NO TALKING!!!

To me the exercise was difficult and very frustrating, but at the same time I still had a lot of fun trying to communicate. I would say the hardest part was trying to communicate at lunch. Walking through the hallways was a little easier because the conversations weren’t as complex but to sit down with a hand full of teenagers and try to figure out the weekends plans was not easy. It was easier for me to draw or signal objects or commands but when it came to ideas, places or a place in time or event it was more than difficult. At lunch we were trying to talk about the dance and I tried to bring up homecoming but I could not figure out how to get my friends to understand, we ended up using our friends that could talk to help out by having then guess and we would sign back yes or no which made it a little easier at times. This event works perfectly with Postman’s book on pages six and seven when he says that you “cannot use smoke (signals) to do philosophy”, we could not use pictures or actions to talk ideas and details.

neil postman

In Neil postman’s videos he talks about socertes quoting him saying “ the unexamined life is not worth living and he also quotes Micah on how we should walk humbly with our God. In his book he talks about Galileo and how he believes “ the language of nature is written in mathematics, he meant as a metaphor”  in this he is trying to show that nature doesn’t speak and neither to our minds. Postman uses well know great minds to support his argument that technology is ruining our society and that this is not how life should be that technology id just clustering up our life. He uses Micah, a man from our savers time to show that we should be walking close with God and we know that our way of life stands in the way of this a majority of the time. He uses Galileo to show that it is not our minds or our bodies speaking then selves but that speaking is just a way of communicating, we speak our minds.

In Postman’s book he talk s about how we have mover from the magic of writing or speaking face to face to the magic of technology. In his book he talks about the clock and how this electronic is just an extension of our mind and is used to transform the way we think. In the video he talks about how technology will lead to the ability to clone which will also show a whole new way of thinking.

Language Debate

1.       The first six words in Linda’s article are to make sure the reader knows that whatever she may discuss in the nest few paragraphs she still believes that we should think before we speak. She wants us to know that to be civil to those around you is still important.

2.      Linda used the word bellicose when talking about politics. She said that “bellicose metaphor has been a staple of politics from the beginning. What she means by this is that in politics it seems as if people want to or feel like they have to fight. I believe she chose this word because it clearly states what happens in politics and what she is trying to get across from the essay in a whole. That the words that we use offend people but should we really change how we talk, should that really be considered offensive.

3.      Chavez tries to persuade the reader to believe that we should not change the way we talk write or what we read because someone may become offended, but at the same time we should be respectful and not go around deliberately being rude.  Her best argument is that in changing one work we can alter what the author meant and/or can get in the way of the readers understanding.

4.      I agree with her to a point. Is it right to ask that a word be changed in a great pieces of literature, no but if an ethic group prefers one name over another, respect them.

medical school at 75?

1.       “Reuse provides maximum functions for given material and energy input. Use what you have until it can no longer function. Then it’s time to recycle”.

2.       I don’t know if I would say that him keeping information keeps the intent but it defiantly keeps the reader’s attention. The intent of this article is to show and tell us that we can do what we want no matter what the situation. The authors shows us that at the age of 75 he can go back to school, and not just any school but Harvard medical school. He tells us how he had been interested in medicine when he was young and then found out it was not for him but recently realized he had a new interest for it again. He also tells us that he did not just make the choice to go back to medical school but he also decided to go green.

I believe that this strategy is not the best way to get his intent across. This would be a great way to keep a reader’s attention, and could maybe more useful in a n article dealing with one topic. This strategy  in this article seems to just confuse things making it difficult to figure out if the intent is to tell us about him going green or him going to medical school.

Savior of the Nations come

The theme of this hymn is about the praise and love we should have for our lord and savior Jesus Christ. He not only can to this earth but came as an innocent baby and was born of a young virgin mother. In this hymn the author uses a few language tools, but I think his use of diction stands out. In the third verse there are three very good examples of diction right in a row, the first two being “wondrous birth, O wondrous Child”. In my opinion this is a very good choice of a word because he is not just a great birth or Child or an amazing birth or Child, but he wondrous. Even in the hymn we see why we could call him wondrous, he was born by the Holy Spirit of a virgin, undefiled. Which is the third example, undefiled, not just a clean child or a behaved child but so much more than that, undefiled, never been corrupted by sin or even born in to the natural sin of this world, he was perfect and wondrous in every way! We Can even see how he was so wondrous in his later life from this hymn when it reads “captive leading death and hell…hast o’re sin the victory won.” His whole life from beginning to end was lived wonderfully for us!

Sermon Contrast

1.       IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII III = 33

2.       Make, through , (5) slain, took, lives, save, makes ,came

3.       Edward’s theme in his sermon is about how we should fear God’s wrath and how we as sinners have no hope when it comes to meeting our Creator face to face.  He tells us how our days of mercy are now, but when we face God, he will punish us for all our wrong doings.   Rev. Borghardt’s theme focuses solely on believers’ redemption by Christ’s death on the cross. He mentions how we, sinner think we enjoy our sin, but if we truly believe the good news, our days of true happiness and mercy will come when we stand before God.

Fuzzy Dice?

In this article Matt Helms discussed the ban of objects hanging from your rear view mirror. He talks about how the ban might soon be eased up on, by letting some items like pray beads or air fresheners be allowed on the mirrors. In the article Sen. Ron Jelinek goes on to say that that this kind of law or band is just “a 'gotcha' law. It's an excuse to pull someone over”. I agree with this statement that keeping this law as it is, is simple used for an excuse for the police to pull someone over if they are suspicious and have no other, real reason.

             I agree with this ban that drivers should not be allowed to have objects on their rear view mirror that could possible obstruct or distract their view while driving like fuzzy dice, but I do not think it is an issue to have small items that are not causing any problems to the drivers.