Chapter 11

Postman makes the distinction between entertainment/laughing and thinking. Instead of thinking what they are laughing about, people just laugh even though they do not know the reason why. Postman says that people laugh and are entertained instead of thinking. They do not realize they are living in entertainment. They stop thinking when they are entertained. This distinction is important because Postman did not want to write-off entertainment, but instead he wanted to warn the viewers of the dangers of entertainment. He is telling the viewers that entertainment is taking over the informational role and logical thought process that the printed world established. His main point is that society is in the dark about entertainment and how it is taking away people's thought processes and turning their brains into mush.

Postman

         During Postman's interview he quotes a professor at MIT, "In the next millennium, we will find we are talking more with machines, than we are with humans." In his book he quotes the second commandment, "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth." When people talk more to machines and pay attention to them more than humans, we are creating new gods in all technology. By creating machines and placing them before humans and God, we are essentially increasing the process of Amusing Ourselves to Death.
          Postman discusses cloning in his interview. He says it will soon be a main idea in our world. He states that people will rely on clones to be able to fix their body parts if something goes wrong. For example, he says if someone needs a kidney or a lung you can take it from the clone. By doing this we would become selfish. In his book he says people only care about their outward appearance. Postman is convinced that in the future our image will become the most important thing to us and we will become unaware of the things around us.

Metaphors, Civility and Language Debate

1.Chavez' intent with the first six words of her column is to show that civility in public discourse will be the theme of the article. Chavez wants us to question what is considered civil language and what is not.
2.Chavez uses the word bellicose as agresssive. She uses this word to show that politics is about people battling against their opponent as to trying to win over the people. Her intent was to show that candidates use aggressive metaphors to get their point across, so that people may follow them.
3. Chavez is attempting to persuade the reader into believing that while using strong and agressive words to get their point across, politicians can still be civil. The best point she uses to support her belief is the debate about taking the 'N word' out of Huck Finn, but by doing this she states it "distorts the author's intent and interferes with the reader's understanding" of the book. This example show that it is not the literal words, but the background behind them that can bring agression to the debate.
4. I agree with Chavez, because she is getting her main point across that in politics there are words that should not be used because they are offensive and degrading. However, the entire goal of the politicians is to keep fighting and to not back down on their side, so they come out on top. She uses 'campaign' and its root word, meaning battlefield, to say that political debate 'rounds' are like the battlefield. Where a candidate should take "his best shot", to get his point across, essentially 'battling' his opponent in the debate. Chavez's opinion to others that words and statements can be considered degrading and that restricting the use of terms, even ones not degrading, would restrict people from clearly sharing their opinions is very bold to the politicians. They would not be able to get their intended message across.