Friday, September 27, 2013

So Frustrating.

You know, I know that I live in the very "liberal" area of the state.  I am still not used to it, but it is getting really annoying when it really affects my work.  I am in school this semester, attending Mendocino College.  It has been kind of hard.  I am attending all online.  I have had some recent things surface just in one of my classes.  Of course, I know that it was going to happen, since my English class is going to be covering some social topics.  It was almost inevitable, but I was hoping that since I had a less judgmental attitude about it, that others might as well.  Well, they DON'T!
I just typed this paper and answered some questions regarding an article the teacher chose.  It was out of 150 points and she gave me 145.  This just really irritates me.  I completed everything she asked me to do.  And, mind you, when she didn't really give very good directions either.  Well the article was about Loggers.  I happened to agree with the writers point of view.  And that was what her topic was.  We were learning to write definition essays and how to write good arguments.  I felt like she stated a very good argument regarding Loggers, and I agreed.  I typed that, and I guess she felt like she needed to take away the 5 points for that.  There was no other reason.  I know that I am venting about this, but isn't that what a blog is for?  It just irritates me that the teacher is obviously more liberal and closer to an environmentalist than I am, and for that she needs to take away points.  Now some of you are probably thinking, why don't you just ask her what she docked the point for... and that is a good question, but this is the same teacher that i just had a disagreement with regarding rated R movies, and I feel like it might make it even more difficult for me go get a good grade in her class if I keep making myself known with criticism about her class and grading policies all the time.  I am just utilizing my blog for my venting and complaints.  Ultimately, I know that if I really wanted to look into it, I could ask her about it and she would give me some bogus answer like, you should have addressed this, and you didn't.  Just another thing I hate about the subject English.  I am more of a Math and Science person.  In these subjects, there is always a right and wrong answer and very few if any fru fru answers like, well what do you fell like it should be?  or i was looking for this and you answered with that, but that could be right too.  That drives me crazy.  There is a right and wrong to get all the points, so just tell me what to do, and I will do it to get an A.  I remember Ben asking one of his teachers at Chico State how to get an A and he literally said, Nobody can get 100% in this class!  WHY????  are you trying to make it really hard so that the other teachers at the school look at you and think, man he is a good teacher because it is hard to get an A in that class... SO DUMB!!  isn't that completely against the reason that people should actually go into teaching?  Aren't you supposed to be helping people achieve success? Not to mention that you, as a teacher, should be completely neutral politically on how you grade.  If you want to be liberal or conservative, that is your decision!!  But you shouldn't be letting that reflect how you grade your students.  Believe it or not, some of us might have different opinions that yours.
  That qualifies as a bad teacher to me, when you are just focused on the grades that people get in your class.  PUKE!
any who... that is that.  you can read it if you want.  Make up your own mind.  Let me know what you all think!

The article we read.
A Logger's Lament
by Lelia L. Kysar

(Newsweek, October 22, 1990)


1          My father was a logger.  My husband is a logger.  My sons will not be loggers.  Loggers are an endangered species, but the environmental groups, which so righteously protect endangered species in the animal kingdom, have no concern for their fellow human beings under siege.  Loggers are a much misunderstood people, pictured as brutal rapists of our planet, out to denude it of trees and, as a result, of wildlife.

2          It is time to set the record straight.  Loggers take great pride in the old-growth trees, the dinosaurs of the forests, and would be sorry to see them all cut.  There are in the national forests in Washington and Oregon (not to mention other states) approximately 8.5 million acres of forested land, mostly old growth set aside, never to be used for timber production.  In order to see it all, a man would have to spend every weekend and holiday for 60 years looking at timber at a rate of more than 1,000 acres per day.  This does not include acreage to be set aside for spotted-owl protection.

3          In addition to this huge amount of forested land never to be logged, the State of Washington Forest Practices Act, established in 1973, specifies that all land that is clear-cut of trees must be replanted unless converted to some other use.  As a tree farmer generally plants more trees per acre than he removes, more trees are being planted than are being cut.  In the last 20 years in Clark County, Wash., alone, the Department of Natural Resources has overseen the planting of at least 15,000 acres of previously unforested private lands.

4          The term logger applies to the person harvesting trees.  A tree farmer is the one who owns the land and determines what is to be done with it.  To a tree farmer, clear-cutting is no more than the final harvest of that generation of trees.  The next spring, he reforests the land.  To the public, clear-cutting is a bad word.  Does the public cry shame when a wheat farmer harvests his crop and leaves a field of stubble in place of the beautiful wheat?

5          In the pacific Northwest, in five years, the newly planted trees will grow taller than the farmer's head; in 10 years, more than 15 feet tall; and in 20 to 30 years, the trees will be ready for the first commercial harvest.  The farmer then thins the trees to make room for better growth.  In 40 to 50 years, he will be ready to clear-cut his farm and replant again.  Contrary to public opinion, it does not  take 300 to 400 years to grow a Douglas fir tree to harvestable age.

6          Tree farming keeps us in wood products.  We build with wood, write on paper and even use the unmentionable in the bathroom.  But in order to keep this flow of wood products available, we need to keep it economically feasible to grow trees.  If we restrict the tree-farming practices because we do not like clear-cuts or because some animal might (and probably might not) become extinct, or we restrict markets for the timber by banning log exports or overtax the farmer, we are creating a situation where the farmer will no longer grow trees.  If he cannot make money, he will not tree-farm.  He will sell his tree farm so that it can grow houses.  The land that grows trees is the natural resource; the trees  are just a crop.

7          Legislation is constantly being introduced to take away the private-property rights of tree farmers.  They are beleaguered by the public, who believe that any forest belongs to the public.  Who, after, buys the land and pays the taxes?  Who invests money in property that will yield them an income only once every 20 to 30 years?  Would John Q. Public picnic in a farmer's wheat field?

8          The tree farmer must have a diversified market.  When there is a building slump in this country, it is vital to the industry to have an export market.  Earlier recessions were devastating to tree farmers until markets were developed overseas.  Some trees have little market value in the United States.  The logs China and Korea bought in the late '80's could not be sold here to cover the cost of delivery.

9          As to the wildlife becoming extinct, that is a joke that is not very funny.  Animals thrive in clear-cuts better than in old-growth timber.  Look at the Mount St. Helens blast area.  Nature created an immense clearing now deer, elk and other wildlife are returning in numbers.  Why?  Because there is more food growing in an open area than under the tall trees.  And as for the spotted owl, surely the 8.5 million acres set aside is enough to maintain quite a respectable owl population.  Numerous recent observations show that the owl lives in second-growth timber as well as in old growth.  In the Wenatchie National Forest there are more than 250 examples of spotted owls living in other than old-growth timber.  The owl is a tool of the environmentalist groups to get what they want: the complete eradication of the species Logger.

10        Beautiful new trees:  Consider the scenic value of a preserved old-growth forest versus a managed stand of timber.  In Glacier National Park, Mont., for example, which is totally untouched, one sees the old trees, the dead and dying trees, the windfalls crisscrossing the forest.  In a managed forest, one sees the older stands with the forest floor cleared of the dead windfalls, leaving a more parklike setting.  In the younger stands, one sees the beautiful new trees with their brilliant greens thrusting their tops to the sky and, in the clear-cuts, before the new trees obscure the view, one sees the huckleberry bushes with their luscious-tasting berries, the bright pink of fireweed and deer and elk feeding.  True environmentalists husband the land; they do not let the crops stagnate and rot.  Tree farming regenerates the trees and  utilizes the product.


11        A tree farmer from Sweden (where they are fined if they do not  tree-farm their forests) asked me recently why we do not just explain these facts to the environmental groups so that they will work with  us instead of against us.  Well, do you know the difference between a terrorist and an environmentalist?  It is easier to reason with the terrorist. 


My essay and questions answered... with her response.
Katie Brown
English 200
Definition Essay, Ass. #5
9/25/13
How good is your Cosmetologist?
            Almost everyone has hair.  It is a big part of our lives.  It doesn’t just grow on our heads.  It is all over our bodies.  From before birth, we have hair.  Some of us are born with a lot of hair, and some none.  The majority of women go through life having a cosmetologist take care of their hair.  What exactly does it mean to be a good Cosmetologist?  Going to a good school?  Having a lot of experience?  Having nice combs?  All of these are great questions.  I have been a Cosmetologist for over 12 years now, and I can tell you that most people don’t even know what a Cosmetologist is, let alone know what it takes to be a good one. 
            Cosmetology is the study and performance of Hair, Nails and Esthetics (being facials, waxing, and skin care).  In California, it is very stressful to get licensed as a Cosmo.  The schooling isn’t nearly as difficult as the State Board Exam.  After a long 9-10 months of 40 hours a week schooling, you take a state licensing test that starts at 5:00AM and lasts until 4:30PM, consisting of a practical with a live model and a written test.
            While growing up, I felt like I could always do my own hair.  I would always have someone in a salon cut it, but as far as hair color goes, I did it.  It didn’t always turn out quite right.  Sometimes, it worked like a charm.  I would do Blonde hi-lites, and they looked great.  Other times, I just chose the box with the color I wanted on the front, and it came out not looking so good.  There was one time, I decided to test my ability right before cheerleading pictures.  It was a disaster!  My hair came out a “Bright Golden Blonde”, just as the box said, yet it looked more like a dark yellow hot mess.  Without experience and the “eye” for hair color, I was lost.  I headed to the salon that weekend, and had a Cosmo fix it.  It was quite the experience. 
            I still didn’t learn my lesson.  Once again, I did it myself.  When I was a senior in High School, I decided that I wanted “Christina Aguilera Blonde”.  She was very popular at that time, and her new music video had just come out with her Blonde hair looking so cute!  So I headed to the hair store, and bought some color.  It came out, again, awful!  There were dark spots and different colors of blonde all over my head.  This was of course, right before my senior year book picture.  I, again, headed to the salon that weekend, and my hair was fixed by someone who knew what she was doing.  This was the last time that was ever going to happen to me.  I had decided right out of High School that I would go to Beauty School. And I had to re-do my senior pictures.
            After a long and grueling school and licensing process, I had my Cosmo license.  I started working in a salon, and did for 12 years.  I have seen all that have come in thinking the same way I did; they can do it better.  The problem, is that those individuals that think they can, always end up coming in for someone to fix it.
            When I have a client in my chair, I am able to look at their hair, face, skin color, and clothing style to make a judgment of what would look good on them and fit their needs and wants.  It is my job to do so.  When a woman comes to me and asks for thick blonde stripes in her hair, it is my job to let her know if that will work, talk about what shade of blonde, if she wants bangs or not, how to style the newly colored hair and if she wants a cut as well as what type of cut.  When Cosmos don’t ask these questions, or consult the client on different options, they aren’t performing correctly.  Their name is on that product, and if they fail or succeed, everyone will know.  When people see a woman with nice hair, they ask where she got it done.  When people see someone with awful hair, that client usually offers information about that Cosmo freely in a voice of warning to those who will listen. 
            A good Cosmo needs to be interested in listening to their client and not worried about the money they are making.  Often times, Cosmos just see you as another paycheck, don’t listen to what you say, and give you 3-4 hi-lites and call it good.  I recently started going to a new Cosmo for my hair color.  I got tired of doing it myself.  I am kind of a nightmare client.  I will dissect every foil they put in my hair and ask what they are doing with it, to make sure they are doing it right.  But I know what I want.  Others don’t always know what they want, and it is the job of the Cosmo to find out.          
            So the next time you visit your Cosmo, quietly survey them and make sure they are asking you questions about what you want for color, cut , and style, offering advice from their experience, and asking about tone of color.  If these three main bases are covered, you must have a good Cosmetologist.

Purple is what I answered with.
Katie Brown
English 200
Ass. #6.2
9/26/13
A Logger’s Lament - Assignment


Look for the author’s overall thesis and write it below.


Then find at least 3 claims that have support and a warrant for each.  There may be many claims, but you only need to look at three.  Just be sure each claim you choose also has support and an underlying warrant.

1.  Claim:     Loggers are not going to cut down all trees.

2.  Support for the claim:        There are in the national forests in Washington and Oregon (not to mention other states) approximately 8.5 million acres of forested land, mostly old growth set aside, never to be used for timber production; the State of Washington Forest Practices Act, established in 1973, specifies that all land that is clear-cut of trees must be replanted unless converted to some other use.

3.  Underlying Warrant:          In the last 20 years in Clark County, Wash., alone, the Department of Natural Resources has overseen the planting of at least 15,000 acres of previously unforested private lands.

1.  Claim:          Clear cutting is not a bad word.

2.  Support for the claim:          To a tree farmer, clear-cutting is no more than the final harvest of that generation of trees.  The next spring, he reforests the land.

3.  Underlying Warrant:           Contrary to public opinion, it does not  take 300 to 400 years to grow a Douglas fir tree to harvestable age.


1.  Claim:    in order to keep this flow of wood products available, we need to keep it economically feasible to grow trees.
                                                           
2.  Support for the claim:                If we restrict the tree-farming practices because we do not like clear-cuts or because some animal might (and probably might not) become extinct, or we restrict markets for the timber by banning log exports or overtax the farmer, we are creating a situation where the farmer will no longer grow trees.

3.  Underlying Warrant: .         If he cannot make money, he will not tree-farm

After you find a minimum of three, explain whether or not you agree or disagree with the author and why.

            I agree totally with this author.  I feel like she is stating the facts and that she is giving an opinion based on experience rather than just fact.   Many times, I feel like people in general make an opinion based not on fact, but on feelings which in turn makes for a bad argument.  I feel like a lot of laws are based on feelings and not on how things really should be.  If we had more people in the world that made laws that were based on fact, than it would in turn be a better country.  There are too many lobbyists…but I won’t get on that soapbox.  As far as the logger goes, I find that we have similar ideas.  My best friend’s dad is a logger and I have worked with him and talked with him about his work.  My dad was also a firefighter for the Forest Service for many years, so to me, trees are just a crop.  They need farming and harvesting just like any other crop to be beneficial and profitable.  This was a good article.
 Comments
Hi Katie,
Great essay; it may take years to become a Cosmetologist, but it takes years to find a good one.  A couple of years ago, my hairdresser went out on maternity leave...akkkkk.  Then she decided to take a year off....double akkkkk.  Since I wore my hair short, you would think it would be easy to find someone to cut it....no WAY!  I went to the best salons, supposedly the best haircutters, and OUCH, did I have some terrible haircuts.  Finally, mine came back to work and all she said was, "What in the h..l happened to your hair!"  Not everyone can cut short hair; eventhough, they say they can........


A Logger's Lament
This is a difficult assignment - I have you read this essay to find the overall claim (thesis) the author is trying to make.  In all GOOD arguments, there should be a main claim (thesis) what the author’s main message is, and several other claims (points or topics) which should support the main claim.
In every argument a claim should be supported with facts, statistics, personal examples, etc.  The key to the supporting information is they should all be VERIFIABLE in some way.  In other words, you should be able to go directly to the supporting evidence and be able to look it up yourself to find out more.
Warrants are a bit more difficult to spot.  A Warrant gives extra support to your claims.  These are usually things MOST people agree upon without argument. 
For example, if you are arguing the negative effects of child abuse, an underlying warrant here would be:  most of us agree it is NOT OK TO HURT CHILDREN.  When you see a statement like this, it is pretty hard to argue in the opposite direction.  Most people will agree with you; it is not okay to hurt children.  Therefore, your claim has extra support - who in their right mind is going to argue this.
The downfalls in “A Logger’s Lament” are she makes all sorts of claims throughout the entire essay.  None of these claims are supported with verifiable evidence.  She throws all sorts of facts and numbers into the essay, but none are verifiable and do not directly relate to her claims - she is all over the place!
She makes tons of false analogies such as comparing a field of wheat to fully grown trees.  She also compares the Mount St. Helen’s blast area to a clear cut; stating these are better areas for animals.  The list goes on and on and on.
Finally, she loses all credibility when she compares an environmentalist to a terrorist.  Did anyone notice her switch up from using the word Logger, to Tree Farmer - who dislikes a farmer…
It is good to read crazy arguments such as this; it helps us to see what really bad arguments are.  When we are looking at good arguments in comparison, it is easy to see the difference.
For those of you who struggled with this, Good Try - I hope you have recovered from trying to make this assignment work.  It is impossible, because it is not valid - it is what we call a RANT!
Lynn


No comments: