Technologically Illiterate... WHAT?!

I will be very honest, again, with Fischbowl's post on being technologically illiterate. What does technologically illiterate mean? Again, it is very difficult to argue with someone who's ideas about technology are as intangible as his. Sure, a high school English teacher who cannot read or write should not be in the classroom at all. But wait, don't we have testing and oh, that far-fetched idea of a diploma in their area of teaching for being counted as 'highly qualified' to teach? Take it to the next level! Is Fischbowl saying that there should be an certification test for being 'technologically literate?' I think he's getting a little ahead of himself. What being technologically literate mean, exactly? It is far too broad! Does that mean that if a teacher cannot use powerpoint they shouldn't teach? (By the way, lecturing in class has shown statistically to be just as effective as powerpoint in teaching...) If a teacher does not have a class blog does that make them inefficient? If a teacher does not have access to a computer at their school or at their home, does that make them unqualified to teach? NO. Sure, the integration of computers in our daily lives is great, but how necessary is it to learn about social studies. I feel technology can be used as a tool just as much as a crutch if it is not used correctly. For example: if that same teacher that uses powerpoint to be 'technologically literate' is only READING OFF OF THE SLIDES then they are not being any more effective or efficient in teaching their students than simply reading out of the book! The question of whther or not teachers should be 'technologically illiterate or not teach' must be much more narrowed down and to the point for me to even argue with this guy.