The distinction that Neil Postman makes in the last paragraph of chapter 11 is that our society as a whole is not only that we are laughing and not thinking but also, we do not no what it is that we are laughing about. This statement matters because entertainment is starting to control us. We rely on it so much. It involves absolutly no thinking, which is dumbing us down. The worst part about entertainment involving no thinking is that we do not even know what it is doing to us. We continue to watch television and do not relize that it is making us stupid. Even if our society did relize what it was doing, I do not think that we would try to do anything about it because it is what we rely on so heavily.

Philosophy and dry-erase boards

Friday's experiment was very difficult over all. It was almost impossible to communicate what you were trying to say by only using a dry-erase board or by acting it out. Most people could not understand what you were trying to tell them. Sometimes you could not help but talk. It was very quite at the lunch table because everyone at my table was not able to talk. Many times you were not able to answer the questions teachers asked you because they could not understand what you were trying to tell them.

Postmans Speech vs. Postmans Book

In Dr. Postman's speech he talks about how today, humans are talking to machines more than they are talking or interacting to other humans. This relates to what Postman in his book "Amusing Ourselves To Death", he talks about how humans are way to consumed with social networks. He says according to the book "Being Digital" that we will soon be talking to a toaster or a doorknob and it will be just as comfortable as talking to an answering machine. This validates Postmans theory that humans use technology to much. Another argument he makes to convince his audience about how we are becoming to consumed with technology is that we are becoming to comfortable with it. For example, a soldier gets used to killing. In the same way, people will adapt to talking to machines. Postman gets across the same point in the book and the video, the changes taking place in society are not improvements. He feels that this is actually hurting our culture.

Chavez Article

1. Linda Chavez is trying to highlight how crucial  it is for the public to remain under control during the speeches that are now being held after all that has happened. The people who are in the audience listening to these conversations need to be able to control themselves despite differing opinions so that no one in the audience or the person giving the speech are not injured.

2. Bellicose implies warlike or hostile nature. She used this word to describe the words that some poeple believe actually take literally and think that they have to act this way, but Chavez believes that using these such words add emotion to a speech.

3.       A) She is trying to persuade the reader to think that bellicose words are not the reasons why people have been acting so violently lately, and that these words add emotion.
          B) "The very term "campaign" comes from the French word for open land, compagne, and was used in English to refer to the time spent on the battlefield or to a series of distinct military maneuvers. We routinely talk about "rounds" in political debates, though the word can also describe a unit of ammunition. 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. Such rhetorical devices enrich our language and putting them off-limits would deprive us of the ability to express ourselves fully."

4. I agree with chavez's article. I think that taking away these words would make speechs boring and poeple would lose focus and not want to listening or read them anymore.

Conserve, Reuse, Recycle

1. The most important quote to Semrau's article is,  "Quite simply, use what you have until it can no longer function."

2. Semrau keeping information from the reader helps the intent of the story in the sense that it keeps the reader interested in the story and also keeps him guessing about what the story is about. By the story being more interesting the reader will think about donating their body. The way how he reveals his point is effective to the essay. This is because he writes the importance of going "green" and the reader at first would assume he is going "green" right at the moment with materials such as plastic, paper, and cans. Near the end of the essay, he mentions he is going to medical school in the cheapest way possible. What he means by this statement is that when he dies he is going to donate his body to Harvard Medical School. He said that is too late in his late age of 75 years to conserve because he was already born and using resources. Recycling, according to Semrau, would not apply to him. So he is down to one way to go "green" and that is reuse. After he is no longer useful for work when he dies, he feels that the only way he can be useful is to donate his cadavar to science.