Entertain yourself, but do it in right way

 Postman says, in his last paragraph, it will be easy to cause destructions by ourselves in the age of advanced technology. He didn't necessarily stated the machines and techologies as an enemy, however, it will be depends on us whether we accept firmly about change in materials. Also Postman isn't necessarily trying to criticize about the Age of television, he merely wants to guide us to the right path of technology. By supporting Huxley's assertions, Postman's warning was sharp enough to cause wonder between people about amusing ourselves to death in this technological society.

"Mediafest" effect

 For one day, I could not speak and all I could do to communicate was illustrating pictures on the whiteboard and using body languages to explain things. I thought it was going to be easy as the "Facebook fest", but it turned out to be brutal. It was really hard to illustrate instead of talking, and even harder when I kept thinking about the fact that I could not talk. However this "Mediafest" taught me the value of communication. I learned how talking and sharing ideas through speaking can affect me and others. As Postman wrote in his book, we couldn't realize how communication is important untill you actually experience elimination of talking. I personally think elimination of talking can resulted in elimination of thinking and creativity, that way, this 'Mediafest' made me to think about how our society can change depend on the tool that we choose to communicate with others. Will the tool be the piece of machine or actual person?

Postman's statement

Neil Postman expressed his notions in both interview and book about how people can be carelss in communicatining with other people. In his book, Postman mentioned that, "the decline of the Age of Typography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television", it reveals the change in technonology can affect the society and people. As the technology changes, not only our lifestyle is going to change, but even our concept and mind. In his another quote, "our conversations about nature and about ourselves are conducted in whatever 'languages' we find it possible and convenient to employ", it relates what he said in the interview. He said that in next millenium, people will become our language, and further as our communication. Besides, the notions in Postman's book are also revealed in his interview. He merely states the change in generation and the consequences we can get in order to communicate with media. Either way, Postman's opinion has criticism towards us that we don't realize we are "entertaining ourselves to death".

Where is the civility in public?

1. "Civility in public discourse is important". This sentence reveals Chavez's opinion right away. By writing this first sentence, we can see she is already criticizing our carelessness of civility. She is aiming at the lack of civility with examples in many situations such as in politics, newspaper, and literature.

2. Chavez uses the word 'bellicose' by using the politic examples. "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." She indicates that those phrases with bellicosity are not necessarily means what it says. Her opinion wasn't about orginal meanings of those words, it was about how people can use those phrases appropriately. I think she uses the word 'bellicose' to distinguish between the words that are just as belligent, but has different purpose and some words that really are offensive. 

3. A) I think she is telling readers that in order to show our civility, we should use the phrases appropriately and make better word-choice depend on situations. By using the example of person being forced to resign, she shows how people can use inappropriate phrases unconsciously in the situation and don't realize it.

B) She mentions that, "But words themselves aren't the problem -- it's what is behind the words that matters", to show how we can be offensive and hurtful with poor language choices. Chavez certainly thinks that it is not the matter of words, it is the matter of context and contents. Besides, it is our choice to make afforntive argument, even with the words that are not necessarily belligent.

4. I agree with Chavez's notion that it's our own desire to decide the meaning of sentence, not the words. 'One rotten apple spoils the barrel'

Conserve, Reuse, Recycle, and Human Cadavers?

1. I thought Semrau's quote, "Have you figured out that I'm going as a cadaver, an anatomical gift?", revealed his point the most. This quote places at the bottom of fifth column. I could approach his point at this quote when he talked about imagining him being in the cadaver, or anatomical gift.

2. Semrau uses many background information about himself and his childhood, and makes a roundabout speech about his point. In my opinion, the writing style that he uses is not effective because it can easily draw readers to the off point and not make them to focus about one's assertion. In addition, I was having a problem finding a strong assertion untill I found a quote when he talked about being in the cadaver. Although he introduces himself with his childhood dream, being a surgeon, and the life experiences that he went through, those don't efficiently reveal his point. However, I understood his connection between reuse and donating his body. By chosing the 'Reuse' as his favorite word, he could show his opinion about getting in to the medical school with his body, therefore, he could be reused and donated at the same time. But, it still his writing strategy leaves an ambiguity, whether he wanted to donate his body to go to medical school, or he wanted to go to the medical school to donate his body. I think Semrau revealed his point well by actually mentioning what he wants to do, but at the same time his circumlocution seems to make readers harder to find it.

Luther's Sermon

Luther uses a lot of language devices that we learned in class. First he uses diction with words such as "nations, Lord, Father, our King, and Child" to reveal God's divine power and Chirst's sacrifice that can save us from sins and evil. We can also see comparison. "Not by human flesh and blood, by the Spirit of our God,". This showed God chose to make Jesus Chirst not in a physical body way, but in a spiritual way.
Luther uses pathos to reveal his theme as well. For example, "Wondrous birth! O wondrous Child", "Boundless shall Thy kingdom be;", and "High the song of triumph swell!". Luther tries to preach people by showing his emotions in the fact of God's power and Chirst's birth. He uses his impressions to honor and respect Chirst's birth. Luther also uses logos to show the holyness of Chirst and the importance of glorious God in our human life. The quote "That the Lord chose such a birth.", and "Hast o'er sin the victory won." shows Luther's use of logos as well. The Luther's sermon has a strong and great theme. He mostly glorifies Christ's birth and considers it as a celebration of mankind. Perhaps, Luther tries to convey a message to the mankind that our human should be less agressive about our overusing of sins.

What's wrong with hanging things from rearview mirrors?

 This article talks about hanging objects from rearview mirror should be legalize or not. Many people just put dangling objects on their rearview mirror such as gruduation tassels, air freshener, and all kinds of accessories and don't notice whether it is legal or not. Although most of them think it shouldn't be matter on driving, Michigan has prohibited drivers from dangling items from rearview mirrors. The bill doesn't have specific description about what size items must be, and it's up to officers to pull over drivers. As a result of a lot of people includes Senators and Governors don't agree with the law, now the Senate has approved the bill and it awaits debate in the state house.
 Moreover, the quote "I call it a 'gotcha' law. It's an excuse to pull someone over." was the most effective quote in this article because it mocks the police from using excuses to pull people over for silly dangling objects from rearview mirrors in their cars. And I like the idea of naming the law as a 'gotcha' law.
 In my opinion, even I'm not a driver myself, it should be legal to have dangling objects in drivers' rearview mirrors. As I mentioned before, it is just one of excuses that police use it to pull people over for no good reasons. In fact, I've seen a lot of people got into car accidents from talking on the phone of taxting while they're driving, but not from objects from rearview mirrors. It's time for legislature to concern about how to reduce those car accidents from taxting, and not making another excuses like this. Moreover, they need to get rid of the law, or they should soften the law by restricting specific items such as giant fuzzy dice, and shiny or gaudy objects that can easily affect to driver's vision.