VOMIT to the Nth Degree

i hate my life. Most people, they just do whatever the hell they want, say what's on their mind, and move on. i don't get that luxury. i keep giving and giving, and wonder why i can't give more, any better. i keep my mouth shut, i just roll with the punches. And then eventually everything builds up. All the nasty things that i've been holding inside, the things people have done to hurt me, it becomes infected and just explodes, like a blister, or something infected, or vomit. i cannot deal with things in a healthy way. i keep letting people walk on me, and keep putting others first, and keep getting emotionally raped, and if i say anything at all, everyone tells me to shut up, so what do i do? i can't shut up. It explodes. It HAS to come out. So it does. And i know it's ugly, but i don't care anymore. i don't care in the slightest. Because my anger feels righteous, because it overwhelms me, because i am just so sick of the entire universe dissing me when i am trying so hard to be selfless and loving. And it's always the same cycle. Kristi puts on her happy face, acts like everything is okay, keeps giving even when she's going out of her mind with the pain and hurt, and then the explosion. But no one cares, no one EVER says they are sorry, or makes up for it, or (God forbid) helps. Kristi hides in a corner in the dark, covered in vomit, and cries her pain out. She wipes off her face and gets back up and the vicous cycle continues. Each and every time i do not know how to keep going, i desperately want to give up, but i don't know how to do that, either. My prayers go nowhere, what is the point in praying? My hopes are dashed, why did i let myself hope? No one answers my questions, no one tells me it's going to be all right, and even if they did i wouldn't believe them, because it's NOT all right. It never has been and i'm afraid it never will be. The dark owns me now. i am caged, i am on my face in the dirt, my hands are raw and blistered and bloody and beyond recognition from holding on.

It doesn't matter. No one notices. Tomorrow it will be the same as every other day in my life, slightly worse than the day before. i'm so sick of acting like everything is okay, of actually hoping that things will be better tomorrow, when they never have been, so why should they ever be?

i have lost nearly all my faith now. i do not have a mustard seed. There is now way to bear it. What does it matter if i get a job or even could have gotten the guy? He apparently doesn't want me any more than God does. i don't want any more promises whispered like prayers, they are all broken, just like my heart. So i will continue to lie in the dirt. i don't know if i can get up tomorrow, try anymore, but i have said that before. Even if i do get up, what is the point? All i do apparently is let people down while allowing them to screw me over, i have done nothing worthy of praise or appreciation, so why keep trying at all? It would only be the beginning of the next vicious cycle.

The Presumed Decay of the English Language

The question of if the English language is in a state of decay has been a theme that’s run throughout the course of this class. It is in the minds of the educated when they look at the vocabulary of today’s young people, in both written and spoken usage. The concern has also been a on the minds of writers for the past couple hundreds of years, and in all actuality, even longer than that. This naturally causes me to wonder if the English language is actually in a state of “decay” and what (if anything) can be done to fix it.

“Language IS [sic] understanding, which makes an author's use of language a clear guide to the nature of that author's understanding” (Atkinson, path: Language), yet many of the sources I researched did not seem to have a good grasp on coherently writing while using the English language. Atkinson, using a very broad definition of civilization, puts forth that everything is in a state of decline, from language to morality. He claims that this started with the French Revolution (path: Start of Our Decline); from a Christian viewpoint, I personally feel that any such decline began a lot longer ago, back when original sin occurred. This is a question of worldview: when do you believe that humanity was at its peak?

I did not study Atkinson’s writings in depth; however, his premise seems to be contradictory. He states that a book written in 1935 is less clear than one written in 1776 (path: Language), because the latter is not written in “Plain English.” He does not write using very plain English, and a very common complaint that today’s students have is that books written hundreds of years ago were not written using understandable English, either. This is not just a question of changes of spelling (as cited by Keller as one of the types of evidence for decay in the German language), but of the definitions for words and figures of speech having changed over time. This observation is a fact that does not support or disprove the existence of decay, in my opinion.

Lo, for his part, makes a completely different point about writing in Colonial times:

The 18th century view of language is one of decay and decadence. Their reasoning is that the old Indo-European languages like Sanskrit, Greek and Latin all have complex declension and conjugation schemes, where as the modern Indo-European languages have far fewer cases for declension and conjugation. This "loss" of declension and conjugation cases was a result of speakers of the language getting increasingly careless about their speech (read "lazy"), so the modern speakers are "decadent" as they have allowed the once complex language to decay into such a "simple" language.

Here is the issue from a completely different angle, that English itself was a decayed language from its infancy. I have always been taught that English was the language of the commoners and was a mish mash of multiple language sources that were incorporated into one, making this opinion an obvious one. The church fought to keep the Bible from being translated into such a corrupt language, and the language of the educated and governmental functions in Britain was Latin for a long time, even as the court conversed in English. Today the English language continues to adopt new words; it is always adapting and expanding: that in itself is the antithesis of decay.

Lo also cites two other theories about language decay, the first being that “language change is simply a slow shift of the ‘idealized form’ by small deviations” such as simplifications and errors in pronunciation. In a similar vein:

...At the beginning a small part of a population pronounces certain words that have, for example, the same vowel, differently than the rest of the population. This occurs naturally since humans don't all reproduce exactly the same sounds. However, at some later point in time, for some reason this difference in pronunciation starts to become a signal for social and cultural identity. Others of the population who wish to be identified with the group either consciously or (more likely) unknowingly adopt this difference, exaggerate it, and apply it to change the pronunciation of other words.

Here is where regional changes in English come in, because children are likely to pronounce words with the same accent and inflection as the people they grow up around. Lo combines these two concepts when he writes: “children of immigrants almost always learn the language of their friends at school regardless of the parents' dialect or original language.” Regional slang can be a good example of this phenomenon, for example with the words “y’all” and “ain’t,” which aren’t grammatically acceptable in formal English, but are part of many Americans’ cultural identity. Which still begs the question, is this decay?

I believe that decay is too strong of a word: evolving or devolving would be closer. The common complaint is that “media and the schools are at fault” (Keller); this statement is both true and false. There are good influences and bad, and education (or the lack thereof) strongly influences society. The English language has always changed and will always change, who is there that can say with absolute certainty that it is decaying? I believe that it grows as it decays, as when the ashes of a forest fire nourish the new growth that takes the fills the void left by the destruction. This is a poetic and extreme example, I do not believe that English is dead or just born, but in a constant state of flux that amuses and inspires some, saddens and disturbs others. Other languages came before English, and other languages will someday take its place, there is not one moment in time where the English language is perfect, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop this change, it just is.

Bibliography
Atkinson, Phillip. “A Study of Our Decline.” A Theory of Civilization. 2000. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/impact/index.htm His claim is that civilization is utterly morally bankrupt and that there is nothing that can be done to reverse this process. He says the English language has decayed, and cites examples of books written in Colonial Times to one written in the 20th century, because the newer book is impossible to understand while the former was easier to read. The language he uses is very difficult to understand and is not clear.
--- “Noun Adjectives.” Accessed 7 May 2008. Refers to the writings of Lord Dunsany (Edward Plunkett). I believe that he’s referring mostly to newspaper headlines, but again, difficult to understand.
Keller, Rudi. “Is the German Language Going to the Dogs?” Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.joern.de/tipsn134.htm This article starts out by quoting someone who is discrediting his own view. It responds to several such quotes. It is difficult to make out what he is saying because his examples are in German.
Lo, Lawrence. “Why Do Languages Change?” Ancient Scripts. 2005. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.ancientscripts.com/hl_why.html Using simple words (finally), Lo outlines different theories about why (or even if) language decay is taking place. He writes using clear language and actually makes sense.
Marsh, George P. “Corruptions of Language.” Paradox Application. 1863. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.bibles.n7nz.org/marsh/lectur29.html How can something written on the supposed decay of the English language have any bearing on the current state of things when it was written 155 years ago? Marsh fails to use coherent English, loves misusing big words, and seems to think that English is going to the dogs because men are acting feminine.
Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” George Orwell. May 1945. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/language.html What astounds me is how these individuals who are intent on proving that the English language is in a state of decay abuse and misuse it. I have no idea why the word politics is in the title really, the subject is hardly mentioned. Meanwhile, Orwell seems to purposefully be obtuse and uses words in the wrong way himself. Maybe if I could actually understand what he’s failing to say?
Plunkett, Edward. “Claim on the Decay of Language.” Donnellan Lectures. 1943. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/nb021.htm Quote from a lecture...lamenting the fact that nouns are being used as adjectives.

final State and Local Government chapter assignment

What are some of the unsolvable problems that fall within the scope of government's responsibility? Are there ways of matching public expectations with realistic assessments of capacity? Is the public capable of appreciating the complexity of some issues instead of pressing for simple solutions? Also, please remember to write a summary of the main points of the chapter, as well as respondng to the question.

The majority of the problems that this chapter is discussing do not fall within the scope of the government's responsibility at all (in my opinion). It is not the government's job to find people work or save money for them so they can vacation. It is not its responsibility to provide medical care, housing, or education. These are not responsibilities granted in the Constitution, and I doubt that they are in state constitutions, either. Historically, local governments have been responsible for education, and now states are, and as time goes by the federal government has become more and more involved in regulating and trying to solve the problems that pervade this system. Meanwhile the quality of the education of American students has gone from bad to worse. I don't care if the majority of people have been brainwashed into thinking that it's the government's job to fix everything, it can't, it's not their responsibility, and usually their interventions only make matters worse, and this is why democracy has been historically proven to be ineffectual. I want to know who gave the federal, all the way down through the local, government god-like status and started taking away the rights of its citizens? Before the Constitution was written, there was the Declaration of Independence, which affirms that all men have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the government stops protecting life, guarding liberty, and begins limiting, even infringing upon, the individual's ability to pursue happiness, those actions make the government ineffectual and negligent, if not criminally culpable. The government cannot solve these problems for us, neither should it try to. Individuals must be responsible for their own actions and finding their own prosperity.

Regarding protection of the environment (at least under today's definitions), such a concept probably did not come into the minds of the Founding Fathers because they did not know what technologies would be invented and cause such widespread problems. The government cannot limit where a citizen goes, when, or in what manner. It cannot tell people that they can't buy the car they want to buy or go on their vacation because it would cause too much pollution. Instead the government already taxes the gas that people buy to fuel their car. Create more grants to companies that are trying to discover cleaner burning fuels and ways to electrically power cars. Encourage other ways of living green, for instance, instead of pushing formula and chemical laden diapers into new mother's faces, educate them about the healthy and better alternative of breastfeeding and using cloth diapers. Maybe the government could provide tax incentives to recycling companies and people who recycle, or tax the people who are putting needless waste into landfills. But the government doesn't educate, it doesn't support healthy choices, it pushes bad alternatives on us instead. Instead of rewarding good choices they reward bad ones, further contributing to the problems that they are causing while claiming that they are trying to solve them. If all levels of the government are as in tune with the wants and needs of its citizens as it claims, then the policymakers need to get with the program and start using their heads. If the local government wants to further economic growth so they can increase their base then they need to stop impeding said economic growth.

State and local governments cannot decrease dependence on welfare programs by increasing funding and creating new welfare programs. Instead, it would make more sense to start providing grants to starting and maintaining effective privatized assistance programs that will eventually be funded solely by donations. The largest problem with the criminal system is that many offenders are released too early or do not serve any time at all. While incarceration is costly, if an individual has been declared guilty by a jury then they have lost certain freedoms because of their crimes and must pay a debt to society. Sending the message that criminals will not be punished or can get a Get Out of Jail Free card does not discourage crime, nor does the punishment fit the crime. Similarily, it is not the responsibility of government to discourage or prevent crime in any other way, it is its responsibility to bring offenders to justice.

Public education as it currently exists is ineffectual and causing more problems, these problems need to be taken out of the hands of the lawmakers and put back into the hands of the parents. This is why juvenile crime is up, because some parents are no longer disciplinging or raising their children, but instead are expecting the school system to do it for them. That is not the job of any school, to stand in the place of the parent. Their job is to instill knowledge through learning, which is not what the system is focused on doing so much as control. Public schools throw information at their students, not expecting or desiring them to retain said information. What the system cares about more than anything else is attendance. If the student is in class, that's all that seems to matter. If they pass their tests and do their homework, so much the better! It doesn't matter if they are learning, what matters is if each student jumps through all the hoops and arbitrary requirements that have been put into place so they can make the ultimate achievement: they can get a little piece of paper that the rest of the world can see and approve of. This is lunacy. This does not improve society and does a disservice to each and every student.