Friday, February 26, 2010

Summary #6

In the article "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious" Antonia Peacocke describes how the jokes in Family Guy if looked at deeper than just face value actually have a more insightful meaning. Before going into this the author describes the hardships of the television show Family Guy, having been cancelled twice. She later uses this to show how "high profile" the show is by saying "Most importantly,each time it was cancelled fans provided the brute force necessary to get it back on the air." (261). She uses different numbers and awards to show how devoted the shows fans are and how well the show is actually doing. Peacocke talks about her own struggle with the shows seemingly offensive humor but then how she realizes the underlying "satire" of the jokes. The author uses different segments of the show to display how although the jokes are, at first glance, offensive the hidden meaning is simply "pointing out the weaknesses and defects of U.S. society in a mocking and sometimes intolerable way." (263). Antonia Peacocke uses excerpts from different authors to shape her argument, agreeing with some and pointing fun at others. She recognizes some of the steps taken due to the fact that the content of some of the jokes are not for younger ears. She ends her article explaining that although she feels that there is more to the jokes on Family Guy than the offensive crudity that people like to point out she still finds that people still need to realize that some jokes do go to far and take to heart "the distinction between a shamelessly candid but insightful joke and a merely shameless joke". (266).

Friday, February 5, 2010

Summary # 4

"Lawsuits Against Fast-Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way Combat Obesity" by John H. Banzhaf III is an essay explaining the benefits of the lawsuits against the fast food industries. Banzhaf describes how the new lawsuits brought against the fast food industries are an efficient way to halter obesity and other things. He feels that by preventing these lawsuits our country is not giving consequences for the part these restaurants play in the rise in obesity in the last couple of decades. As a result, the government is hindering a useful tool in holding the restaurants liable. The author consistently compares fast food industries to tobacco companies and the laws governing the fast food industries to the laws that govern tobacco. For example, in response to the comment that the lawsuits are "frivolous" Banzhaf states "the nonsmoker lawsuits, and the lawsuits by the states against the tobacco industry, were all initially frivolous."(164) and that "industries do not need protection against lawsuits which are truly frivolous, only those lawsuits which judges, juries and appellate courts are likely to take seriously." (164). In other words restaurants would not be so worried about these lawsuits if they were inconsequential. Banzhaf goes on to address a new bill that excludes restaurants from liability in food litigation. He finds this bill to be "premature- if not presumptuous and preposterous-" (164). The author feels that if restaurants would simply take certain precautions, such as displaying calorie information where the food is purchased, provide warnings and providing nutritious choices, industries would save themselves of the legal hassles. However, Banzhaf believes that if we stop lawsuits before they even happen trying to solve this problem it is just taking away the only weapon people have and granting the companies freedom from their liability.