Here's my new English paper!

[PoorManQ45]

Tell me what you think of it so far.

The United States of America was declared an Independent Nation in 1776. The United States Constitution, which is now the document representing everything the nation stands for, was adopted in 1787. This document consisted of approximately 7500 words. Many people consider the constitution very vague. What these people do not understand is that the Constitution was intentionally written to be vague. The drafters did not want to be too detailed. They feared that writing an extremely detailed constitution would deny the citizens any rights that were not specified. Alexander Hamilton, one of the writers of the Constitution, argued that the Bill of Rights was too specific. He argued that specifying any rights at all would imply the absence of other rights. The writers of the constitution intended for the document to be a ?living? thing: meaning the constitution could be changed as future generations saw fit.

Now, we will step forward to present day legislation and regulation. In 1970, Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Act. The safety of every worker ?To the maximum extent feasible? is the goal of OSHA. OSHA has over 4000 detailed regulations, dictating everything from the height of railings (42 inches) to how close fitting a protective mask should be. OSHA has done very little to improve worker safety, and that is because there is one large glaring fault in all of the regulations that are created. That is that the many regulations are extremely detailed, and leave no room for human judgment. At first glance, it would seem wise to have complete certainty in the law. ?During an inspection several years ago, an OSHA inspector noted that a worker wearing a dust mask had a beard, violating a rule that requires a close fit between face and mask. The dust was not heavy or of hazardous content, and, even when used over a beard, the mask filtered out most of what there was. However, the rule was clear and, like most rules, did not distinguish among different situations. Nor did it matter that the worker was Amish and faced the choice of abrogating his religious convictions by shaving his beard or quitting. He quit.? wrote Philip Howard. This is an excellent example of the shortcomings of OSHA. The rule was too detailed; it did not allow the inspector to consider the workers religion. ?The inspectors also spend a lot of time upstairs in the office looking at paperwork; Glen-Gery was recently cited because the wrong box was accidentally checked on some internal form. About 50 percent of all OSHA violations across the nation are for not keeping the forms correctly,? Howard writes. Glen-Gery has never had an incident related to any of the violations that the OSHA inspectors have found. The inspectors do not seem to consider this. Again, the regulations are too detailed.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) passed a rule requiring that specific equipment be put in waste pipes to filter benzene, a harmful pollutant, Amoco Oil Company complied and spent $31 million at its Yorktown, Virginia, refinery. When a team from the EPA went to tour the Amoco refinery, they found that its precisely drawn regulation almost totally missed the pollution. The Amoco refinery was emitting significant amounts of benzene, but nowhere near the waste pipe. The pollution was at the loading docks, where gasoline is pumped into barges. Large quantities of benzene were escaping as Amoco pumped several hundred million gallons of gasoline every year into barges. The rule effectively did the opposite of what it was intended to do: it maximized the cost to Amoco while minimizing the benefit to the public.

The government laws and regulations are plagued by the absence of the one indispensable ingredient of any successful human endeavor: use of judgment. Since World War II, we have constructed a system of regulatory law that basically outlaws common sense. Modern law, in an effort to be ?self-executing,? has shut out our humanity.

Government is blinded by its own predetermined rules, entranced by the rationalists? promise that all can be set out before we get there. As the philosopher Michael Oakes observed, ?The Rationalist . . . does not merely neglect the kind of knowledge which would save him, he begins by destroying it. First, he turns out the light and then complains that he cannot see.?

[AZhitman]

Some edits, if you please:

Para 1 - line 1: Independent Nation not capitalizedlines 4, 11, 12: Capitalize Constitution

Para 2 - line 3, 9, 16: remove question marksline 16: Don't quote writer, not a direct citationline 18 apostrophe missing

Para 3 - line 1: remove question marks, what is "upstairs"? What is Glen-Gery?

Para 4 - 1st sentence severely run-on. Do not cite writer, not a specific citation.

Para 5 - line 5: "almost totally" is an oxymoron

Para 6 - line 4: remove question marks

Para 6 - line 1: add apostrophe and a 's' to govt

Otherwise, not bad. Sounds like more of an editorial rant than an essay, needs more support for the sweeping generalizations, but not bad.

[Rex]

I'll add a couple comments, as I struggle with re-writing the entire thing .

Opening paragraph doesn't seem to be an opening paragraph, nor does it seem to really have an opening sentence. At first, I thought it might just be a section of a paper, not the whole paper.

A couple other things I noticed, beyond Greg's comments.

- Be careful with how you end thoughts/sentences, as it's not good writing style to end a sentence with or have a comma following a preposition.- Spaces after the last word in a sentence and the punctuation should be removed.- Always challenge the use of the word “that”, as it’s generally fodder and isn’t necessary.

[PoorManQ45]

Para 2 - line 3, 9, 16: remove question marksline 16: Don't quote writer, not a direct citationline 18 apostrophe missing

I didn't put any question marks in there. I copied it from MS Word. That's probably why they're there.

Thank you for your help.

I ran into the word limit, that is why I don't have more supporting examples.

How would you guys re-wrire the intro?

[Rex]

The introductory paragraph should give the reader an idea of the assignment. They shouldn't need to read the entire document to understand/find the topic or find the purpose.

Were you asked to write about un-necessary laws? (my guess after 3 -4 reads)

[PoorManQ45]

I'll add a couple comments, as I struggle with re-writing the entire thing .

Be my guest

[PoorManQ45]

The introductory paragraph should give the reader an idea of the assignment. They shouldn't need to read the entire document to understand/find the topic or find the purpose.

Were you asked to write about un-necessary laws? (my guess after 3 -4 reads)

No, this is actually a paper for English. We could write about anything we wanted to.

[PoorManQ45]

Here's an update of the Intro paragraph. It somewhat ties the whole thing together:

The United States of America was declared an independent nation in 1776. The United States Constitution, which is now the document representing everything the nation stands for, was adopted in 1787. This document consisted of approximately 7500 words. Many people consider the Constitution very vague. What these people do not understand is that the Constitution was intentionally written to be vague. The drafters did not want to be too detailed. They feared that writing an extremely detailed Constitution would deny the citizens any rights that were not specified. Alexander Hamilton, one of the writers of the Constitution, argued that the Bill of Rights was too specific. He argued that specifying any rights at all would imply the absence of other rights. The Constitution is a model of flexible law that can evolve with changing times and unforeseen circumstances. This remarkable document, shorter than EPA's benzene rules, gave us three branches of government and a Bill of Rights built on vague principles like "due process."

[PoorManQ45]

Otherwise, not bad. Sounds like more of an editorial rant than an essay, needs more support for the sweeping generalizations, but not bad.

I'm going to add this in with the OSHA stuff:

"Several years ago, there were horror stories of workers who were asphyxiated and had died in a meat-packing plant while checking a giant vat of animal blood. Then it happened again at the same plant. OSHA had done virtually nothing, however, because it had no rule that applied to the situation. Stretched thin giving out citations all across America for infractions like improper railing height, OSHA also had not reinspected a plant that had admittedly deplorable conditions. Confronted with its own ineptitude, OSHA?s response was to pass a universal rule requiring the installation of atmospheric testing devices in all confined spaces, without exception." Glen-Gery has large bins in which it stores clay. No one can get inside of them unless they are empty. The bins are cleaned once a year, and there has never been an incident. However, the rule applies. So rather than spending thousands of dollars on atmospheric testing devices, Glen-Gery welded the doors shut. Now, once a year, workers have to open the bins with a blowtorch, go in and clean them, and then weld them shut again. Because of a safety rule, opening a hatch with a handle is now a job for a blowtorch.

And possibly putting this at the end:

By allowing the government to create an over-abundance of excessively precise laws, we have effectively created a government of laws, not of men.

[PoorManQ45]

Ok, here's my last revision, I'm turning it in today. Pray for me!!!

[Rex]

PMQ - Not sure what "level" this is for, but I would have never called it a bad paper, and I understand how pasting something into a forum from MS Word can cause "weirdness". My guess is you'll do fine. I would have re-written, but between the headache I have today and the things I need to get done before leaving for the holidays , I didn't have the hour to do so. I did have 10 minutes to offer some feedback though .

I find myself writing communications more frequently, than when I first moved into my current position (job). I had thought my writing abilities were above average, but have since learned the best evaluation of written communication is “audience comprehension”.

Notice I "broke" some of my own rules .

[Altiman94]

the 2nd intro looks much better. Never forget to have a clearly stated thesis statement and to make sure all of the ideas tie into that thesis and explain it thoroughly. Your thesis is essential what you want your paper to be about, and the ideas you will be concentrating on.

Edit: I actually got back my research paper on the Versailles Conference/Treaty of 1919 today in Western Civilization II. I was happy to see I received a B+.

[PoorManQ45]

I rarely ever state a thesis. That is not my style. I just write. And then i'll go back and edit it to make sure everything fits together.

BTW, I turned the paper in. I got a 96 on it

[Altiman94]

well, once you get into college courses you will see that you have to state a thesis, thast just the correct way to write an essay.