Introduction...

The feeling somebody has when they have lost something, gives a clear definiton of their desires. The instant reaction is to get it back, and try to never lose it again. Though what happens when it has been gone for a substantial amount of time? The desire starts to fade and soon the thought of that object wears off. Our society is this way with technology. Technological advancements is a want not a necessity, and just like we did before futuristic inventions, we can live without it. This can prove Postman's point, that if our society is able to put oursleves through a long period of time without the use of technology, we would learn to not be so dependent on it.

Wrap It Up

At the end of Postman's book he distinguishes between laughter and actually thinking it through. He says that we really dont know why we are laughing when we aren't using any thought process. In his book, he pretty much sums up all the dangers of television. Typography has decended due to television and newer technology. Take blogger for example, now were doing our homework on the internet. This is postman's argument wrapped up in a nutshell. We're going along with everything that comes our way, laughing without thinking, and all this he says comes from the creation of the television.

Technology is the New Standard

Dr. Postman described in his interview the effects technology has done to us, that make us truly rely on its use and have taken over the way that we live. Postman says we are becoming "pets" to technology. He says how there are some many different ways communication is accesible without being in the same room as someone else, such as facebook, myspace, e-mail and others. As a society we have become so dependent on the use of technology that cloning humans is right around the corner. Pretty soon cloning will become natural in the world, as animals have been tested on and humans are next. Technology is the master and we are the students, and before we know it we will be answering to technology.

Metaphors, Civility, and Language Debate

1. "Civility in public discourse is important" by stating this Chavez is stressing the importance of public disdain and orderly conduct. It is important to use polite terms, even if arguing with others, in a conversation so that no one is offended by any indecent comment. Different people interpret words in different ways so it is important to provide further explanation.

2. Chavez uses the word bellicose to describe metaphors and phrases used to add affect to a statement, that have had changing descriptions over the years. Chavez uses bellicose  because many political terms also relate to war terms. "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." Chavez eplains the overexaggeration of these phrases and shows how they could be used offensively.

3.Chavez attempts to make the reader believe that the use of words is not the problem, but rather the context and tone used to say the word. Its not the words the speaker chooses to use, its the way they choose to use them. I think that her best example is when the Los Angeles Times did a style manual that restricted  the use of some words: "Indian," "Hispanic," "ghetto," even "inner-city." It shows how offensive words to some nationalitys are being further looked in to, in the opposite's eyes. I would have to agree with Chavez because she makes a valid point about how words are not the source of the directed offensive statement, but it is the person that says and uses the words that creates the offensive nature of the word. Racism, prejudice, and discrimination is still encountered today, but have been masked by terms that are seen as the 'norm' in the eyes of the public.