The Modern Lexicon is One Written by the People

                Slang, by those who consider themselves educated, is the degeneration of the human language. When examining slang under a microscope it plays as nothing more than the sudo-speak of an increasingly dumber American society, nothing less than what is making Americans so dumb. But is slang necessary for the evolution of man? Also, what has made slang the new standard for the average citizen of the most prolific country in the world? In search of these answers we must go back in history to find the origins of a blended jargon created by the people for the people, and why it may be the “new” standard of English for the coming millennia.

                Slang is nothing new for the base groups of cultures around the English speaking world. For instance, small villages in Middle England spoke with words that were not found in the vocabulary of the aristocracy. Examples of this can be found in Shakespearian work from the entire career of The Bard. Slight jabs towards the political realm of England were found in purposely-altered structure of Shakespeare’s most famous works. Eras in history such as the Great Depression and the Civil Rights Movement are examples of clashing alter-cultures together, creating a need to bridge the gap. It was impossible at the beginning of the Information and Space Age for Americans to not adapt to the ever-shifting world and its need for a new, dominate language that could join those of varying speech levels. Thus, the common-era of slang within day to day language became common place.

 Today, the vocabulary of the average student is about 10,000 words; a vocabulary that is at a 60% decline from 1945. Words that are not counted however are words, in slang, that we use day to day to describe new concepts. Props, for example, is a word used to give recognition as well as describe manipulated set-pieces to create an effect. In fact, that sentence was not recognized by spell check as correct, and why? Why should the average American have to revert back to the old way to Standard English when man can get by perfectly fine with his current vernacular? The average American vocabulary would probably be double its current count if lexicographers could bother with increasing the size of the dictionary to fit the new standard of the world. The argument that English has deteriorated to its current state is a flawed one. The reality is simply that a dying breed is holding onto the ways of old at any cost. I started this topic by stating that slang was a jargon created by the people for the people. Well, this means so much more than an evolutionary argument for the English language. If language defines us as a people, then slang most certainly defines America as a country that not only accepts the difference in all circles of people, but also as a country that will eventually blend the ideas of several cultures together. Slang is a testament to the acceptance and reason within the mind of the modern man, a language that every living, English speaking person can identify with in some way, and something that can unite us as a humanity that has finally begun reaching maturity. Ignorance is the driving force behind the slander against slang. And it will eventually be held in contempt. Slang is the evolutionary blueprint of a language that will be the standard for humanity in the future; it has become our process of creating words to suit our day to day lives. It is necessary for progress, and it is more efficient than continuing to adopt words from older languages to suit our needs.

In the end we find that our intelligence has been far from deteriorated in the past 50 to 100 years. We have evolved as a society, within our language, to suit the needs of all social circles within our spoken realm. We have achieved a unified understanding through an irregular-lexicon that not only should be understood but should be taught for the betterment of the English speaking world. Standard English may still be the official standard, but if Darwin at all knows his stuff, then slang will begin to prevail in the battle for the modern standard in the 21^st century.

Works Examined:

http://www.ledonline.it/mpw/allegati/mpw0506mattiello.pdf

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/957

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

Listening to Interviews, but unfortunately, not on mute

Mamatas' voice is at least annoying. At most it is repulsive to hear him because he is almost happy to have been such a swindler, crook, etc. He chuckles in between his stories because it must seem funny to him to be more capable than his clients. His diction is somewhat sophisticated and snide similar to Michael Moore if anyone has ever watched a Michael Moore film. His tone is calm, but it is also giddy at the same time, and honestly, hearing him hasn't changed my opinion for him at all. I thought he was a intelligent, but at the same time I thought that he was overly critical or cynical in my original piece. After hearing some of his comments, they have simply put a greater stigma of him in my mind. I don't find his work all that criminal because some people really do need help, so you can't call out an entire business for a few people that abuse the system. I think his voice made me flat out irritated because of his self-righteous tone. It's sad to think that he even went as far as to turn his clients in after he had taken their money. For people that hate him, this was a more resounding effect because you could hear his cynicism. For people that agree with him, they should read his article instead of listen because he isn't very pleasant to listen to, which is of course my opinion.

Based on an Interview with Nick Mamatas (http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2008/11/28/segments/116673)

The Term Paper Artist Explication

The "Term Paper Artist" by Nick Mamatas is a short summarization of his involvement with the paper mill business. The article is broken up into three major parts, but this is only at first. Mamatas quickly explains the way a paper mill works and the types of clients that he receives. He starts by covering his act saying, "Writing model term papers is above-board and completely legal." This is only morally relevant if you care that what Mamatas does is legal. The importance is that the service is easily accessible, making it available to his three types of clients. First are the dumb clients. These clients in the words of Mamatas, "- should not be in college." Their paper models are outlined and simplified to the utmost point. The second group is the one timers. They are usually students that are stuck with a class that is out of their element but are otherwise intelligent. Lastly, the third group is the well-educated person that lacks English skills, the group Mamatas has the most sympathy for. Mamatas states, "In their home countries, they were engineers, medical professionals, and scientists. In general, they are usually intelligent foreigners that require someone who has mastered the English language to get by on long, complex papers.

Along with the workings of the business itself, the article explains the main components of a successful term paper writer. "My friends - generally made the same fundamental error. They tried to write a term paper." Mamatas further explains, when trying to summarize the reason that most people fail at term paper writing. A term paper is about length and citations, for the most part, and Mamatas goes as far as to say that the content can be filled with meaningless nonsense as long as you are on topic. But at the end of the rhetoric, Mamatas tries to make the reader understand the failings of the upper education system. Universities prey on our inability to understand what professors want out of us. They expect us to know how to write without examples of how by simply understanding the content. Mamatas parallels this by stating, "Imagine trying to write a novel, for a grade, under a tight deadline, without having ever read a novel." The point that becomes obvious by the end of the article, Mamatas is disgusted with the fact that there is a need for his service, but he is not willing to call himself guilty because it is not a moral flaw, on his part. It is more a flaw in the educational system. 

I have to agree with Mamatas because he is for the most part right. Universities will gladly fail certain demographics because there will be more money out of it for them, making their service a fraud. Also, he does hit on the fact that by asking for this service, students are simply cheating themselves, so they are frauds. Contrarily though, Mamatas refuses to take responsibility for his part in it because he's just trying to make a living and others involved should be more responsible. The reason is obscure and unfair, but term papers exist to test students on their ability to come up with a great amount of regurgitated words from very little information in a small amount of time. Obviously, this is a useful skill for Mamatas, so he is also being a hypocrite and a fraud. His intent is good willed and clearly expressed, but perhaps, Mamatas should reevaluate his choices in life to make money before criticizing the choices of universities to make money. At the end of the day, everyone is trying to make money, and everyone is willing to bend the rules to get by in life. Everyone is guilty of hypocrisy and fraud, and this seems to be the true, underlying point of the cynical "term paper artist".