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
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)