1. Chavez's first six words state that "civility is important". Chavez acknowledges throughout her article that it is important for politicians and citizens as well, to remain polite to each other and respectful of one another, regardless of their appearance, race, gender, or sexuality. However, she goes on to contrast this idea with the claim that words themselves have nothing to do with politics. She argues that the context of words, the way in which words are said, are truly what should be monitored.
2. Chavez uses the word bellicose to hint that politics have never truly been civil. The words they use relate directly to war conflict and terminology. Even though these words and phrases have become acceptable and benign, they truly reflect an aggressive attitude toward political opponents. This shows how modern politicians often contradict themselves, claiming certain words to be correct and others harmful, when in reality, many of the words they continue to use reflect the same hostility.
3. Chavez is attempting to persuade readers to take the context of the words into consideration when deriving the meaning. She states that it should be the meaning intended that offends others, not the word itself. She uses the example of the word "queer" which in previous generations simply meant odd, now criticizes a specific sexual agenda. Instead of having to avoid the word queer with all costs, the public should be more concerned with the way it handles their specific views on the issue, regardless of the words they use to describe it. Chavez seems to state that words are simply words, but it is what we intend to use them for that holds the true power.
4. I agree with Chavez, I think that the attitude of politicians is what needs the changing, not their specific word choice, as context is just as important as definition.
