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.