Chapter 11

In the concluding paragraph of "Amusing Ourselves To Death" Postman informs us that education and disaster have unfortunately become an inseparable piece in today's society. Television is trying to educate and inform the youth at the same time, but the two cannot co-exist.  Television is meant for entertainment, not education. However, many fail to realize the regressing effects television has and it is taking a negative toll on the intelligence of our society. We become reliant, almost addicted, to entertainment. There is no extensive thinking necessary or any previous knowledge required on the topic of the minute. Today's society believes that most everything should be televised, including entertainment. But will the children remember anything if it is not funny? Or if it is, will they think history or math is funny? Modern Society=entertainment will make the future. Truth=entertainment will ruin the future. 

Challenges

Not talking wasn't that bad. If someone asked me a question and i didn't respond, they immediately knew I was in APLang and i had no further explaining to do. The biggest challenge I faced was Spanish class. Only two members of the class were able to speak and, being an interactive class, we did not accomplish much. I think not talking for a day was much easier than the 24 hour media fast.

Postman video

  In both Amusing Ourselves to Death and Dr. Postman's interview, he discusses the changes that are taking place in the medium of communication. In the book, he tells that his book examines "the decline of the Age of Typography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television". In other words, he explains how as time advances, our society will use written works less and less. Instead, everything will change into televised events. In the video, Postman also predicts how people will change in the future. He quotes the author who wrote Being Digital, "In the next millennium we will find we are talking with, as much or more, machines as human beings." Postman predicts that people will begin talk to door knobs and toasters as if it is completely normal to talk to non-living objects. He claims that people are already beginning to do this by talking to their answering machines. Another argument he makes to convince his audience this will happen is that people adapt to many things. For example, a soldiers in war get used to killing and consider it the norm. In the same way, people will adapt to talking to machines. Postman gets across the same point in the book and the video, the changes taking place in society are steps backward, not forward.

   The video and book also relate in that they both talk about the importance of image. During the interview, Postman expresses his belief that in the near future a human being will be cloned. A sheep and monkey have already been cloned. He also discusses the idea that every human born will have a clone that they lock up and if the person every needs a kidney or other body part for a transplant, they will take it from their clone. In the book, Postman says that TV newscasters spend more energy on appearance than on reading their scripts. He also mentions "cheating" for or magazines. The picture shown on the front cover of a magazine is not an accurate portrayal of their actual appearance. His point is clear in both the video and book, and our concern with image instead of knowledge will destroy us.

To be civil, Or not to be civil; That is the question

The first six words of the article "Civility in public discourse is important" immediately reveals Chavez's opinion. Clearly stating your opinion is the first step in writing good literary works. She is "taking a shot" at the over sensitive people who blame uncivil language as the reason for the shooting in Tucson.

Chavez uses the word 'bellicose' as political examples. "When we say a candidate 'took his best shot,' we don't mean he aimed a gun at his opponent. Nor does 'firing a shot across the bow' mean anything more than issuing a strong warning." She indicates that those phrases with bellicosity are not meant to be taken in a threatening manner. She believes these phrases were recently misinterpreted and they should not have been, for these phrases make expressing oneself easier. Her opinion wasn't about original meanings of those words, it was about how people can use those phrases appropriately. I think she uses the word 'bellicose' to distinguish between the words that may seem hostile, but mean different things, and some words that really are offensive. 

I think Chavez is telling readers that people should be less sensitive about phrases that should not be taken offensively, yet are. By using the example of person being forced to resign, she accurately demonstrates how people overreact without doing their homework, as niggardly clearly was not offensive.

 She also mentions, "But words themselves aren't the problem -- it's what is behind the words that matters", to show how we can be offensive and hurtful not with poor language choices, but rather with tone and context. People are misinterpreting tone and it is causing more grief than it is worth. Besides, it is our choice to make effective argument, even with the words that are not necessarily belligerent.

I agree with Chavez's notion that it's our own desire to decide the meaning of sentence, not the words. 'One rotten apple spoils the barrel'