SATIRE EXERCISE #1

We will be watching the Weird Al Yankovic video “Word Crimes” three times. It runs 3:46 minutes. The first time, you will watch it as a general overview. The second and third times you will be taking notes on specific details of the satire. You will get a couple minutes between each viewing to check and improve upon your notes.

After discussion, you will write a well-developed paragraph in response to the following writing prompt:

Because the video moves so quickly, you may have trouble determining the meaning of unfamiliar words in context so we will go over those first:

Conjugate – to change the form of a verb to indicate person or tense, as in "I am, you are, he/she/it is, they are" and "I was, you were," etc.

Nomenclature – a system for naming things

Syntax – arranging words and phrases to build sentences

Dangling participle – a misplaced modifier, as in “I saw the trailer peeking through the window.” (Strunk & White)

Oxford comma – the comma before “and” in a series

Homophone – Words that are pronounced alike but have different meanings, as "your/you’re," "to/too/two."

Figurative vs. Literal language – Literal language means exactly what it says. Figurative language means something other than what it says.

Errant – mistaken, poorly chosen

Incoherent – unclear, confusing

Emoji – ideograms, similar to "smileys"

What is the song “Word Crimes” about (summarize)? What is it making fun of? How do you know? What satirical elements or techniques does it develop over the course of the song? (Choose one satirical element or technique, its definition, and at least 3 points of evidence that show how this satirical element or technique is developed in the song.)

"Word Crimes" by Weird Al Yankovic

Everybody shut up, WOO!Everyone listen up!Hey, hey, hey, uhHey, hey, heyHey, hey, hey

If you can't write in the proper wayIf you don't know how to conjugateMaybe you flunked that classAnd maybe now you findThat people mock you online

Okay, now here's the dealI'll try to educate yaGonna familiarizeYou with the nomenclatureYou'll learn the definitionsOf nouns and prepositionsLiteracy's your missionAnd that's why I think it's a

Good timeTo learn some grammarNow, did I stammerWork on that grammarYou should know whenIt's "less" or it's "fewer"Like people who wereNever raised in a sewer

I hate these word crimesLike I could care lessThat means you do careAt least a littleDon't be a moronYou'd better slow downAnd use the right pronounShow the world you're no clownEverybody wise up!

Say you got an "I","T"Followed by apostrophe, "s"Now what does that mean?You would not use "it's" in this caseAs a possessiveIt's a contractionWhat's a contraction?Well, it's the shortening of a word, or a group of wordsBy the omission of a sound or letter

Okay, now here's some notesSyntax you're always manglingNo "x" in "espresso"Your participle's danglin'But I don't want your dramaIf you really wannaLeave out that Oxford comma

Just keep in mindThat "be", "see", "are", "you"Are words, not lettersGet it togetherUse your spellcheckerYou should neverWrite words using numbersUnless you're sevenOr your name is Prince

I hate these word crimesYou really need aFull time proofreaderYou dumb mouth-breatherWell, you should hireSome cunning linguistTo help you distinguishWhat is proper English

One thing I ask of youTime to learn your homophones is past dueLearn to diagram a sentence tooAlways say "to whom"Don't ever say "to who"And listen up when I tell you thisI hope you never use quotation marks for emphasisYou finished second gradeI hope you can tellIf you're doing good or doing wellAbout better figure out the differenceIrony is not coincidenceAnd I thought that you'd gotten it through your skullWhat's figurative and what's literalOh but, just now, you saidYou literally couldn't get out of bedThat really makes me want to literallySmack a crowbar upside your stupid head

I read your e-mailIt's quite apparentYour grammar's errantYou're incoherentSaw your blog postIt's really fantasticThat was sarcastic (Oh, psych!)'Cause you write like a spastic

I hate these Word CrimesYour prose is dopeyThink you should onlyWrite in emojiOh, you're a lost causeGo back to pre-schoolGet out of the gene poolTry your best to not drool

Never mind I give upReally now I give upHey, hey, heyHey, hey, heyGo Away!

SATIRE EXERCISE #2DIRECTIONS: Read the following cartoon and answer the questions below it.

Describe this Off the Mark cartoon completely and objectively. Include the title of the cartoon strip and creator, as well as what’s happening in the cartoon.

Who or what is it making fun of? How do you know?

SATIRE EXERCISE #3DIRECTIONS: Read the following article and answer the questions below it.

COURT DROPS MINIMUM I.Q. FOR EXECUTION; FLORIDA NOW AT RISKMay 27, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. (SatireWire.com) — The Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a Florida law that banned anyone with an IQ below 70 from being executed, a decision that effectively means half of Floridians are now eligible for the death penalty. The cutoff was originally put in place so that convicted murderers deemed intellectually incompetent – generally people with IQs below 70 – would not face automatic execution. By coincidence, the law also covered 49 percent of Floridians, whose IQs range from 69 down to 3rd District Congressman Ted Yoho. Florida Deputy Attorney General Bill Vorn immediately criticized the ruling, saying it was better to put a hard number on competency rather than attempt to figure out if a criminal is reasonably competent by psychological testing. “We absolutely need an automatic cutoff,” said Vorn. “If we just go by testing, no one in the state will ever be executed because if you choose to live in Florida, it’s just too easy to say something’s wrong with you.” Statistical evidence appears to back up Vorn’s assertion. In a telephone poll by the Orlando Sentinel asking if those with IQs below 70 should face the death penalty, 51 percent of Florida residents said “No,” while 22 percent said “Hello” into the wrong end of the phone, 19 percent said, “Why is my leg warm?” and eight percent said, “I set myself on fire again.” In the same poll, however, 82 percent of residents said the decision to execute those convicted of a capital crime would not affect them because they had never been to Tallahassee.© 2014 SatireWire.com

Briefly describe this SatireWire article. Include the title of the article, the source and the date of publication, as well as a brief summary of the article.

Who or what is it making fun of? How do you know?

SATIRE EXERCISE #4DIRECTIONS: Choose one (1) of the following issues-oriented cartoons, and answers the questions below based you’re your choice.

In 2013, 28% of Floridians shot at their IQ tests because they said they felt threatened.

Describe the cartoon completely and objectively.

Who or what is it making fun of? How do you know? Choose one of the satirical elements or techniques from your notes to show how the cartoonist uses humor as part of the satire.

SATIRE EXERCISE #5

DIRECTIONS: Create at least three (3) different versions of this untitled cartoon using three (3) different satirical elements either in a word balloon or in drawing/describing a drawing of how you would change it. Example: Try a version using mockery, one using hyperbole or absurdity, and one using sarcasm.

1. 2. 3.

SATIRE EXERCISE #6

DIRECTIONS: Read the article below and answer the questions below.

SPOILER ALERT: UN REPORT RUINS END OF GLOBAL WARMING DRAMAApr 1, 2014

NEW YORK, N.Y. (SatireWire.com) — Global warming followers the world over were outraged today after the U.N. failed to include a “spoiler alert” on its new report revealing that climate change will result in famine, disease and widespread environmental catastrophe during the next century. “They totally gave away what’s going to happen,” read one angry post on Reddit’sClimate page. “That is so irresponsible. Well, I’m just not going to pay any attention now. Why bother?” The 2,600-page report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change details numerous dire outcomes of rising temperatures and sea levels, some of them “almost spitefully specific,” complained detractors. Among the leaks: coral reefs will disappear by 2050, nitrous oxide and methane will double by 2070, and Himalayan glaciers will melt nearly 50 percent by 2100. “Great. So now I know what happens in 2050, 2070, and 2100,” said one comment on the BBC’s website coverage. “That pretty much ruins the next 100 years for me.” UN scientists defended the study, insisting they hadn’t meant to impede anyone’s interest in the topic. “We’re not saying this absolutely will happen,” said Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC. “We’re saying it’s likely to happen, unless we do something.” “Oh please. Don’t try to walk it back now,” responded another Reddit poster. “Just look at what you’re revealing. Crops die. Fish die. The Great Barrier Reef dies. Why don’t you just ruin the end of Downton Abbey and The Walking Dead while you’re at it?” “If they’d have just said, ‘Someone is going to die by 2050,’ or ‘Something is going to disappear by 2100,’ that would have been fine,” read another comment. “Don’t scientists have to sign a non-disclosure agreement or something, promising not to give away too much of the plot?” By press time, much of the anger at the U.N. had died down as detractors moved on to Reddit’s ‘Holy Bible’ page to complain about spoilers in the Book of Revelations.© 2014 SatireWire.com

Who or what is this article making fun of? How do you know?

Who or what is a secondary target of this article’s satirical humor? How do you know?

SATIRE EXERCISE #7

DIRECTIONS: Read the following cartoon and answer the questions below.

Who or what is this cartoon making fun of? How do you know?

Who or what is a secondary target of this cartoon’s satirical humor? How do you know?

SATIRE EXERCISE #8

DIRECTIONS: Read the following cartoon and article that provide context for the cartoon, and write a paragraph in which you: a) describe the cartoon completely and objectively, and b) explain what it makes fun of and how it makes fun using at least one satirical element or technique and at least 2 pieces of evidence that supports the use of that satirical element or technique.

Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’by Bob Woodward, The Washington Post, January 7

In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.” Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.” Obama, after months of contentious discussion with Gates and other top advisers, deployed 30,000 more troops in a final push to stabilize Afghanistan before a phased withdrawal beginning in mid-2011. “I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission,” Gates writes. It is rare for a former Cabinet member, let alone a defense secretary occupying a central position in the chain of command, to publish such an antagonistic portrait of a sitting president.

Who or what is this cartoon making fun of? How do you know?

Who or what is a secondary target of this cartoon’s satirical humor? How do you know?