Grammar being taught in a high school class is indeed a rarity. In the article by Klose, he describes the lack of concentration on the simple rules of sentence structure. I must admit that at my high school, this was all to true. Teachers have lost a appreciation for teaching the proper form of writing. The task of teaching grammar becomes so arduous that most teachers try to skip teaching it and only require a rough introduction into literature, but they fail to realize that the basis of everything we can understand and gain from language comes from the basic understanding of how its structure. As far as I can recall, grammar was last a major part of the curriculum in the eighth grade. My junior high English teacher was Mrs. Sara C. Mrs. C made us breakdown sentences day and night, forcing us to learn the structure of formalized writing, which proved tedious task. For this I will be forever grateful to Mrs. C. It is because she took the time and energy to teach us grammar that we may have survived high school. When I entered the high school the introduction of literature and some vocabulary were the main focus of the teachers.

My first high school English course was taught by Mr. L, and about the only thing we learned that year was that S.H.I.T. was an acronym for Ship High In Transit and dealt with the movement of a sea craft through lock type canals. You can imagine how much my sense of the English language after that experience. There was not one paper, few tests, and basically if you wanted to cheat you bloody well could without reprimand.

The next teacher was Mr.J, after the healthy and full carrier of one year for Mr. L. Mr. J managed a great triumph in his reign. We read Romeo and Juliette and that was it. Mr. J did teach us about rudimentary grammar for two days so we could pass a state examination. Almost the entire class did miserably on it. Mr. J's term as English teacher was as short lived as Mr. L's.

Then came the bright spot of my high school English educational. Mrs. D had come back to her hometown to get away from the hectic journalism carrier she had in California and decided to teach at the high school. She introduced us to a wide range of literature that gave us a great deal of vocabulary knowledge, and she gave us creative projects, such as rewriting the Canterbury Tales into a more modern setting and language. However, grammar was by then supposed to basically be complete for our education. After we turned in our first papers, however, she was stunted with the barbarity in some of the grammar. Mrs. D did the best she could to point out our problems with writing, but by that time the demands for literature over grammar prevented her from concentrating on it.

If teachers started concentrating more on grammar and focused on literature towards the end of the high school education, students would be able to write with a level of competence greater than a chimp. But, as long as no one attempts the task, the degradation of language will continue to the point there will be no formalized form of writing.

I was really motivated by the February 18 reading "Concision". I started to analyze my writing in a whole new perspective. I have been told that my writing often gets too wordy, but I never imagined how damaging it was to my work's content. I think I have always tried to work more "poetics" or "flower" into my language because I thought that it made the work better. Let me tell you, the flowers had too much mulch on them. The relationship between a truck and the drag of its load was all too true. My writing was trying pull the Titanic back up for a maiden voyage, and its clarity was about as successful.

I decided to really burn off the linguistic "fat" in my essay. When we were assigned to enhance the conciseness of our papers in class, I found I took more time to judge my piece than anyone else. I had created the Guinness Book of World Records
newest addition. My paper was grossly bloated with meaningless words,double wording, inference adjectives and adverbs, and a host of other troubles. After two hours of laboring, I had a completely different paper in my hands. But, that was not the end of it, I reworded and deleted even more when I retyped my revisions. I finally figured out the best writers are those who are never satisfyed. A good writer is one who can look at a piece they have published, after tolling over it for months or even years, and say "I should have done ____." You have to understand that learning to write is a continually process that, if you are good at, will be a wonderful, if somewhat overwhelming, aspect. We never do, after all, learn how to do anything perfectly.

Now, I know that the idea of never being finished with what you write is a rather ogreish prospect, but grammar is not the only revision that should be made. How we communicate our ideas can be infinitely critiqued, but eventually the grammar issue has to give way to the expression of ideas "publishing". However, these ideas can also be critiqued. A good writer should review a past work with the same critique as any of their readers. Through time, our perspectives change and grow with every new idea that is presented to use. In a way, a past writing is written by an author who only exists in the time and space of the writing process. Looking at our past perspectives should be an eye opening experience for us, because our new perspectives gives us the ability to better our future writing and, gratefully, ourselves.

Racial profiling is easily seen in our society. From job placement to loan preferences, such discrimination is both painful and inhuman, but what is the root of all of this? Is it based in just race or has it become a matter of communication? Is it really a matter of simple difference in skin or is a matter of voice?

When European colonizers first came to this country, it was a lack in communication that led the settlers to believe that the Native Americans were savage. They were unable to grasp the culture and strict moral values from them, and there by allowed for the natives’ brutal treatment. However, miscommunication is only as strong as the people who enforce it.

When you consider the fact that Native American enslavement and eradication was actually an economic prospect rather than a moral objective, the idea that one would be denied living accommodations due to economic gain from the avoidance of racial desegregation, is morally disruptive and what is even worse overly human. Race is a factor in some communities where individuals, who appear to be unbiased toward other races, prove less than eager to live with a culture other than their own. It is a natural occurrence for certain like groups to prefer close contact with those of their own likeness. Of course, so is viciously mauling anything that gives you a slight start or that you simply don’t like. During the European occupation, heads of state decided that the eradication of these "savages" was the only moral thing to do. For it was the will of God for "their" race to hold the resources and riches of these people. And of course if they never attempted to understand the native cultures they would always be, in their eyes, "savages," a deluded and sadistic mind set indeed.


So the attempts made by these royals are not that different from the attempts of some companies to segregate their housing sales to like cultures. The only difference is that this miscommunication is only made to aware by these companies, and they are structured to profit from this segregation of language. At least with the royals were insane enough to think it a morally righteous thing to decimate an entire race. What excuse do the companies have?