Satirical Humor

This cartoon is in response to Jeff Bezos’ (CEO of Amazon) recent announcement that Amazon is exploring the possibility of using drones as a delivery method to customers. Drones tend to be used in the context of military operations, as they are unmanned aircrafts used mostly in warfare. In this cartoon, an Amazon drone is shown flying over an Al Qaida training camp. All but one of the soldiers flee for their lives, as they assume it is a U.S. military drone. However, one of the men realizes the actual intention of the drone, and is excited to get his copy of “Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2” on Blu-Ray.  The cartoon demonstrates the contrast between the typical purpose of drones as killing-machines, and the new vision that they can be put to commercial use, as well. The idea of Amazon employing drones for delivery sounds extremely innovative, and it would certainly be time-saving delivery process, but will the idea come to fruition?

Critical reviews of this novel idea seem to be mixed, as some are more optimistic, while others are skeptical of its potential. My business professor has stated that often times companies have to take certain risks and develop innovative changes to keep their business relevant in an evolving society. Amazon is a top-tier company that has had much success, because Bezos has proven that he is willing to modernize with the times. If drone-delivery is indeed the future, then Bezos will be regarded as ingenious, and Santa himself might even consider using it as a toy-delivery method. However, if it fails, Amazon could suffer. After all, creating and employing such drones would require a serious investment (especially a financial investment) to the project.

The company should first recognize the potential pit-falls of the drone initiative.  For example, the drones delivering packages would be exposed, and would it be possible for anyone with a rifle shoot it down and steal someone’s package? And how much extra would the customer have to pay for this service, considering that today’s shipping and handling costs aren’t so cheap, just for a delivery by truck? Not to mention that the company would have to deal with regulation and scaling issues before anything could be implemented. Amazon claims that the drones “will be ready” by 2015, but do you think this is an idea worth pursuing?

In an effort to expand my satirical horizons, I’ve decided to analyze a segment from the Daily Show that features comedians/satirists Key and Peele. I must give credit where credit is due, as Haydn suggested I take a look at this hilarious video, and so I decided to feature it in this blog. To see the full clip, please visit: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-13-2013/key—peele

In this episode of the Daily Show, Stewart asks a panel of three analysts to determine whether or not certain comments or actions could be considered racist. With each case presented, there is dissention among the members of the panel, as two seem to clearly agree on the definition of racism, while the other deems every racist event, such as a child dressing up as a member of the KKK for Halloween, “adorable.” The disagreement among the panel members eventually leads Stewart to ask Key and Peele to weigh in on the issues presented, as impartial judges. After all, who could be more impartial with these issues than two half-black men?

In the next case, a Washington Post columnist describes that people with “conventional views” have to suppress the urge not to vomit when they see New York mayoral candidate, his black wife, and their interracial children. Ironically, Key and Peele state that this is actually racist to white people, as they are the ones who have to try their best not to vomit at such a sight. This video, although completely intended for comedic purposes, does demonstrate that racism is still prevalent in society today. While some of us can clearly identify the underlying racist messages in each of these cases, for others it may not be as apparent. In everyday life, we may hear things that are subtly racist or offensive, even if that was not the intent. According to Oklahoma Daily newspaper, “This new generation is taking over without an ingrained racially divided outlook. But that may make us less likely to see — or even recognize the need to look for — deeper, more complex schemas that are truly the root of the problem.” How big of an issue do you believe racism is in the country today?

Every now and again, the issue of censorship in America pops up, and this time it involves YouTube. In an episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert explains that Google, which owns YouTube, has already implemented a modification to the YouTube comment section, in which top comments are now displayed at the top, and video creators will have the ability to block certain comments, or words within a comment. Colbert answers every issue with sarcasm, and here he expresses the right of Youtubers to freedom of speech. He satirically defends some of the more ridiculous comments that users have left, such as, “U R Homo” and “Ron Paul 2012”, which seem to be strange responses to a music video.

Colbert describes the comment section as Youtube’s “town square”, and what makes it so unique is that it is “free from punctuation, free from spelling, and apparently free from medication.”  Of course, YouTube has the right to put restrictions on comments, and give the video creator more power in directing the conversation the viewers. Sometimes you will even see that the comment section has been disabled for particular videos, which deters any dramatic showdowns between commenters, and prevents any offensive language that may have appeared.

Colbert is known for trying to push boundaries and rebel at any point a higher power tries to control him. You may my recall my previous article about the reliability of Wikipedia, where Colbert tested the site by encouraging his viewers to add ridiculous information to a page about African elephants. Colbert satirically attempts to assert his right to say anything he pleases in the YouTube comment section, by once again encouraging viewers to post a special message for every single YouTube video. Though I’m sure this was never accomplished, I would still like to provide you with the hilarious post:

“We, the commenters of YouTube, believe in free speech as strongly as we believe in free videos of animals dressed like other animals. Therefore, we hereby declare: you can make up to 88 dollars an hour working from your house. Click here for one weird tip on how to lose your belly fat. U R homo. Ron Paul 2012! bit.do\bNB9”

Humor aside, this video brings the issue of censorship to light. In my mind, what YouTube has done does not seem to be that big of a deal, and I’m sure it creates less drama for the video creator to have control over the comment section. And while I do believe that an individual has every right to say exactly what’s on their mind, I support the idea that certain comments can be reported as offensive, or even hidden if the number of dislikes is too high. What are your thoughts?

I encourage you to watch this segment from the episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE0NRdNoVDk

I’m sure you’ve heard of the latest political issue about the ineffective new government website for health insurance: healthcare.gov. Republicans are likely still bitter over the passage of Obama Care, but the Democrats have taken the first step toward implementing the new program. The idea of using the internet as a mode to sign up for health insurance seems like a great way to make it more accessible to the American people. The issue, however, is that the website has been crashing , freezing, and shutting down for users that have tried to access it.

Obama claims that all of the glitches will be fixed by the end of November. Nonetheless, Congress has come to the rescue, and more specifically, the House Energy and Commerce committee has taken it upon themselves to discuss the sites’ issues.  Jon Stewart jokes at how reassuring this is, by explaining that one man on the committee is so old that he was elected into Congress “4 years before the 1959 invention of the microchip.” In this episode of the Daily Show, we see bits and pieces of the discussions between Republican and Democratic members of this committee, as they spar over the site. Republicans are quick to go on the offense and attack specific issues with the site, or even attack the Democrats entirely.

One Republican declares that the site does not protect the privacy of the individual, but another Democrat refutes this, and states that no health information is required in the application. However, it is not so much what the Democrat says, but the sassiness with which he responds to his fellow Congressman. Stewart describes the head bob that the Democrat uses, in response to the Republican ,as “Tri-Delt”, implying that the Congressman was acting like a sorority girl looking down upon an inferior. What is even more hilarious is that the same Congressman describes his colleagues as a “monkey court” in this clip, with the Republican defiantly asserting that “this is not a monkey court.” It’s always great to see adults act like children, and I think that perfectly describes the back and forth between these two Congressmen. To see the recap of this episode (and I recommend that you do, in order to watch the showdown in Congress) click the link below!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1fThUGFWXE

I always enjoy reviewing articles from the Onion, because although they are often completely fictitious, that is the beauty of its satire. Many times they contain underlying meanings that express what many of us feel, but other times its only purpose is to be ridiculously funny.  In this article, a seventh grade class is dreading the annual assignment in which they are forced to dissect a “14 hand thoroughbred”. Although the Onion provides this very extreme example, situations similar to this have relevance in our lives. Students who have taken biology or anatomy classes likely have had to dissect an animal at some point in the year. This article plays upon the disgust of many students and the opposition some have raised toward dissecting animals. Though frogs and cats seem manageable in comparison to an enormous horse, many of the fears expressed by the children (fake, of course) in this article are based on worries that students in reality have faced with dissection in science classes.

One of the 13 year-olds “interviewed” for the article explains that we often do not come to the realization of what we are actually doing in dissection, until we come face to face with the animal. Again, she was discussing the sight of a thoroughbred pinned down on the lab table, but even when dissecting frogs and cats, students have similar qualms. In fact, many have questioned whether real animals should be used in the classroom for this purpose.  In the past, it was likely that if a student refused to participate in the dissection, no matter the reason, the student would not receive credit for the assignment and his/her grade would suffer. However, some schools have adopted an alternative assignment for students such as this, in which they can do the dissection online. Although I find dissection fascinating, I do believe that this is a great option for some students, as they will still be able to learn without having to see the dead animal in front of them. However, if students intend on becoming doctors, researchers, or many other professionals in a science-related field, they should highly consider participating in the real dissection.

Favorite line of the article, “As of press time, resident class clown Ian Levine was reportedly trying to lasso Denison using his horse’s small intestine.” Hahaha

Here is the link to the article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/seventhgrade-biology-class-grossed-out-at-having-t,34413/?ref=auto

Have you ever had a conversation with someone about how our country’s priorities today seem to be all screwed up? Jon Stewart emphasizes this very issue by providing many recent examples in American politics. What I particularly enjoy about this segment of the Daily Show is that although it’s obvious Stewart is extremely leftist in his views, he can still be objective enough to criticize the current president and other liberal leaders in America. This may not seem all that significant, but it is a true skill to be able to see past biases and look at people for who they truly are and the actions they choose to take. Stewart beings with an analysis on Obama’s recent counter-terrorism speech, and in particular, Obama asking the audience if force-feeding prisoners is something that America’s Founding Fathers foresaw. And Stewart sarcastically points out that, “on a scale of founders’ foresaw, prisoner mistreatment would take a backseat to black president”. I simply found this clever and funny, but don’t worry, Stewart gets to the meaty issues soon afterward.

People judge leaders in a variety of different ways, but Stewart explains that we can criticize an administration based on “the actions it says it won’t take, but does.” Thus begins the segment “Priorities USA” in which we analyze our leaders’ actions and their motivations. The first example is a clip of Obama from 2009 in which he seems to strongly advocate for the freedom of press, and the right of our nation’s journalists to say what they want. But not too long ago, the Obama administration was accused of tracking phone lines of the Associated Press, and personal e-mails of Fox chief correspondent James Rosen. It raises the question of whether or not Rosen engaged in enough suspicious activity to justify this monitoring. It was discovered that he had received information from an unknown source and told the nation that North Korea would respond to sanctions with nuclear tests. And as Stewart points out, this is certainly not out-of-the-ordinary for North Korea, as he jokingly states that they are a “nuclear-test-based economy”. It seems to be all they do. Stewart sarcastically questions what other scoops are threatening our national security.  He sarcastically suggests a headline like “Turkey the country is different from Turkey the bird.”

The main issue seems to be that the groups targeted by the Obama administration shouldn’t be priorities for our justice system. With all of the scandals involving American banks, it is shocking that not one Wall Street Executive has been arrested since 2008. This doesn’t seem fair considering the illegal activities these banks have engaged in that led to a financial crisis. As if it couldn’t get any worse, the Department of Justice has confirmed that no bank is too big to jail, and the banks’ violation of laws could be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Instead of prosecution, the federal government chose to strike deals with the companies “equivalent to one month (of the banks’) profits”.  Ah, a classic example of Priorities USA.

I encourage you to watch this portion of the Daily Show from the link below for a few laughs and some critical thinking about the priorities of our Justice Department.

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

In one of his many episodes, Stephen Colbert addresses the issue of our reliance on Wikipedia to provide simple explanations, and that it cannot always be trusted. It is believed that anyone can post information on a wide array of topics, where credible sources are not a requirement. Colbert expresses this using comedy and satire, and even has engaged in what he refers to as an ongoing battle with Wikipedia. Colbert has called upon his fans to edit a Wikipedia page with made up facts about the elephant population tripling in size. So many of his followers responded to this call-to-action that the Wikipedia site crashed. Wikipedia eventually stepped in, because of all the hype generated over this prank, but it still raises the question as to whether we can alter reality with Wikipedia.

Colbert even creates new a new vocabulary term for this phenomenon, “Wikiality: when Wikipedia becomes our most trusted reference source, reality is just what the majority agrees upon.” This, he states, is how we can bring democracy to information. Facts are supposed to be objective, but Colbert argues that with Wikipedia, they can be modified to serve the needs of a certain group. Colbert explains that money also possess the power to change such information on Wikipedia. For example, Microsoft was discovered to have paid an Australian computer expert to change the Wikipedia posts about Microsoft to reflect a more favorable viewpoint toward the company. Thus in learning about Microsoft from Wikipedia, the reader might be more inclined to by their products. One of Microsoft’s competitors could also pay money to have someone alter their page on Wikipedia, to make it biased as well. Reality would then become a commodity, according to Colbert.

After doing some more research on Wikipedia, I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia is similar to Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of accuracy. And don’t worry, I found this information from reliable sites other than Wikipedia itself! Wikipedia has taken measures to ensure such accuracy of information, including editing the average article nearly 34 times. My Chemistry TA even stated that Wikipedia could be used as a source for our upcoming lab report. So has Wikipedia truly become a reliable source of information, despite its reputation?

Here is the link to the Colbert clip about Wikipedia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20PlHx_JjEo

The health care debate has been an ongoing war between Republicans and Democrats for quite some time now. The Republicans have been under attack for forcing the government to shut down, while refusing to accept Obama Care. And recently, Texas Senator Ted Cruz gave a 21-hour speech in opposition to Obama Care, which comedian Jon Stewart analyzed in a segment of his show, “The Daily Show.” In fact, the very idea of Cruz rising in opposition to Obama Care “until [he] can no longer stand” was up for scrutiny as far as Stewart was concerned; “It’s easy for you to take that kind of physical risk, you’ve got government healthcare.”

So what support did Cruz use to back up his accusations? It seems with 21 hours he was able to craft some interesting comparisons for Obama Care, the most exaggerated of which was its similarity to communism. Cruz explains that the current state of our nation under Obama’s leadership is similar to Nazi Germany, yet provides no support for this argument. It’s a classic example of the use of hyperbole to grab the audience’s attention, in an attempt to persuade them. During his speech, Cruz also proudly announced that he tweeted a speech from “Ashton Kutcher,” which really has no relevance in context of the Obama Care debate. It’s understandable that one may run out of arguments to make in 21 hours, but surely Cruz could have cited someone slightly more credible than Kutcher, “the dude who cannot find his car.”

At this point Cruz’s credibility seems to be waning, but he actually does address his real concerns with Obama Care. He states that “Obama Care is estimated to have increased individual healthcare premiums by anywhere from 64% to 146%”. And I suppose this is where my conservative upbringing kicks in, as I understand that nobody wants to pay that much more. In my opinion, Obama Care has it’s issues, and it is not as close of a compromise between the two parties as it should be. However, the benefit it will bring to all of those who can’t afford, yet certainly deserve, health care coverage seems to outweigh the cost.

But back to the satire, as I will admit that it is more entertaining than discussing the pros and cons to the health care issue itself. At one point in his speech, Cruz actually pulled out the book Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss and quoted it in front of the Senate. Jon Stewart hilariously counters this with a new book of his own, entitled The Bore-Ax: a play on Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax. The story starts off like this: “ In the Land of D.C., in the Senate of Snooze, lived the ‘showboatiest’ blab, whose name was Ted Cruz. Ted talked about health care, compared it to Nazis. As comparisons go, he was off by a lotsy.” Stewart should consider making this book available in the children’s section of bookstores nationwide.

Cruz’s filibuster was met with criticism not only from Stewart, but other sources as well. The Houston Chronicle even publically admitted that it regretted ever endorsing Ted Cruz. No matter your opinion on the health care issue, I encourage you to watch Stewart’s roast of Ted Cruz from the link blew. Not only is it a great source of entertainment, but it’s also an examination of the type of rhetoric that is not effective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJmHk7qsiHQ

Warning: this post is a deviation from my promise of political satire. However, this article is a hilarious piece of satire that I find worthy of mentioning.

Based on the article, “Dear Guy Who Just Made My Burrito” by Lucky Shirt

https://medium.com/p/fd08c0babb57

When was the last time you ate a burrito? Have you ever noticed that oftentimes the contents are not properly distributed throughout, and you find yourself eating a dollop of sour cream and then a hunk of guacamole without reaching another ingredient? One very enraged customer decided to rant on about his disappointment with his “burritobomination”. If you get the chance to read the actual article, you’ll notice that he places all of his blame, and subsequent anger, on the employee that made his burrito. In fact, the article is written in the second person, as if the author is chastising the employee directly.

So let’s further discuss the real issue here, which is all about the Zones of Ingredients that comprise the “craptrosity” of a burrito. Take a look at this detailed visual of a less-than desirable, yet common burrito:

As you can very well see, it’s nearly impossible to obtain more than one ingredient at a time when eating such a burrito the proper way, from one end to the other. You can’t just stand the burrito up and chop down on it, so what mechanism should be employed? And don’t for one second suggest using a fork. As the author points out, “I didn’t order the F***ING COBBURRITO SALAD!”

So if there is demand for improvement, how can servers correct this issue? It’s simple: lay the ingredients length-wise so that “every bite has AT LEAST A F***ING CHANCE of getting at least two types of ingredients, and there is little chance of becoming almost hopelessly trapped in a goddamned cilantro cavern.” Yes we understand that the customer also exerts a pressure on the employee to make their meal as soon possible. But in my opinion, taking the extra few seconds to make the burrito more enjoyable for the customer is worth it.

While I can empathize with the author of this article, as I have encountered this burritobomination many a time at the local Chipotle, I think he goes a little too far. For example, he really takes it out on the employee in stating, “And guess what else, player? You probably can’t guess anything, because I’m pretty sure you’re just a mop with a hat on it that fell over and spilled some s*** into a tortilla.” Don’t get me wrong, I find this to be extremely amusing, and this is one of my favorite quotes from the article. I just refuse to believe that anyone could be this angry over a burrito, and I surmise that the rant is just an attempt to be funny and entertaining.