LU Blog

Ryan Weiss' blogs for his Lindenwood University courses

[ryanweiss-lu]

Blog about PSA

http://bcove.me/ez577rp5

            The PSA I decided to analyze was one called “Danger Dad” by the Ad Council. The purpose of this PSA was to persuade people to adopt from foster cares around the world. There are a few PSA’s in this certain series, and all of their taglines are, “You don’t have to be perfect to be a perfect parent. There are thousands of kids in foster care who don’t need perfection; they need you.” This tagline is actually the premise of the PSA: foster care kids need parents, and simply having parents is what’s perfect for them.

            This PSA uses humor to persuade the audience. It creates the funny situation of a dad reminding his adopted son to always put “safety first”, although a flashback of the dad trying to take care of a rodent infestation with an empty laundry basket reveals that the dad doesn’t always put safety first. This quirky seen reminds the audience that nobody is perfect, and that you don’t have to be perfect to adopt a foster child. The target audience is clearly middle-aged adults financially steady enough to adopt.

            This PSA is prevalent to society because foster children are in need of parents. Our society believes that to deal with the weight of adopting a foster child, one has to be perfect. The Ad Council is attempting to break that notion by creating relatable situations where foster kids are seen relying on and loving their imperfect parents.

[ryanweiss-lu]

Syria

"Have you heard anything about Syria recently?"...

            A question that has been shouted out of radio programs and debated on live television, but largely misunderstood (or not thought of at all) by the American public. Honestly, until recently, I had no idea anything was happening in Syria either until recently, despite the conflict having been a 2-year-old unfurling of ethnic and religious tension between the secular government of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian rebels. 

            In response to Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons on August 21st against a half-dozen neighborhoods, resulting in over 1400 deaths of innocent civilians (Warrick, Washington Post), the United States is contemplating a military retaliation against Syria. Although the attack wouldn't stem the tide of fighting in Syria, it would send a powerful message to Assad and his forces: the global community does not tolerate the use of chemical warfare (Fisher, Washington Post).

            In 1925, the Geneva Protocol was established, prohibiting the “use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases” (Geneva Protocol, 1925). The global community has historically taken this precedent very seriously, and has refrained from the use of chemical weaponry ever since. In pursuit of maintaining this standard of war, President Obama has hinted at a missile strike against Syria to show Assad that no exception will be made for his breach of this global contract.

            But the deeper question that begs is this: should we care enough to intervene? Officials agree that military intervention of any kind wouldn't end well. Other than a peace treaty between Assad and the rebels (which is highly unlikely), there seems to be no "positive" end in sight. But since the conflict is half a world away, should we care? Syria poses no direct threat to our borders, no direct influence on our country's international trade. Why shouldn't we just recline and wait for the dust to settle? Well, although I don't whole-heartedly believe in being the police of the world, I do believe that we have the clout and the resources to uphold global mandates. And with that power comes the responsibility to act on behalf of the entire world. We have the means, we have the obligation, and we should respond accordingly. Did we ask for this role? Maybe, maybe not. But it's ours to fulfill, no matter how controversial it may be.