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'

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

"Have you figured out yet that I'm going as a cadaver, an anatomical gift? Hopefully, I won't be admitted soon, but when I do go it will be a fulfillment of my childhood dream of going to med school."

Samrau's writing strategy of keeping information from his readers assists the intent of this essay. Without forthright saying that people should donate their bodies to science, Semrau successfully illustrates his point in why people should do so. He uses the idea of recycling in saying that donating your body is the right thing to do, for it will be recycled and put to good use, instead of rotting in the ground. Many people consider recycling an important part of their lives and relating it to Semrau's argument makes the idea seem very positive. I believe the intent of this essay is to inform the readers that donating to science is beneficial to everyone after death. Semrau's writing strategy of drawing in the reader with a story of how his life has gone works because many people can hopefully relate. He tells a story of the advice he was given and how it really stuck in his mind because of a childhood dream. He wittingly changes the topic of the essay by saying he is fulfilling his dream by going to medical school as a cadaver, which intrigues the reader to finish reading the article. This makes the writing strategy effective in conveying Semrau's point.

Savior of the Nations Come

As someone reads or sings "Savior of the Nations Come", a central theme appears: God sent Jesus Christ to conquer death, sin and hell so that all believers may be with God and our Savior in heaven. This hymn discusses Jesus' birth in God's plan, Jesus' rejection by man, and his eternal kingdom in order to open human eyes to the glory of God. Praising of the Lord for these verifiable truths take place to further support the theme of God's plan to save us all. Luther also mentions how important it is that we do not let worldly problems get in the way of our faith. We should fix our eyes upon the cross. We should praise God for all He has done for us as well.
      Luther impressively uses the literary tool description in the sixth verse of the hymn. He paints a saint-like picture in the minds of the readers by describing the as "shining" as the Jesus was being brought into the sinful world. Luther's description makes it very easy for one to paint their own picture of Christ's glorious, yet humble, beginnings. The mental image is very powerful, and Luther does an excellent job using description to accurately describe Jesus' birth.

Sermon comparisons

The themes between Borghardt's sermon Edward's sermon are very different. Borhardt's sermon is what Christ did for us. He talks about how Christ will come and call our names. He talks about how Christ ROSE for us so that we may live with Him and the saints. In Edward's sermon he says that we are condemned. He only refers to God’s wrath, not what Jesus has done for us. He discusses how we are sinners in the hands of an angry God. Edward should not be so harsh and should share the Gospel for a more effective sermon.