you probably couldn’t care less about why I don’t like to write, and I got it, however, perhaps you too share this same feeling and can as least empathize with me.
For those of you who write for a living or simply write because you enjoy it, my hat is off to you. After reading the piece by Lamott for this assignment, I was absolutely dumbfounded. For the life of me, I just can’t understand why you would want to keep going through that crap day in, and day out. Is the money that good?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Essay #1 First Draft
“In many housing neighborhoods, the infrastructure (heating, electrical, water and sewage systems) relies on inefficient technology and obsolete equipment” – Soldiers Magazine, August, 2005
Whoever your are there should be no doubt in your mind that your quality life as well as that of your children and family is greatly impacted, either negatively or positively, by the place you call home; wherever home is for you. For those familiar with the military lifestyle and most adults in general nowadays, it is pretty much common knowledge that the military provides housing for service members and their families. What appears to be not so common knowledge is the fact that service members pay for their housing each month just as civilians pay their rent or mortgage each month. When you pay for a product or service aren’t you therefore entitled to the guaranteed obligations your money purchased?
Passed by Congress in 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 established the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI). RCI authorized the military to enter into agreements with private contractors to own, maintain and operate military housing on a fifty year lease on installations throughout the U.S. and was lauded as being the cure all to the military’s housing problems such as those cited in the above quote from Soldiers Magazine. Consistent with the Army, RCI touted its major goal to be the elimination of inadequate Army family housing in the U.S. Although the private company under contract with the U.S. Government to own, operate, and maintain the privatized military family housing units on Fort Belvoir claims all of their housing units are adequate and energy efficient, the housing units in the Dogue Creek Subdivision of Fort Belvoir are inadequate and lack appropriate energy efficiency because of inadequate furnaces, inadequate windows and doors, and improperly installed thermostats.
Having resided in military housing in virtually all climates for over fifteen years has allowed for an extensive acquisition of knowledge regarding the appropriate furnace for a specific housing unit. Additionally, there is the personal experience in the Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning (HVAC) industry, as well as being a current resident of military housing in the Dogue Creek Subdivision of Fort Belvoir, that uniquely qualifies this writer to discuss this subject.
The current furnace units in the Dogue Creek homes are inadequate and substandard in their installation and efficiency because they are all up flow model furnaces that lack timely preventive maintenance, they are assembled unprofessionally, and are not adequately sealed.
Furthermore, up flow furnaces are designed for ground floor residential installation in single or two story homes. All of the homes in Dogue Creek are now three story homes with the furnaces installed on the second floor. The up flow furnaces were designed specifically to facilitate the flow of hot air along its normal path; upward. And worked rather well when they were installed on the ground floor of these homes, which at one time were two story homes. To enable an up flow furnace to blow air back down to lower levels significant aftermarket structural changes to the furnace configuration needed to be made. These changes involved reconfiguring and adding duct that turns downward 90 degrees from the top of the furnace to allow a chamber for air to flow downward. Making these changes, however, has resulted in the furnaces operating in a manner that is in contravention of the manufacturer’s specifications and recommendations, further affecting their efficiency.
In 2001, the Dogue Creek homes were converted to add a third floor and the current up flow furnaces were reinstalled on the second floor during the conversion. It would appear that there was little or no consideration given to the additional square footage achieved during the conversion, or the need to install a down flow furnace to compensate for the loss of warm air to the lower level because the aftermarket changes were ineffective. The result is significant temperature and humidity variances throughout the Dogue Creek homes. For example, on January 17, 2009, the following temperatures and variances were observed in one Dogue Creek housing unit.
1st Floor Temperature Differences:
· Kitchen thermometer @ 58 degrees Fahrenheit while Living Room thermometer @ 70 degrees Fahrenheit and unit thermostat located in living room @ 75 degrees Fahrenheit.
· These temperatures on the 1st floor demonstrate temperature variances of 17 degrees Fahrenheit within an approximate 20-40 square foot area.
2nd Floor Temperature Differences:
· 2nd floor hallway thermometer @ 89 degrees Fahrenheit while directly across hall in Laundry/Furnace Room thermometer @ 100+ degrees Fahrenheit with humidity @ less than 10%, well below normal ranges of 35% to 60%.
3rd Floor Temperature:
· 3rd floor hallway thermometer @ 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Also affecting adequacy and efficiency is the lack of proper maintenance of the furnaces. Inspection of the affixed service records along with the interior of one Dogue Creek furnace unit indicated the last time a full service and maintenance check was completed on the furnaces by a licensed HVAC professional, was in 2001 or 2002.
Under these conditions, the lack of maintenance has resulted in the housing units suffering a serious degradation in efficiency, effectiveness and overall functionality, and poses a potential threat to the health and safety of residents.
By far the most critical part of any heating system is the furnace. There are, however, other elements that work in conjunction with the furnace that facilitate efficiency in the home. Three of these elements are windows, doors, and thermostats.
The windows of a particular residence need to be of the proper efficiency rating for the geographic area in which the home is located, and need to be installed correctly. Dogue Creek homes are located in northern Virginia and therefore have two specific recommended ratings as determined by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) and U-Factor. The SHGC rating is SHGC≤0.55, while the U-Factor rating is U≤0.40. In layman’s terms U-Factor is defined as the amount of heat that flows through a particular material, and SHGC is defined as how much heat from the sun is blocked by the window. The scientific jargon and in depth explanation of these ratings is irrelevant to this discussion.
The issue in the Dogue Creek homes is that the aforementioned ratings should be clearly visible on the manufacturer’s label which is required to be affixed to each window. Labels are not present. In addition to proper rating, windows need to be installed correctly. In the simplest of terms, installed correctly, means that the correct size window is installed for the size of the window opening, and each window is installed so that it is “plumb” or level. In the Dogue Creek home that maintained the aforementioned furnace, not a single manufacturer’s label could be located on any window in the residence. Additionally, further inspection detailed serious mechanical and maintenance issues with several of the windows in the residence. These issues involved improper leveling, improper seals, and improper sash spacing due to faulty latch mechanisms. From a maintenance perspective the caulking and glazing around the window panes and frames were found to be deteriorating due to age and failed maintenance on the part of the contractor.
The window issues noted above are in part responsible for the overall inefficiency of the heating system. Additionally, there are two remaining areas of concern related to the Dogue Creek housing units; improperly sealed entry/exit (E/E) doors and improper location of thermostats. These two issues complement one another and together adversely impact the overall efficiency of the homes.
An inspection of several dogue Creek homes revealed torn and deteriorating E/E door seals which allowed for a constant flow of cold air into the homes. Furthermore, the furnace thermostats in these three story homes are located in the center of the main floor of each residence, directly between the front and rear E/E door respectively. When combined with the continual cold air flow due to bad door seals, the problem of inefficiency is compounded because the constant drafts from the E/E doors opening and closing results in the thermostat igniting the already inadequate and dangerous furnace. Thus, the furnace is constantly starting and stopping in an effort to heat the first floor of the residence while the second and third floors become excessively hot.
While the contractor maintains that all of their homes are energy efficient, the above documentation clearly demonstrates that the contractor’s position is false. Several tenants of the Dogue Creek Subdivision were interviewed and stated they had made numerous complaints to the contractor regarding the same issues over a period of several years. The tenants stated that after attempting to contact the 24 hour maintenance staff on numerous occasions, the contractor would only dispatch maintenance technicians who performed “window dressing” maintenance. Essentially, they stated the technicians were unable to fix the problems and only succeeded in doing minor things such as attempting to lock windows, replacing thermostats, closing ceiling vents or providing electric space heaters in an attempt to compensate for heat loss.
The technicians should not be faulted as each maintained the highest levels of professionalism and dedication to their duties, however, each lacked the necessary training, experience, and certifications for the type of maintenance required in homes that lacked proper maintenance or service for a period approaching ten years.
Several technicians were also interviewed and stated the issues identified in this document were consistent with numerous reported heating problems throughout the residential community at Fort Belvoir. Two of the technicians disclosed that they were in fact not qualified to conduct any type of work outside of the scope of work previously mentioned by the tenants in an aforementioned paragraph. Both indicated they were directed by management staff to do minimal work on the quarters in the Dogue Creek Subdivision because the priority for the contractor was the construction of new homes on Fort Belvoir, and the Dogue Creek homes would eventually be destroyed and replaced with new homes. In addition, one technician stated the maintenance office receives similar complaints from tenants in the newly constructed homes regarding similar issues.
While the contractor claims that all of their housing units at Fort Belvoir are energy efficient it is blaringly obvious after interviewing tenants and technicians, that the contractor is only focused on their newly constructed homes. The contractor purports their newly constructed homes are Energy Star certified but there appears to be serious doubt about this claim as well due to the number of tenant complaints from these subdivisions pertaining to the same heating efficiency issues experienced by the tenants of Dogue Creek. Is this a systemic problem involving contractor fraud that requires further investigation? Who knows for sure but one thing is certain; the Dogue Creek homes are clearly inadequate and lack proper energy efficiency. As for the newly constructed homes on Fort Belvoir, there are standards for Energy Star certification and perhaps the tenants simply need to wear a sweatshirt or put on a blanket in order to be more comfortable.
The bottom line is that the contractor is limiting its capital outlay toward the Dogue Creek homes and will only act accordingly when the tenant forces the contractor’s hand. In other words, the tenant must put sufficient pressure on the contractor so they realize that the tenant could make things really bad if word of the contractor’s failure to remedy were to be released to the media or high ranking military officials.
Whoever your are there should be no doubt in your mind that your quality life as well as that of your children and family is greatly impacted, either negatively or positively, by the place you call home; wherever home is for you. For those familiar with the military lifestyle and most adults in general nowadays, it is pretty much common knowledge that the military provides housing for service members and their families. What appears to be not so common knowledge is the fact that service members pay for their housing each month just as civilians pay their rent or mortgage each month. When you pay for a product or service aren’t you therefore entitled to the guaranteed obligations your money purchased?
Passed by Congress in 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 established the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI). RCI authorized the military to enter into agreements with private contractors to own, maintain and operate military housing on a fifty year lease on installations throughout the U.S. and was lauded as being the cure all to the military’s housing problems such as those cited in the above quote from Soldiers Magazine. Consistent with the Army, RCI touted its major goal to be the elimination of inadequate Army family housing in the U.S. Although the private company under contract with the U.S. Government to own, operate, and maintain the privatized military family housing units on Fort Belvoir claims all of their housing units are adequate and energy efficient, the housing units in the Dogue Creek Subdivision of Fort Belvoir are inadequate and lack appropriate energy efficiency because of inadequate furnaces, inadequate windows and doors, and improperly installed thermostats.
Having resided in military housing in virtually all climates for over fifteen years has allowed for an extensive acquisition of knowledge regarding the appropriate furnace for a specific housing unit. Additionally, there is the personal experience in the Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning (HVAC) industry, as well as being a current resident of military housing in the Dogue Creek Subdivision of Fort Belvoir, that uniquely qualifies this writer to discuss this subject.
The current furnace units in the Dogue Creek homes are inadequate and substandard in their installation and efficiency because they are all up flow model furnaces that lack timely preventive maintenance, they are assembled unprofessionally, and are not adequately sealed.
Furthermore, up flow furnaces are designed for ground floor residential installation in single or two story homes. All of the homes in Dogue Creek are now three story homes with the furnaces installed on the second floor. The up flow furnaces were designed specifically to facilitate the flow of hot air along its normal path; upward. And worked rather well when they were installed on the ground floor of these homes, which at one time were two story homes. To enable an up flow furnace to blow air back down to lower levels significant aftermarket structural changes to the furnace configuration needed to be made. These changes involved reconfiguring and adding duct that turns downward 90 degrees from the top of the furnace to allow a chamber for air to flow downward. Making these changes, however, has resulted in the furnaces operating in a manner that is in contravention of the manufacturer’s specifications and recommendations, further affecting their efficiency.
In 2001, the Dogue Creek homes were converted to add a third floor and the current up flow furnaces were reinstalled on the second floor during the conversion. It would appear that there was little or no consideration given to the additional square footage achieved during the conversion, or the need to install a down flow furnace to compensate for the loss of warm air to the lower level because the aftermarket changes were ineffective. The result is significant temperature and humidity variances throughout the Dogue Creek homes. For example, on January 17, 2009, the following temperatures and variances were observed in one Dogue Creek housing unit.
1st Floor Temperature Differences:
· Kitchen thermometer @ 58 degrees Fahrenheit while Living Room thermometer @ 70 degrees Fahrenheit and unit thermostat located in living room @ 75 degrees Fahrenheit.
· These temperatures on the 1st floor demonstrate temperature variances of 17 degrees Fahrenheit within an approximate 20-40 square foot area.
2nd Floor Temperature Differences:
· 2nd floor hallway thermometer @ 89 degrees Fahrenheit while directly across hall in Laundry/Furnace Room thermometer @ 100+ degrees Fahrenheit with humidity @ less than 10%, well below normal ranges of 35% to 60%.
3rd Floor Temperature:
· 3rd floor hallway thermometer @ 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Also affecting adequacy and efficiency is the lack of proper maintenance of the furnaces. Inspection of the affixed service records along with the interior of one Dogue Creek furnace unit indicated the last time a full service and maintenance check was completed on the furnaces by a licensed HVAC professional, was in 2001 or 2002.
Under these conditions, the lack of maintenance has resulted in the housing units suffering a serious degradation in efficiency, effectiveness and overall functionality, and poses a potential threat to the health and safety of residents.
By far the most critical part of any heating system is the furnace. There are, however, other elements that work in conjunction with the furnace that facilitate efficiency in the home. Three of these elements are windows, doors, and thermostats.
The windows of a particular residence need to be of the proper efficiency rating for the geographic area in which the home is located, and need to be installed correctly. Dogue Creek homes are located in northern Virginia and therefore have two specific recommended ratings as determined by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) and U-Factor. The SHGC rating is SHGC≤0.55, while the U-Factor rating is U≤0.40. In layman’s terms U-Factor is defined as the amount of heat that flows through a particular material, and SHGC is defined as how much heat from the sun is blocked by the window. The scientific jargon and in depth explanation of these ratings is irrelevant to this discussion.
The issue in the Dogue Creek homes is that the aforementioned ratings should be clearly visible on the manufacturer’s label which is required to be affixed to each window. Labels are not present. In addition to proper rating, windows need to be installed correctly. In the simplest of terms, installed correctly, means that the correct size window is installed for the size of the window opening, and each window is installed so that it is “plumb” or level. In the Dogue Creek home that maintained the aforementioned furnace, not a single manufacturer’s label could be located on any window in the residence. Additionally, further inspection detailed serious mechanical and maintenance issues with several of the windows in the residence. These issues involved improper leveling, improper seals, and improper sash spacing due to faulty latch mechanisms. From a maintenance perspective the caulking and glazing around the window panes and frames were found to be deteriorating due to age and failed maintenance on the part of the contractor.
The window issues noted above are in part responsible for the overall inefficiency of the heating system. Additionally, there are two remaining areas of concern related to the Dogue Creek housing units; improperly sealed entry/exit (E/E) doors and improper location of thermostats. These two issues complement one another and together adversely impact the overall efficiency of the homes.
An inspection of several dogue Creek homes revealed torn and deteriorating E/E door seals which allowed for a constant flow of cold air into the homes. Furthermore, the furnace thermostats in these three story homes are located in the center of the main floor of each residence, directly between the front and rear E/E door respectively. When combined with the continual cold air flow due to bad door seals, the problem of inefficiency is compounded because the constant drafts from the E/E doors opening and closing results in the thermostat igniting the already inadequate and dangerous furnace. Thus, the furnace is constantly starting and stopping in an effort to heat the first floor of the residence while the second and third floors become excessively hot.
While the contractor maintains that all of their homes are energy efficient, the above documentation clearly demonstrates that the contractor’s position is false. Several tenants of the Dogue Creek Subdivision were interviewed and stated they had made numerous complaints to the contractor regarding the same issues over a period of several years. The tenants stated that after attempting to contact the 24 hour maintenance staff on numerous occasions, the contractor would only dispatch maintenance technicians who performed “window dressing” maintenance. Essentially, they stated the technicians were unable to fix the problems and only succeeded in doing minor things such as attempting to lock windows, replacing thermostats, closing ceiling vents or providing electric space heaters in an attempt to compensate for heat loss.
The technicians should not be faulted as each maintained the highest levels of professionalism and dedication to their duties, however, each lacked the necessary training, experience, and certifications for the type of maintenance required in homes that lacked proper maintenance or service for a period approaching ten years.
Several technicians were also interviewed and stated the issues identified in this document were consistent with numerous reported heating problems throughout the residential community at Fort Belvoir. Two of the technicians disclosed that they were in fact not qualified to conduct any type of work outside of the scope of work previously mentioned by the tenants in an aforementioned paragraph. Both indicated they were directed by management staff to do minimal work on the quarters in the Dogue Creek Subdivision because the priority for the contractor was the construction of new homes on Fort Belvoir, and the Dogue Creek homes would eventually be destroyed and replaced with new homes. In addition, one technician stated the maintenance office receives similar complaints from tenants in the newly constructed homes regarding similar issues.
While the contractor claims that all of their housing units at Fort Belvoir are energy efficient it is blaringly obvious after interviewing tenants and technicians, that the contractor is only focused on their newly constructed homes. The contractor purports their newly constructed homes are Energy Star certified but there appears to be serious doubt about this claim as well due to the number of tenant complaints from these subdivisions pertaining to the same heating efficiency issues experienced by the tenants of Dogue Creek. Is this a systemic problem involving contractor fraud that requires further investigation? Who knows for sure but one thing is certain; the Dogue Creek homes are clearly inadequate and lack proper energy efficiency. As for the newly constructed homes on Fort Belvoir, there are standards for Energy Star certification and perhaps the tenants simply need to wear a sweatshirt or put on a blanket in order to be more comfortable.
The bottom line is that the contractor is limiting its capital outlay toward the Dogue Creek homes and will only act accordingly when the tenant forces the contractor’s hand. In other words, the tenant must put sufficient pressure on the contractor so they realize that the tenant could make things really bad if word of the contractor’s failure to remedy were to be released to the media or high ranking military officials.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Week 2 Reading Response - Where is Mr. Sea today?
I realize this was an opinion piece authored by Mr. Sea in his senior year of college. And that is absolutely outstanding! Kudos to Mr. Sea, however, after reading and interpreting his opinion piece in its totality, I must say that the inclusion of that there particular piece of literature in the textbook was spot on. The authors obviously knew what they were doing if their intent was to invoke a response other than a smile or dumbfounded look from the reader because I was fired up! Therefore, this should be interpreted only as my opinion piece based on my interpretation of Mr. Sea’s opinion piece. Additionally, I hope this will meet the standards set forth in the requirements of this assignment. Having said that, let’s roll!
It’s obvious, at least to me, and perhaps to some of you who are afraid to write truthfully about your opinions, that Mr. Sea’s elevator certainly didn’t reach the top floor. He is either homosexual with feminine tendencies, a metro sexual with feminine tendencies, an individual with male or female genitalia or both with feminine tendencies, or an individual with the right or wrong plumbing who just happens to be confused in life about the fact that he really is a man, or should be a man. (After all, it was Mr. Sea who first defined androgynous in his special article.) This is no problem though because obviously Mr. Sea is not the only male in this world today who is a little bit confused about who he is. Simply look around and you will observe quite a few confused men. There’s little doubt that his confusion, if it exists, is somehow related to the relationship he had or didn’t have with his mother as a child. I understand some of you may disagree with this and that is fine. You too can take the time to peruse the many empirical studies that have been completed on this subject and base your opinion on your own interpretation of the voluminous data.
Mr. Sea appeared to be contradictory in his own writing and perhaps this adds credence to my argument about his confusion. He said it best and was absolutely spot on when he quoted the Milwaukee’s Best Light commercial; “Men should act like men, and light beer should taste like beer.” Is there really a question here about men and beer? Are you kidding me? This guy goes on to bash fashion advertisers and truck manufacturers, and then accuses the media of ambiguously defining a man. Holy @#@# this individual is clearly confused and perhaps needs to seek some professional counseling or intervention. He even asks his audience to define how a man should act even after it was clearly defined for him by Milwaukee’s Best; “Men should act like men, and light beer should taste like beer.” This is a no brainer folks and I ask you again, is there really a question here?
Mr. Sea, like so many people in society today, seems to have forgotten about two of the most important aspects of individuality; personal responsibility and personal choice. I mention these particular characteristics in hopes that those of you who have no clue what they are will pursue defining them, and realize the importance of applying them to your life. I mean this because these two characteristics of individuality are absolutely essential to your success in life; hear me now, believe me later, the choice is yours. Furthermore, I mention these characteristics in hopes of shedding some light on the fact that these characteristics have taken a back seat in society today.
At the time he authored his opinion piece Mr. Sea obviously held the inaccurate belief that the media, big business, and most likely government were responsible for the terrible atrocities that he referred to as a double standard or even sexism. This concept is widely held by many people in society and we have observed a huge increase in this mentality, which can only be defined as extremely liberal in nature. This mentality goes hand in hand with the belief that the government or big business owes you something; the entitlement mentality. This belief is absolutely absurd and reflects directly back on the aforementioned characteristics of personal responsibility and personal choice. See folks, the men, women, dogs, and whoever else are portrayed in the media and in television commercials, or other advertising media, each have applied the characteristic of personal responsibility and made a personal choice to participate their respective venue. Believe me when I tell you they did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts, they were compensated for their time. Just like you and me when we applied personal responsibility to our lives and made the personal choice to work in the venue of our choice for compensation. These people are paid to do what they do the same as you and I are paid for our jobs. It’s a simple concept dating back to the origins of our constitution if not further; you trade hours for dollars in the career of your choice. So, for Mr. Sea to emphatically state that men are being exploited, there is a double standard, or that men are not being portrayed as who or what they are or should be, is a crock of crap. Mr. Sea doesn’t even know who the hell he is! Business is about markets, and business targets certain demographics to sell a product or service for profit; is this wrong? Please allow me to answer that for you; hell no it isn’t wrong. And for all the naysayers like Mr. Sea who have stood on the sidelines and complained about how atrociously the media, business, and advertising have degraded and/or created a double standard for men and also women, they all need to get a check up from the neck up. It’s obvious these idiots have not been portrayed in any of the advertising ads or in other areas of the media. The same holds true for the obese men and women who stand by and bitch and complain about the very same thing. Get a check up dudes; because it’s not the model or actor in the media that caused your failure in life, it’s your fat load. Ever think of it that way? You’ve exploited yourself genius, because you’re severely obese and most likely you’re depressed and have a low self esteem or a deteriorated self image because you can’t visualize yourself utilizing the whole person concept because it’s too embarrassing. Whose fault is this? It ain’t mine and it ain’t those in the media; personal responsibility and personal choice.
As for whether or not he made any evaluative claims, I don’t believe Mr. Sea was successful in this arena based on the definition of such a claim. According to the textbook, an evaluative claim is defined as a claim which specifies that something does or does not meet established criteria. Are we to believe that the opinions of Mr. Sea, feminists, and others who take similar positions are to be interpreted by the general public and confused men as established criteria? I don’t think sweetheart! So, the only legal opinion, which would qualify as an established criteria, that I am aware of are those opinions found in case law. There is no other statutory or regulatory language defining the established criteria of an opinion, and there is no statutory definition of sexism, which is essentially what Mr. Sea implied men are now subjected to because of the media, advertisers, and big business. Wow, I wonder what Mr. Sea is doing nowadays?
As for whether or not he made any causal claims, I don’t believe Mr. Sea was successful in this arena either, based on the definition of such a claim. According to the textbook, a causal claim is defined as a claim that seeks to explain the effect(s) of a cause, the cause(s) of an effect, or a causal chain in which A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, and so on. Mr. Sea purported in his article that advertising sets a double standard for the male gender, however, in my opinion; he failed to adequately support this claim with anything other than his own rhetoric. Aside from Mr. Sea’s personal opinion, there was certainly no evidentiary material introduced in his article that would remotely qualify as established criteria, or that would demonstrate a cause and effect situation that could be linked back to established criteria.
I have nothing further to add to this discussion as I believe my position has been clearly stated; “Men should act like men, and light beer should taste like beer.” Thank you all for reading and have a great day.
It’s obvious, at least to me, and perhaps to some of you who are afraid to write truthfully about your opinions, that Mr. Sea’s elevator certainly didn’t reach the top floor. He is either homosexual with feminine tendencies, a metro sexual with feminine tendencies, an individual with male or female genitalia or both with feminine tendencies, or an individual with the right or wrong plumbing who just happens to be confused in life about the fact that he really is a man, or should be a man. (After all, it was Mr. Sea who first defined androgynous in his special article.) This is no problem though because obviously Mr. Sea is not the only male in this world today who is a little bit confused about who he is. Simply look around and you will observe quite a few confused men. There’s little doubt that his confusion, if it exists, is somehow related to the relationship he had or didn’t have with his mother as a child. I understand some of you may disagree with this and that is fine. You too can take the time to peruse the many empirical studies that have been completed on this subject and base your opinion on your own interpretation of the voluminous data.
Mr. Sea appeared to be contradictory in his own writing and perhaps this adds credence to my argument about his confusion. He said it best and was absolutely spot on when he quoted the Milwaukee’s Best Light commercial; “Men should act like men, and light beer should taste like beer.” Is there really a question here about men and beer? Are you kidding me? This guy goes on to bash fashion advertisers and truck manufacturers, and then accuses the media of ambiguously defining a man. Holy @#@# this individual is clearly confused and perhaps needs to seek some professional counseling or intervention. He even asks his audience to define how a man should act even after it was clearly defined for him by Milwaukee’s Best; “Men should act like men, and light beer should taste like beer.” This is a no brainer folks and I ask you again, is there really a question here?
Mr. Sea, like so many people in society today, seems to have forgotten about two of the most important aspects of individuality; personal responsibility and personal choice. I mention these particular characteristics in hopes that those of you who have no clue what they are will pursue defining them, and realize the importance of applying them to your life. I mean this because these two characteristics of individuality are absolutely essential to your success in life; hear me now, believe me later, the choice is yours. Furthermore, I mention these characteristics in hopes of shedding some light on the fact that these characteristics have taken a back seat in society today.
At the time he authored his opinion piece Mr. Sea obviously held the inaccurate belief that the media, big business, and most likely government were responsible for the terrible atrocities that he referred to as a double standard or even sexism. This concept is widely held by many people in society and we have observed a huge increase in this mentality, which can only be defined as extremely liberal in nature. This mentality goes hand in hand with the belief that the government or big business owes you something; the entitlement mentality. This belief is absolutely absurd and reflects directly back on the aforementioned characteristics of personal responsibility and personal choice. See folks, the men, women, dogs, and whoever else are portrayed in the media and in television commercials, or other advertising media, each have applied the characteristic of personal responsibility and made a personal choice to participate their respective venue. Believe me when I tell you they did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts, they were compensated for their time. Just like you and me when we applied personal responsibility to our lives and made the personal choice to work in the venue of our choice for compensation. These people are paid to do what they do the same as you and I are paid for our jobs. It’s a simple concept dating back to the origins of our constitution if not further; you trade hours for dollars in the career of your choice. So, for Mr. Sea to emphatically state that men are being exploited, there is a double standard, or that men are not being portrayed as who or what they are or should be, is a crock of crap. Mr. Sea doesn’t even know who the hell he is! Business is about markets, and business targets certain demographics to sell a product or service for profit; is this wrong? Please allow me to answer that for you; hell no it isn’t wrong. And for all the naysayers like Mr. Sea who have stood on the sidelines and complained about how atrociously the media, business, and advertising have degraded and/or created a double standard for men and also women, they all need to get a check up from the neck up. It’s obvious these idiots have not been portrayed in any of the advertising ads or in other areas of the media. The same holds true for the obese men and women who stand by and bitch and complain about the very same thing. Get a check up dudes; because it’s not the model or actor in the media that caused your failure in life, it’s your fat load. Ever think of it that way? You’ve exploited yourself genius, because you’re severely obese and most likely you’re depressed and have a low self esteem or a deteriorated self image because you can’t visualize yourself utilizing the whole person concept because it’s too embarrassing. Whose fault is this? It ain’t mine and it ain’t those in the media; personal responsibility and personal choice.
As for whether or not he made any evaluative claims, I don’t believe Mr. Sea was successful in this arena based on the definition of such a claim. According to the textbook, an evaluative claim is defined as a claim which specifies that something does or does not meet established criteria. Are we to believe that the opinions of Mr. Sea, feminists, and others who take similar positions are to be interpreted by the general public and confused men as established criteria? I don’t think sweetheart! So, the only legal opinion, which would qualify as an established criteria, that I am aware of are those opinions found in case law. There is no other statutory or regulatory language defining the established criteria of an opinion, and there is no statutory definition of sexism, which is essentially what Mr. Sea implied men are now subjected to because of the media, advertisers, and big business. Wow, I wonder what Mr. Sea is doing nowadays?
As for whether or not he made any causal claims, I don’t believe Mr. Sea was successful in this arena either, based on the definition of such a claim. According to the textbook, a causal claim is defined as a claim that seeks to explain the effect(s) of a cause, the cause(s) of an effect, or a causal chain in which A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, and so on. Mr. Sea purported in his article that advertising sets a double standard for the male gender, however, in my opinion; he failed to adequately support this claim with anything other than his own rhetoric. Aside from Mr. Sea’s personal opinion, there was certainly no evidentiary material introduced in his article that would remotely qualify as established criteria, or that would demonstrate a cause and effect situation that could be linked back to established criteria.
I have nothing further to add to this discussion as I believe my position has been clearly stated; “Men should act like men, and light beer should taste like beer.” Thank you all for reading and have a great day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)