TOW #25 - NFL Intros - SNL (Visual Text)

Today, I found myself aimlessly exploring the depths of YouTube as I tend to do several times a week. I reached the point where I began watching a series of old SNL skits, and re-watched one of my favorite skits of all time: NFL Intros. The skit was aired a couple weeks after recent scandals in the NFL, such as that of Adrian Peterson. The skit takes place in the beginning of a football game, when all of the players normally say their name and the college they attended. However, the writers put a spin on this tradition and rather than name the college the attended, they have the players announce their specific crime. Some of the crimes are absolutely hilarious (and a bit preposterous), but they help the writers emphasize their point. In the skit, NFL Intros on SNL, the writers use absurd parody and criticizing sarcasm which ultimately allow them to criticize the state of the NFL and its players.

Absurd parody is used to give context for the skit – that is, it is used to establish the skit not only as a football intro, but as a way to mock the NFL’s scandals. For example, the very first player to introduce himself proudly announces, “Derrick Watkins. Assault.” One of my personal favorites was “Calvin Williams. Loitering with an intent to murder.” While these introductions are great to just listen to for entertainment, they really bring light to the number of scandals that were occurring at this point in the NFL. Of course, the writers may have gotten a bit carried away, but they do achieve their purpose in establishing the context for the scene.

In addition, the writers use criticizing sarcasm to condemn the NFL’s response to the scandals. They do this with one simple line. One announcer asks, “Will the players be discussing the punishments they’re receiving for their offenses?” to which the other announcer states, “Well, there weren’t any…” For there to be such heinous crimes being committed with no punishments, there is clearly some sort of corruption going on. This serves as a comment on the actual events in which the NFL did not take appropriate action against the guilty players.

Ultimately, the writers of this skit effectively made their point. They not only poked fun at the amount of scandals in the NFL, but condemned NFL officials as well. Through a very funny skit, SNL produced a memorable piece of social commentary.

Original Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5P_GqS30xg

TOW #24 - Freakonomics (IRB 3.2)

I finally finished reading my third IRB, Freakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, and I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I felt that I was able to make connections between some of what the authors were saying and my statistics class, which made the book that much more fun to read. As I mentioned in my first post on this book, the authors bring a unique perspective to economics in the way that they analyze actual events versus expected events. Each chapter almost serves as its own individual text – and in each chapter, the authors use the classical model of oration.

In every chapter, I found there to be examples of exordium, narratio, confirmatio, refutatio, and peroratio. To account for exordium, the authors introduced the sections with anecdotes which at first didn’t seem related to the rest of the chapter, but ended up making sense. For narratio, they ask questions that relate to the section, but also relate to the reader’s life. These questions offer real world applications to the studies of economics that the authors do, ultimately making the text more relatable to the reader. For confirmatio, the authors provide statistics and other concrete evidence supporting their point. For refutatio, they take a misconception on the subject at hand and show, through statistics, why it’s false. Lastly, for peroratio, the authors conclude the section and prepare the reader for the next one. I found this structure particularly helpful as it clearly outlined the author’s points for each chapter. There was a clear direction in where they were going. I didn’t ever feel caught by surprise – similar to how in The Qualities of the Prince, Machiavelli has a heading, claim, evidence, and analysis. Without this particular structure, portions of the chapter would have been a bit confusing – specifically the introductions to the chapters. Since they didn’t seem related, it was necessary for them to be followed by further explanation and connections.

I am very pleased that I had the opportunity to read Freakonomics. After hearing so much about it and telling myself I would read it, I finally actually did. I would recommend this book to anyone struggling to find an IRB for the fourth marking period. Part of what is great about this book is that you don’t need to be math-oriented in order to understand it. The authors do a great job in making their writing understandable to everyone.

TOW #23 - Treaty of Versailles Political Cartoon

When the Treaty of Versailles was originally drafted, US President Woodrow Wilson took on the role as a leader among leaders and introduced several of his ideas. More specifically, he defended his “Fourteen Points,” under which secret treaties were disallowed, the seas must have remained free, and closest to Wilson’s heart, a League of Nations would be established. However, with the League of Nations, US Congress would not have the power to declare war – instead, the League of Nations would agree on when to intervene in conflicts. This, in the cartoon, a clever metaphor is used to represent the distaste of the US Senate towards the Treaty of Versailles, and more specifically the League of Nations.

The cartoonist uses a wedding metaphor to describe the U.S. Senate’s opposition to the Treaty. To the left of the cartoon stand Woodrow Wilson and a woman labeled “foreign entanglements,” who are clearly getting married – that is, Wilson is devoting himself to the League of Nations (which manages foreign affairs) and thus “marrying” it. Under this marriage, Wilson is vowing to remain loyal and dedicated to his relationship with his bride (foreign entanglements). Meanwhile, the marriage officiant is asking if there is anyone who opposes to the “marriage” – these two aspects give context for the focal point of the cartoon. When looking at the scene, eyes are drawn to the man smashing through the window, labeled “U.S. Senate.” Obviously, this man (representing the U.S. Senate) is opposed to the marriage. While has not actually said anything, it is clear that because of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles – the establishment of the League of Nations – the Senate’s power is restricted.

Ultimately, the use of metaphor effectively reveals the feelings of the U.S. Senate towards the Treaty of Versailles. By comparing Wilson’s love and devotion towards his League of Nations to an actual marriage, the artist clearly depicts how willing Woodrow Wilson was to abandon the old power of the U.S. Senate and transition to a global organization. Meanwhile, by illustrating the U.S. Senate in the form of a man jumping through a window, hectically trying to put forth his opposition, the Senate’s resistance to the Treaty of Versailles is immediately apparent. Altogether, the artist interestingly depicts the relationships between Wilson, his Senate, and the world, through the use of metaphor.

Original Link: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNc0CgLpQJUeVC91wrf9Ab4OfVOy-XRDO4kOtMslZop7of8GUc1BN1bIizrCu2_Xpqu5yFVSHM0a6HrSg7yAJqU9RJ_Yi_l8K4c5D2Fe00g1ZSN68KDpZoV4QoBuOQ69Y-vXyz8iTsdlo/s320/AP+Doc+E+League+of+Nat+Senate