TOW #16: Greenberg Political Cartoon

Genocide, an infamous world phenomenon, is also a topic of worldwide debate. The question of how to handle a seemingly uncontrollable situation becomes key to answer when these Genocides occur. In Steve Greenberg’s political cartoon, a character created to represent the world presents a genocidal situation. Within the cartoon, Greenberg pictures the world explaining the handling of genocide, and a family in Darfur being diminished.  Implementing parody and understatement, Greenberg uses elements of satire to exemplify what happens when no one intervenes with genocide.

            The cartoon essentially outlines a parody of how the genocide in Darfur is being handled, as well as similar genocides. Not of the genocide itself, but of how the world has handled it. In the cartoon, a character pictured to represent “the world” says, “I am not sure it’s really necessary to take action in Genocides…” However, as he says this, a family made to represent the victims of Genocide ironically gets smaller and smaller.  This is meant to represent the real world that Greenberg presents to think falsely that not taking action is the best solution. The viewers, whom would come from western nations with control over the situation, would then be astounded, and disgusted. The parody thus successfully shows them what the end result will be with no action, and causes them to consequently want to take this action.

            Greenberg understates the situation in order to add an ironical feel to the cartoon. Within the cartoon, “the World” attempts to make the argument that lack of action is the most logical solution to the issue of genocide. “The world” states that, “… If you don’t do anything for long enough… the problem eventually sort of solves itself.”  Under the text, a family is shown being depleted with time until the family is absolutely annihilated. By exemplifying the world understating the matter at hand, the actuality strikes at the emotions of western readers.

            Through the parody and understatement exemplified through Greenberg’s cartoon, the western audience is made to understand the vast effects of lack of intervening in genocide. They are successfully made to comprehend the fatuity of claims that lack of action is the best course of action.

Greenberg Political Cartoon

http://lurieunaward.com/8hon_Steve_Greenberg_cartoon2006.jpg 

TOW #15- Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea

The topic of health and food has become a topic of debate over time. Common people, businesses, and politicians have recently started battling out legislation forcing GMO’s, or foods made from genetically modified organisms.  In the article, “Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea”, the editors of Scientific American argue against this type of legislation.  Using statistics and alluding to past events, the editors attempt to convince common people to move against this legislation.

            Multitudes of statistics from a variety of reputable sources are implemented throughout the text to logically convince American citizens to be against these types of legislations.  These statistics are intended to convince people that GMO’s are not a health risk, and that labels will not be beneficial. To convince people that these labels aren’t beneficial, the editors state that a label bill in California “would have raised an average California family's yearly food bill by as much as $400.” The mention of a substantial spending increase immediately frightens the majority of common Americans. Many Americans amidst the financial crisis are short on money, and cannot afford this extra spending due to labels. In order to convince readers of health benefits being more prominent then risks, the editors mention a GMO product called Golden Rice. They state that, “researchers have engineered Golden Rice, which produces beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A.” As they go on to describe the benefits this could have to the global community, they also describe how GMO legislation would delay these benefits. This logic appeal to the audience helps the GMO issue seem less threatening, and more beneficial and necessary to the community.

            The editors’ alluding to past events is intended to draw the implication that logically what happened once, will happen again.  To inform American citizens what will likely occur should they allow legislation to pass, the editors describe events that unfolded in Europe.  After label legislation past due to a hysteria of fear of GMO’s, “to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand.” Many readers, after being informed through statistics the added benefits of GMO products, may not be pleased with this idea of GMO’s not being available.

            Through statistics and allusion to past events, the editors of the Scientific American convince readers to move against anti-GMO legislation.

GMO's
http://www.atyourpalate.com/blog/2013/08/gmos-101-genetically-modified-organisms-what-are-they/

TOW #14- The Sociopath Next Door P.2

The Sociopath Next Door, by Martha Stout, is an informative book comprised of riveting facts with regards to the inner workings of sociopaths. Within this book, Stout not only aims to inform her audience, but make them knowledgeable enough to have a basic idea of how to cope with sociopathic beings. By directly addressing the audience and using hypothetical scenarios, she informs people about the evil of sociopaths and what to do about them.

            By directly addressing her audience, Stout is able to make a personal connection with the audience, and make herself more credible. The audience, who would be a common person, may have personally come in contact with a sociopath. For example, Stout asks her audience to think about, “the way we think about moral dilemmas” (Stout, 180).  By directly addressing her audience, she simultaneously pushes her audience actively think about the subject matter and relates to them. By relating to a non-sociopathic audience, the audience can trust her as it becomes clear that Stout, like them, is not a sociopath. In another section of the text, Stout lists what to do about sociopaths. By directly telling her audience to, “question authority”, for example, she directs her audience and connects to them. Directly addressing her audience with the words “you”, “I”, or “we”, Stout makes herself seem human and not objective to the subject matter at hand.

            Hypothetical scenarios are actively used throughout the text to make the idea of a sociopath more relatable and real. To an audience composed of common people, reading a book packed with facts would be neither appealing nor helpful. The scenarios that Stout constructs both illustrate the point trying to be made and make the point into something that could be feasible in the minds of the audience. For example, Stout describes the life of a sociopath named Tillie through the eyes of neighbors. By exploring a real person through the eyes of others, Stout can point things out in a way that the audience can picture and thus connect with the given information.

            Through her scenarios and direct addresses to her audience, Stout is successfully able to inform common people about the evil within sociopaths and instruct people on how to deal with them.

The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout
http://bhsreads.wordpress.com/welcom/social-studies/the-sociopath-next-door-by-martha-stout/