The Huxleyan Warning

In the concluding paragraph of "Amusing Ourselves To Death" Postman suggests that education and disaster have unfortunately become a packaged deal for modern society. We are trying to educate and inform the younger generation but with all the wrong resources. Television is meant for entertainment, not for teaching children, however, most people fail to realize this and it is taking a very serious tole on the intelligence of our society. We become lazy because watching television requires nothing of us. There is no extensive thinking necessary or even any previous knowledge on the subject being televised. Just as Postman recognized, even though a person may be laughing at something on television they "they do not know what they are laughing about". Why would they care? The information they are being given is contextless and discontinuous.
Today's society believes that most everything is telivisible, even education. That's exactly what Postman attempts to contradict. Education and entertainment are two completely separate commodities and should never coexist. Unfortunately, society seems to be unaware and have shown no signs of realizing this problem any time soon.

The Medium is the Message

Friday was a rather unique adventure for me. It's one thing to be told that "the medium is the message" and quite another to experience it. I found that, in addition to illustration's lack of effectiveness, words and the format in which you choose to convey them are extremely important. However, there was no particular instance in which I realized this simple concept. In fact, it was the entire day in general that made this idea evident to me. I came across small dilemmas throughout those 7 hours that contributed to my realization. For example, when I didn't quite understand a concept in my pre-calc class, I was stumped on how to illustrate my lack of understanding. Consequently, my question had to be ignored and I was obligated to move on without complete apprehension. After this occurrence I came to find that this idea not only applied to math class but to every instance of communication. If the medium is not correct and effective, questions will be left unanswered and ignored. Therefore, society becomes less intelligent and involved with every incorrect format of exchanging information. Partly because of Friday's experience, I am now completely on board with Neil Postman and his "medium is the message ideas".

Postman Parallel

In both Postman's book and his speech his message is evident. It has become clear to me that Postman's everlasting concept is causes and effects of the decline of typography and the ascension of television (technology). Upon imparting this idea, he states in his book that "this change-over (from typography to technology) has dramatically and irreversibly shifted the content and meaning of public discourse...". He also references this problem in the video clip by mentioning that "we have become different by talking to answering machines", opposed to the actual person we are trying to reach. Again, Postman attempts to make evident that "the medium is the message". The way in which you communicate with others greatly, if not completely, affects effectiveness of your words. Postman never once sways from this concept.
A supplementary parallel appears towards the beginning of Postman's speech when he mentions a Socrates quote stating, "the unexamined life is not worth living". He follows through with the meaning behind this quote on page 7 when he explains "you cannot do political philosophy on television. It's form works against the content". Postman is essentially saying that television only allows for the visual presentation of ideas due to the fact that Americans are consumed with image. Political philosophy calls for verbal and more in depth explanation which can not be accomplished through most technology. Our generation needs to step back and "examine" our lives more thoroughly in order to get the most out of every concept. This in turn will expand our knowledge and way of thinking to create a more intelligent and notional society.

The True Meaning of "Civility"

Upon initially reading the first few words of "Civility Not Censorship", without going any further into the essay, one would assume that Chavez intends to preach a compliance within politics progressively throughout her article. However, while this may be partially accurate, Chavez really desires to stress the importance of what "civility" actually means, which is in fact contradicting to the views of some politicians.   For the duration of the article, Chavez is entirely focused on recognizing the root of the majority of political corruptions and disasters. She realizes that the core to all of the distortion is certainly not offensive words or phrases, but the meaning and tone in which they are based upon. Although diction is important, it would be useless without purpose and context buried beneath the word.
 Politics has become a battlefield of arguments solely based on whether or not a word is offensive. Chavez puts emphasis on this war-like institution by using the word "bellicose". She cleverly chooses this word in order to accent how uncivilized politics has become by admonishing the usage of certain words for recent campaign-related tragedies.
Another way in which Chavez reveals her attitude toward civility and attempts to reveal her theory (words themselves aren't the problem, it's the meaning behind those words) is by using specific examples. One such example that I believe to be the most sufficient is the Los Angeles Times reference. Chavez states that the magazine previously put restrictions on the usage of various words such as "Indian", "Hispanic", "ghetto" and "inner-city". Instead writers were recommended to use "Native American" or "Latino" when describing race. This citation truly revealed to me how extremely frivolous eliminating possibly offensive words from public discussion and writing is. I fail to understand the reason why a person of Spanish decent would be insulted if i referred to them as a "Hispanic" but would be completely content if I were to call them a "Latino". The only distinction that could possible separate these identical words would be the meaning behind them. And that's exactly what Chavez intends to prove throughout her entire article.
Conclusively, I can say that I agree with Chavez. Words will not, and never have, created stereotypes or insults, only people reserve that right.