Essay (my computer was down)

 In George Orwell's essay, “Politics and the English Language, he discusses how the English language's lax in formality is the cause of our general lack of intelligence. Stating that our civilization has become lazy and leading toward collapse, our language must accompany it. To reverse the collapse, we must think more clearly. We are unable to think more clearly however, due to the habits of thinking we have learned because of speaking the English language. Reversing the collapse by yourself I useless however, as it is impossible to change or affect a whole language by being just one person. It takes a large group of people to make a change and time, as language is natural mechanic of our existence. Our capabilities of speech have evolved over time and have become part of our anatomy as any other structural advantage. Therefore, language is not something we can shape and change depending on our wants. It changes depending on our needs, whether needing to be complicated, or in Orwell's case, uncomplicated.

Orwell tells us that not only does the decline of our language affects us mentally, but it will also have political and economical affects. Language is a mean to critical thinking and our world has thrived on critical thinkers since the industrial age. Inventors creating complicated machines and methods to mass produce items to have our civilizations ascend to a global scale. Without language, we would be no more than animals. Consequently, if our language suffers, so will our economy because we will not be able to create such dynamic tools as before. It will suffer because the complexity of our factories, our inventors will have decreased. The average intelligence will have gone down. Politically, we will not be able to move forward to democratic times, resulting in totalitarian rule because democarcy requires that the masses are informed and are educated. The decline of language shows the decline of intelligence.

I agree with Orwell's position on the decline of our language. People have become lazy with their tongues and means of lifestyle due to the decadent parts of our lifestyles. If we have no point to move forward, we can't stay put. We will only move back. If language suffers, so does our ability to communicate. This leads to the decline of langauge because of our bad habits. To elaborate on our bad habits, Orwell states that the English language, “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thought are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts” (par.2) From my experience this is very true. We become very lazy because of the advance in our technology. Every year, people have a easier life than the year before. Because of this, it affects our language. This becomes a snowball affect; our langauge becomes affect, affecting our lifestyles, which affects our langauge, and so on. Therefore, we are unable to repair our language without political regeneration with out society.

Opening statement

 The voter base in America for years has been for everybody ages eighteen and on under the justification that they are educated enough to know they effects there vote has on their country. The voter age has been eighteen because people at that age seem to be educated enough to know what they are voting for, but should the voting age be lowered? I say it should, as lowering the voting age to six-teen will provide the option to young adults to vote on matters that will affect them when they are adults.
At eight-teen , you are able to be drafted into war, smoke, but not drink. As the voting age used to be 21, it had been lowered to eight-teen in the 26^th amendment on the grounds that in a draft you should have all your rights as a citizen. If you turn eight-teen as a draft is alive in our country, you would have had no choice to enter it or not. But, if the voting age was lowered to six-teen, new entrants into the army because of such a draft would have the choice to even start it. To avoid negative feelings, it should be lowered to prevent condemning unnecessary lives to warfare.

Students that are taught politics in school are politically active and denying their right to do so is destroying a useful voter base to stem stalemates between two parties. Marco Roth, a founding editor of politcal magazine n+1, states, in his article, “Lower the Voting Age!” that, “a lowered Voting age might just be the catalyst to help release our stalled democratic, revolutionary energies.” It will prove benefcial to our country to have this voter base and can provide a more politically active youth. The larger amount of voters would help end the fight between liberalism and republicanism, creatng bi-partisanship.

A lowered voting age would prove nothing but beneficial as having a wider base would be more fair and provide a cleaner point of view than older generations past. At six-teen, students are able to work a job and therefore pay taxes, so why shouldn't they have the right to vote too?

political power

 An trend has occurred in governments that when someone obtains power, they become completely corrupt. From the Romans, where Nero became a horribly corrupt ruler, to the United States and the scathing Water Gate scandal. It is human nature to use what we have as advantages over other people to gain for ourselves. Fighting for their seat in office, or simply having the throne passed down to the, people will use their power over others to gain for themselves. Leaders will be motivated to do what they want, whether it be money, indulgence, desire, because they have a whole nation for them to seize if from. However, as everything is in nature, nothing is identical.

There are the few, glorious leaders within out time who have cast aside their greed and desire, and have taken a step back. Knowing that they have a whole nation depending on them to improve life, they have actually done their job. Role models for all leadership, those who have a publicly clean slate in office, are the ones who have not been tainted by corruption. Shining examples from America have been Abraham Lincoln, JFK, and now, Barack Obama. They are the posters fr justice in government. Having not embellished funds, or sex scandals dirtying their reputation, they are free from corruption. There is something that makes them different however.

They have known the means to achieve their end. With a plan of justice, improvement, and a hint of cunning, they can and will improve the country, being seen as an actual leader. Unlike common leaders, who take from public funds, or tyrants whose whole country is built on sating their thrist, they have n9ot come into leadership without a plan. With knowing the means to their end, they can justify and execute their means. Each example has come into office with a goal, and each has more or less completed their goals

The answer to the question “does political power corrupt the people who attain it?” is a mix quandary. In a such a broad field, it is impossible to find a single certain trend that every instance follows.

Who ever said college isn't important?

 In today's growing economy, the selectivity of employer's has significantly increased with competition from oversea companies and employees working over long lines of communication, making it all the harder for the professionals to find a career in the local job search. To get ahead, however, it is important to know what employers look for. To become the best choice, it is necessary to get the best college education available.

With colleges nowadays being the most institutionalized form of post-high school education, you can find at least one university of community college in your immediate area, all offering classes and degrees. You can go anywhere to obtain skills that can be used in a job.

Despite this, where you go is important; having the best degree gets you the best job, from which you earn the most money. By these standards, you are “happy”; being more or less free from financial strains. On that note, the answer to the question, “Will you have a better life if you go to an elite college or university” is yes, based on how what college you went is seen by your employer and the quality of training you receive.

From Richard D Kahlenberg's article, “Does It Matter Where You Go To College?”, he states “We wage war in this country over affirmative action in higher education because people realize that attending a selective college with a large endowment offers numerous advantages, which can put students on a more favorable trajectory in life.” (http://www.nytimes.com)The wealth of a college makes it name known because money is power, and in this case, it is the power to teach. Slap any name onto Harvard and it will still be one of the best because of it's wealth. Kahlenberg uses this idea at his beginning of his article because it is the core of defining the difference between Hayward University nd Cambridge.

Obtaining your training from an elite college is almost a surefire way to have a more quliaty education. The reasoning behind that statement is common sense and coincides with the fact about money: the more you got, the more you can do.

However, determining if you are happy or not by what college you go to is a very poorly planned question. It is necessary to take out the factors of each individual person, any events that could negativly affect a person or any abnormalities someone might have.