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.

Conserve, reuse, recycle.

Semrau makes his point when he states, "Please consider joining me."

Keeping information from his readers helps Semrau's intent of the essay. His intent is to get the readers to consider giving their bodies as cadavers. Semrau starts his essay by talking about recycling, which is an everyday job most people do, so they can relate to it. He then tells about his life as a child and his career. By talking about wanting to be a surgeon, Semrau relates to other children who have the same goals. So at the beginning of his essay he explains his background and how people can relate without mentioning being a cadaver. By not mentioning this idea yet, Semrau makes the reader question what the rest of his essay is going to be about relating to recycling. Then Semrau began talking about going to Harvard's Medical School, which makes the reader more confused because he is seventy-five years old. Then he says why he is going to medical school, to be a cadaver. He is going to reuse and recycle his body. The way in which he keeps information from the reader draws the reader into his writing, so that at the end they will be captivated by the idea of being a cadaver.

Savior of the Nations Come

In the hymn, Savior of the Nations Come, Martin Luther's theme is through Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection he defeated the devil and sin, through this victory we receive eternal salvation. Martin Luther reveals this theme through description in every verse to describe Christ's life. 'Not by human flesh and blood,' was Jesus born, but 'by the Spirit of our God' Jesus was made flesh. Jesus became flesh to triumph over sin for our sake, and even though 'all the world disowned' him, he still saved us from sin. Through this triumph, we shall see God's kingdom and 'its glories.' Luther also includes pathos with his description. He uses words such as ‘glorious’ and ‘wondrous’. The singer can rejoice about Jesus' birth, 'Wondrous birth! O wondrous Child of the Virgin undefiled!' This miraculous and wondrous birth Luther describes gives the singer joy. The hymn has the joyous tune in which the singer can exclaim their happiness of Jesus' birth. His birth gave us hope for salvation. Jesus was hated throughout his life, but he still prevailed. Through his life, death, and resurrection we receive eternal salvation. Martin Luther describes this theme with great emotion in Savior of the Nations Come.

Sermon Diagnostic

1. Times Christ Mentioned: 33

2. Verbs that Christ is subject: Makes us holy, slain, is Lamb, died for us, slain and lives again, died our deaths, rose and reigns, slain, died and rose, makes us alive, put name on us, came, is there, is slain, reigns, died, lives, reigns.

3. The themes in Rev. Borghardt's sermon and Edward's sermon are opposites. Rev. Borghardt's sermon is about Christ and what he did so that we can be saved. Borghardt talks about how Christ will come and call our names. He talks about how Christ died and rose for us so we can live in his kingdom. In Edward’s sermon, he talks about God’s wrath. He does not talk about what Jesus did for us, only that we are condemned. He says we do not deserve God’s mercy because we are sinners. Edward briefly mentions Jesus at the end of his sermon.

Law Banning Items From Rearview Mirrors?

Matt Helms' Article
Basically the law was that no items can hang from the rearview mirror.  However, the police were not enforcing it very well. Some drivers did not even know this was a law. Now the thought is to allow smaller items to hang.

"Richard Pentecost Sr. of Detroit said he has driven for 30 years with a rosary hanging from his rearview mirror and has never been stopped or ticketed for it -- even when police pulled him over for other infractions." --- This is my favorite quote from the article because it shows how ridiculous this law is that people are not getting tickets for hanging things and the police do not even enforce it. So why is it even there?

I disagree with this ban, but not completely. A rosary or a graduation tassle is not going to obstruct somone's view of the road. Drivers should be allowed to hang things, but because no driver is going to hang something so huge that it would obstruct their vision, this law should not be in affect.