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.

Conserve, Reuse, Recycle

        Waldemar Semrau's main sentence describing his point is"Of the three, I prefer to focus on reuse."

        Semrau is basically explaing how even after retirement and even death he wants himself and his body to continue to work. Even after his jobs at GM and Dow Chemical Company he's still had the desire to work. He has always thought "green" and do as much for the community as he could. So he decided when he dies he's going to donate his body to Harvard Medical School. He figured that everything can be reused for a purpose, and his purpose was science. His dream was also to go to Harvard, so in a way its his personal gain. Semrau had always had his mind set on giving his body to science and when he opened a fortune cookie that read "You will be involved in many humaanitarian projects", he knew it was the right thing for him to do.

        The purpose of this story is that we should give back to the earth, what it and God has given to us. Anything can be productive and useful when it is used over again and again.

"Saviors of the Nation, Come"

In Luther's hymn ,"Saviors of the Nations, Come" he uses tools such as diction to convey the aspect of Christs sacrifice for mankind and the salvation of the world. When Luther says "Not by human flesh and blood, by the spirit of our God, was the word of God made flesh." he describes to us, how that without God we ourselves are useless, and could never reach eternal salvation. He then goes on and tells us that by the spirit and power of God we are made holy. In this passage "Wondrous birth! O wondrous child
of the virgin undefiled! Though by all the world disowned, still to be in heaven enthroned." Luther uses words such as wondrous, undefiled, and disowned, to explain the traits of God's son, the Virgin Mary, and the sinful cruel world. Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross by us and for us. He was sent to save us, but we turned on Him. Though we did this God has forgivven us and given us a spot with Him in heave.

God's Wrath vs. God's Forgiveness

24 times Christ is mentioned: He is, He took, He was slain, lives, sees, rose, etc.

Edwards sermon was based on negativity. He explained the wrath of God and our condemnation. He used fear to show us how we are sinners, and that we deserve hell and God's punishment. He then briefly explains how God doesn't condemn us and instead show us mercy. Borghardt's sermon does the opposite. He explains how God shows grace and mercy on us. How God sent His one and only son for us so that we could join with Him in paradise. Borghardt's sermon is very positive. He tells us God is pure and is good.