TOW #13- Uncle Sam

          In a political cartoon created by Jeff Parker of Florida Today, a unequal balance of power and wealth is represented through symbols, mockery, and juxtaposition of the United States and a third world country. Uncle Sam, a well-known symbol and representative of America, is placed directly next to an obviously poorer group of individuals, indicating a comparison of two distinctly different countries. The enormous size of Uncle Sam as compared to the frail, hungry others represents the significant gap of power between them. 

          The culturally recognizable figure of Uncle Sam, well-groomed and dressed in fancy clothing, stands out among the rest of the components in the cartoon. When paying closer attention to the words being spoken from each side, Parker addresses the problem of obesity in America, an issue that third world countries will never be faced with because they are less fortunate and face malnutrition on a daily basis. The juxtaposition of America's supreme wealth and power, and the state of the third world country, pokes fun at the fact that obesity is taking over a large population of Americans, while others around the world are struggling to stay alive. It appeals to pathos, causing the audience, especially Americans, to consider how silly it is that obesity is an issue in America. This encourages viewers to pay more attention to the state of third world countries, and opens them up to a more mature perspective that they otherwise might have been too self-consumed to recognize. 

          This metaphorical comparison, through the usage of symbols, mockery, and juxtaposition clearly expresses the differences between America and third world countries. These differences, unrecognizable by many Americans themselves, are extremely prevalent in the lives of impoverished minorities. Jeff Parker is able to cleverly expose the ignorant side of America in this cartoon, further exemplifying the fact that the United States has much less to worry about than they think. 

TOW #12- IRB #2 First Half

          In the first half of my IRB, She Said Yes, the deep sorrow and heartbreak of Misty Bernall, mother of slain Columbine shooting victim Cassie Bernall, is intensely expressed. Waiting anxiously for her daughter to return home after hearing of the devastating news at the school, Misty questions whether or not Cassie is alive. Her sad yet insightful tone allows the audience to peer into the story of Columbine from a first person subjective point-of-view, making Cassie's encounter with the gunmen and Misty's extreme regret evermore real. With access to Cassie's private notes and by connecting with several of her close friends, Misty is able to put together the story piece by piece, learning to cope with it as she goes. She quickly realizes the truth behind Cassie's strange and satanic behavior prior to the school massacre, and is left with nothing more than a sense of remorse for not being able to fix any of it. She continues to try to understand what caused the gunmen to target her daughter, and specifically what she said that triggered the gunshots. This search for all the answers becomes a major part of the story, on top of explaining the emotional effects of the event and major changes that occurred in Columbine, Colorado.
          Throughout the memoir so far, Misty's somber tone appeals largely to pathos, causing the audience to experience the devastating sequence of events side by side with the desperate mother. It causes every word to seem a hundred times more realistic; making each new update on the shooting super shocking, even though I already know what the end result of the attack was. Cassie's battle with religious identification plays a significant role in the direction that Misty focuses her writing, and leads the audience to assume that her struggle between belief in Satan or God is a large contributor towards her death. Misty is able to add suspense to the story and explain the Columbine massacre in an entirely new light; one that even the most knowledgable on the event were not able to discover. This ability changes the impression of Misty's writing, making me at times forget that I am reading a nonfictional piece. I hope to uncover more behind Cassie's story leading up to her death, and see if her mother is able to come to terms with the murder of her innocent, conflicted teenage daughter.

TOW #11- Immigration Policy

The issue over immigration policy in the United States had been a topic hotly debated for years. Some may have their arms wide open, while others do not hesitate for a second to shut out those in need. In Clay Bennett’s 2011 cartoon, featured in the Chattanooga Times Free Press, this ongoing argument is exemplified through the incorporation of a mixed message based on contrasting opinions within a doormat.
             Written on the doormat in plain English are the words “Immigration Policy,” and protruding from the top of it are nails that spell out “Welcome.” Due to the two different opinions being expressed through both English and the nails, the audience is left to perceive the true meaning behind this cartoon. While the English provides American viewers with the topic of the visual, the construction of the word “Welcome” influences them to consider whether or not the United States is truly a welcoming country. Depending on the speaker, whether it be agricultural industries that welcome immigrants, or labor unions that discourage immigrants, the mixed message can be interpreted either way.
             This ability to include both sides demonstrates the flexibility of Bennett’s cartoon, proving his ability to propose two different viewpoints while remaining neutral to the topic at hand. He is not trying to persuade his audience of anything, he is simply allowing them to compose their own opinion and decide which side they associate themselves with in regards to immigration policy. He discovers a way to include two different voices into a singular word, solely based on the way in which the word is presented. In the end, Bennett is still clearly able to expose the contrasting views on immigration policy in America.