Education and War

This political cartoon struck me on a personal note as I recently came to the realization that in a year and a half I will be graduating with a degree in political science... then what? I plan on going to law school eventually; however, most corporate law firms do not hire recent law school graduates without some sort of work experience. Therefore, I shall enter the world of employment next spring with a degree that has taught me little more than how to read in the most critical of fashions, formulate arguments, view other cultures and societies with an open mind and write with concision. Other than in the world of law, where are the aforementioned skills applicable?

The political cartoon above was intended to make people laugh, for that is one of the sole purposes of political cartoons; however, political cartoons are also intended to make people reflect on the subject matter of cartoon. This particular political cartoon achieved the latter at the expense of the former, for although the cartoon does not exactly disseminate an established truth, it does speak to the dire situation of US foreign relations with the Middle East - not exactly a subject of laughter.

While thinking about what the next couple of decades potentially hold for the United States - and the rest of the world - with regard to relations with the Middle East, I came to the conclusion that the political cartoon is in a sense paradoxical. Though soldiers will always be needed to fight wars in the physical sense, if education is geared more to the problem that hinders our world the most (conflict), there may come a day where soldiers will not be needed to fulfill their traditional role of fighting. Rather than instructing students to study what makes them feel good, students ought to be instructed to study what will ultimately benefit society and the state. This would only make sense, after all, as billions of dollars in government funds go toward funding higher education in America.

Ultimately, the college graduate and the soldier above both ought to be channeling their efforts and their training toward the goal of making the world safe for democracy. Fighting alone will not win the wars of the future; winning the wars of the future will require a collaborative effort between government, businesses and education, an effort coined "corporatism" by many political scientists and historians.

Do America a Favor: Do Not Vote for John Edwards

How can a man like John Edwards be a good president when he pays $400 for a haircut? Anybody that spends their own money so frivolously cannot be trusted to spend the money of American citizens. If John Edwards becomes president, $55,619.04 in taxes will be used over the course of his presumably 8 years in the White House for his $400 haircuts. That is, of course, assuming that the North Carolina senator follows the meterosexual-sanctioned hair care regiment of a hair cut and styling ever 3 weeks over the course of his 8 years in office.

Moreover, while John Edwards has good intentions with his stance on healthcare reform, his proposed avenue of bringing the American people healthcare reform is ludicrous. In a recent speech, Edwards asserted that if he were elected president, he would deprive all members of Congress healthcare until they pass his universal healthcare plan. How could this communist simply leave 540 civil servants without healthcare? The American people must not endorse this sort of rhetoric from such a fear-mongering GQ-wannabe.

John Edwards’ influence on the War on Terror may be the one reason the American people ought to elect John Edwards to be their next president. Before George W. Bush took office in 2000, U.S. relations with Islamic extremists were tranquil. However, with the election of an Antidisestablishmentarianist such as George Bush, Islamic extremists perceived the citizens of the world’s most powerful country to be legitimizing Western Christian values… no wonder why Islamic extremists slaughtered 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.

However, over the past two presidential elections, college students have turned out to vote in record numbers and the influence of college voters is anticipated to increase in 2008. Conveniently enough for John Edwards, recent polls show that the college vote is swinging in his favor as college students are not buying the “I will make a good president simply because I am a woman/I am black” rhetoric being put forth by Hillary and Barack. With atheism on college campuses becoming as fashionable as avoiding eye contact or refusing to acknowledge one’s presence as they pass you on State Street, college students casting votes for John Edwards will reverse the harm done to U.S.-Middle Eastern relations over the past 7 years as receiving the college vote will lead Edwards to be perceived as anti-Christian by Islamic-extremists; certainly a step in the right direction to nullifying the tension between the Christian West and the Islamic Middle East.

Though Edwards’ influence on U.S. foreign relations with the Middle East may appear as significant justification for voting for him, he still comes up short on the domestic front. In a recent speech by Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling, Shilling points out that, “Edwards, and all liberals for that matter, lack the ability to evoke nationalist undertones in the American people," something that Shilling claims, is "necessary during trying times.” Shilling stated, "the American people ought to vote for Fred Thompson because 2 out of 3 country singers intend on voting for Thompson.” Shilling commented that, “Country singers – a sect of artists also known as ‘God’s Chorus’ and ‘Uncle Sam’s Entourage’ – have a knack for inculcating patriotism within Americans.”

As you can now see, a vote for John Edwards is a vote for the demise of America. Make the right decision in 2008 and reject John Edwards' bid for the American presidency.

Hu is the Leader of China?

Abbott and Costello’s Who’s on First? has long been propagated as one of the best comedy acts of all-time. This title was validated in 1999 as Time magazine dubbed Who’s On First? as the best comedy sketch of the 20th century. Ever since the act was copyrighted by Abbott and Costello in 1944, many individuals have created parodies of the famed act, in turn casting Who’s On First? into the position of an unquestioned American cultural icon. It would be a difficult undertaking to find someone that has never read, seen or heard Who’s on First? or a variation of the act.

The reason Who’s on First? is so funny is because it represents a breakdown in communication of insurmountable proportions. Many have argued that the Bush administration has displayed similar spells of miscommunication with regard to the implementation of foreign policy; this theme is represented in entertaining fashion in a parody of Who’s on First? titled The Real Reason the Democrats Won so Many Seats…

The YouTube video is clearly attacking George Bush’s credentials as leader of the Free World by making him appear ignorant on basic foreign relations subjects such as the names of leaders of various countries and organizations. The President’s confusion is facilitated by Condoleezza Rice’s inability to recognize Bush’s apparent confusion.

Other than to entertain, the purpose of this video is to be an attack on the Bush administration, and that attack is apparent. The message the video is attempting to convey is not lost in the form in which the message is delivered, for the form and the message sort of merge in the sense that the message that miscommunication is rampant within the Bush administration is illustrated more clearly in the form of miscommunication.

Reactions to the YouTube video were mixed as some individuals simply lauded the comedic value of the video, while others were bothered by the political message of the video. I personally find the video to be downright hilarious, the creator of the video did an excellent job imitating the style of Who's on First?.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCF8Tt6z7kM

A Morbid Proposal

Jonathan Swift’s 1729 satire “A Modest Proposal” is a superb piece of writing due to the effect it has on its readers; the ability to depress, enrage, entertain and ultimately stun an audience is the mark of a fine author. When the material one is satirizing is a bona fide social problem that calls for a relatively quick solution, the satirical effect is especially striking. Aside from making people laugh, satire that deals with real social issues often brings those issues to the forefront of social debate so that a solution may be agreed upon to resolve that particular social issue. Sometimes satirists achieve their goal of humor being a catalyst for change, other times they do not achieve this goal. The latter has been the case for the author of an April 28, 1999 article in the Onion titled, "Social Security System Overhauled To Provide 'Early-Death Incentives'".

As the title suggests, the subject of the article is the need to overhaul Social Security in the United States. Social Security has been a rather controversial subject for quite some time now, however, the political discourse only seems to focus on Social Security every four years as politicians attempt to align themselves as favorable presidential candidates. A few decades ago, the only people that found it necessary to worry about Social Security were senior citizens. However, about ten years ago it was revealed that Social Security will be in dire straits as the life expectancy of U.S. citizens will continue to rise and an influx of newly-retired individuals (Baby Boomers) will put a significant strain on Social Security funds. Realistically, the people that should be currently worrying about Social Security are individuals that are under the age of 30 - not senior citizens.

The author of "Social Security System Overhauled To Provide 'Early-Death Incentives'" is arguing for a rather morbid solution to the dreadful situation of Social Security, thus drawing a stark comparison to "A Modest Proposal". The author is arguing for senior citizens to accept an offer from the Social Security Administration that would possibly quadruple their monthly Social Security payments in exchange for an earlier death. Aside from being a downright morbid, but hilarious proposal, the author is actually addressing one of the main problems that is hampering Social Security: people are simply living too long.

The author develops his argument via the use of comparison; he compares an individual's final few months being lived out in opulence to an individual's final few years being lived out frugally. By making this comparison the author is attempting to rally support for his solution to the Social Security problem by establishing that living a shorter life in exchange for more money is superior to simply living.

The tone of the text is obviously intended to be comical, however the author's purpose goes beyond simply making people laugh. The author is informing the public on the ominous situation of Social Security and is proposing a solution. Though the author's proposed solution is outrageous, his solution contains an underlying message - the same message that is often times propagated in dialogue regarding global warming. The author's message is that today's politicians and senior citizens ought to bear the responsibility of making sure that Social Security - in some form or another - is available for generations to come, and that may require today's senior citizens to make sacrifices. The "we owe it to future generations" argument has always perplexed me, for no one seems to be able to tell me why exactly we owe something to future generations. Perhaps my rationale in rejecting this argument will change in 50 years when I am 70 years old and Social Security is obsolete, thus leaving my finances at the mercy of Wall Street.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29507

9/11 Saturated with...Humor?

The six year anniversary of 9/11 was a little over two weeks ago. Words alone cannot describe the calamity that unfolded that sunny September morning. Over the next couple of days, weeks and months following 9/11 we all went through several emotional stages. First was shock – how could this happen to the United States of America? Second was mourning - even if we did not know anyone that perished that day, we all mourned as a nation of one. Third, the seeds of anger were sowed. These seeds grew into a war on terror which started in Afghanistan and somehow spread to Iraq. Today, individuals affiliated with the planning of the 9/11 attacks are still on the loose, including Osama bin Laden. New York City in the meantime is still rebuilding, and the nation is still healing…or is it?

While New York City is still literally rebuilding from the destruction of 9/11, are New York City and the nation as a whole still healing? I could not help but ponder this question as I watched an Onion-produced YouTube video in which a news anchor was interviewing two individuals that were upset with the delays in the rebuilding process of Ground Zero. One of the individuals being interviewed was a member of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. and the other was an Al-Qaeda operative. The issue of rebuilding a sky-scraper at Ground Zero is a controversial subject to delve into, however a satire of a subject such as this that includes a man posing as an Al-Qaeda operative makes this video utterly contentious.

The comments by the Al-Qaeda operative in the video seem to mask an argument, and the argument itself is what generates the humor of the video. The Al-Qaeda operative is slightly disgruntled with the color of the building, he asserts that it will be hard to see on a cloudy day. The operative does, however, laud the proposed height of the sky-scraper and the fact that the subway system is directly linked to the building. The operative also claims that the “large, sharp spike” protruding from the top of the building has “many possibilities”. It is quite clear that the Al-Qaeda operative is pleased with some of the elements of the building’s design that will make another 9/11esque attack both conceivable and devastating. In fact, he states at the end of the interview, “It is our [Al-Qaeda] goal to make places where people can go and mourn the death of their loved ones.” This commentary conveys the Onion’s overall argument that the design of the building that is to be built at Ground Zero pretty much caters to the needs of an individual that wishes to cause mass destruction.

The Onion’s argument is hardly original, however the means by which the Onion makes the argument is very unique and it is what caused me to wonder whether or not America is still healing from 9/11. I am sure the wife of a banker that lost his life that day as the Twin Towers came crumbling down would not find this video to be very funny, for it makes light out of the attacks of 9/11 and she would most likely react on an emotional level rather than a humorous level.

It is safe to say that the meaning of this video changes with the audience. Why is that though? Just six years ago we all felt an indescribable anger toward the perpetrators of 9/11. Now a video that describes the possibility of another attack in the very same location the World Trade Center once stood is put forth as humor. What happened in those six years?

I am not ridiculing the Onion for posting this video, for the argument contained within the video is an argument that should have been considered prior to beginning construction on The Freedom Tower. Also, the Onion achieved their main purpose: they made people laugh. Viewer responses on YouTube for the most part are positive, many found the video to be very funny. However, some responses reflected the fact that the anger toward Al-Qaeda is still present, one response of, “Fuck Al-Qaeda” clearly illustrates this. While I am not quite sure what makes this video humorous (I did, indeed laugh), I am sure of the fact that this video has raised some interesting issues that further validate the study of humor and its origins.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEvbPJrJyek

Homelessness: Not a Laughing Matter

An article in the September 13, 2007 edition of the Onion titled, “Hundreds Line Up Overnight for Opening of New Homeless Shelter” really caught my interest. The reason the article was written is twofold: first, for comedic purposes – it is the Onion after all, and second to make the reader aware of the problem of homelessness in the United States.

The article depicts a scene in which hundreds of homeless people are lined up outside of a homeless shelter much in the same way fanatics of a band would line up outside the box office the night before that band’s tickets went on sale. A caption under a picture of individuals standing in a line reads, “Mega-fans of clean bedding line up to be the first to stay in the shelter,” and the quote “I haven’t been this excited since the bakery threw out an entire trash bag of bagels,” reinforce the comedic tendencies of the article. Quotations are paired with pictures of random unkempt individuals, presumably homeless people, to add an extra-linguistic element to the article.

The subject of the article, homelessness, is a real, recognized social problem in America. For the several million people that will encounter homelessness this year – approximately 3.5 million people according to the National Coalition for the Homeless – the comedic tendencies of this article are probably sickening; clearly the meaning of the article changes if the audience changes from an educated middle-class individual to a homeless person. However, the overall argument put forth by the author is subtly wrapped in the spurts of sarcasm and parody found within quotes like the two mentioned above. It is as if the author wants the reader to feel rather uncomfortable while he or she finds humor in the article. The author’s argument doesn’t exactly hit the reader on the head, instead the author appeals to the reader’s ethos and trusts that their character will surface at some point during the duration of reading the article and remind the reader that homelessness is not funny.

At face value the author’s purpose is to amuse, that is why the article appears in the Onion. However, the author undermines the humor of the article with the sobering proximity to reality the article displays, such as with the following quote, “Since last Tuesday, men and women of all ages have left the familiar comforts of air-conditioned bus stations and ATM lobbies to brave the elements outside the much-anticipated Mission District shelter, despite the fact that it’s not scheduled to open until September 24.” As a resident of Madison that frequently passes the beggars that line areas of State Street, I can attest that the homeless do face the reality of seeking comfort in ATM lobbies and bus stops.

The author does account for the possibility that the reader may be unintelligent or unsympathetic and ends with the quote from an administrative coordinator for Wells Fargo Bank to clearly spell out the argument that was intended for the audience to pick up. Speaking of the homeless people lining up outside days before the opening of the shelter, the administrative coordinator said, “To be honest, I feel really sorry for them…to have so little in your life that you think nothing of camping out on the streets for days end – it’s depressing…seriously, these people need help.” The irony of that statement is riveting, then again so is the fact that a homeless person may be ducking into a dark corner tonight, using the September 13, 2007 edition of the Onion as a blanket.