Cartoonist Makes Fatal Mistake

This cartoon appeared in the New York Post in the cartoon section on February 18th, 2009. Since its appearance it has sparked hundreds of conversations and blog postings because of its intense controversy. The cartoonist is clever is the way that he linked two large news stories together in one cartoon, the stimulus package and the current shooting of a chimp that was a member of a family that went wild and almost killed a family friend. The police unfortunately had to shoot the animal because it could have caused more damage. To my knowledge, the woman is still in critical condition. The intended audience was readers of the New York Post, however many of them were highly offended by this because of its apparent racial slur. Logically, the cartoonist simply is trying to connect two pressing news matters and combine them together for a laugh. Delonas claims that he never meant to make the racial slur that he did by comparing African Americans to chimps, but he made an ethical blunder by not realizing that this was exactly what the cartoon did. The cartoon repulsed many emotionally because of the apparent racial zing. In today's age, it is completely inappropriate to compare a black man, much less the president of the United States, to a wild animal that almost killed a woman. The cartoon made a much larger impact because it was in a very credible newspaper. If this had been in a very conservative magazine with a very small circulation, people would not have been shocked or thought twice of it, but because it was put in the large and credible New York Post, the response was staggering. The reprecussions that will follow because of this cartoon are sure to be large. Many are trying to get Delonas along with the editor fired. Delonas was undoubtedly trying to funny and clever and claims that he never meant for the cartoon to be racial, but nevertheless that is how the majority of readers saw it and the responces continue to flood in with responces to this emotionally damaging and thoughtless picture.

In class: thinking rhetorically

I found the definition of "rhetorical" to be a bit challenging. The book defines a rhetorical analysis as a close reading of a text to find how and whether it works to persuade. The rest of the chapter goes into deep discussion on the variety of different text that can be used to persuade while emcompasing the previously discussed pathos, ethos, and logos. Which was all pretty self explanatory. The part that really confused me a little bit was when it stated, "Don't be surprised when your rhetorical analysis itself becomes an argument. Tha'ts what it should be." A few pages later, chapter five was very helpful by giving a quite to writing a rhetorical analysis. As far as unit two goes, i am very comfortable with the first two steps, which is choosing a topic and find different sources for the topic. I am thinking i would either like to do Obama's decesion to close gitmo, which falls into my major category, or the decision of the episcopal church to condone a homosexual bishop and the decision of some of the diocese including my own, to leave the episcopal church and rejoin the Anglican communion because of it. I know i will be able to find plenty of information on this, im just a little confused on how to put it all together with my claim and proposal an how to organize it.

The Pathos, Ethos, and Logos of Fieldstone

The barn, Fieldstone, makes many different arguments. I believe that the barns strongest Pathos argument is that it appeals to those who love horses. No one is out there, except for when we have one of our games, that isn’t deeply moved by horses and cares about them very much. Another Pathos argument that the people who work at Fieldstone make is their relationship with their boarders and with us. When they go out of their way to be nice to those who pay to stable with them I believe that they are appealing to our emotions in attempt to make us continue to stay there. Fieldstone also makes many Ethos arguments, the first being that riding horses takes place there. Many do not believe that horses should be ridden like we ride them or ridden in general. By allowing this to happen on their facilities, they are displaying that they condone this behavior. Another argument, which is not as accepted, is their treatment of the horses. By letting some of the horses get turned out in dangerous pastures, not turning the hot wire on to contain them, and by not feeding adequately, they seem to be making ethical argument of apathy. This does not appeal to any of the team members and actually often upsets us. The final argument, logos, is pretty straight forward. Obviously the owner has many acres of land and a large barn with stalls, so it would therefore make sense for her to rent out those stalls to those who would like to stay there. With this, comes the hiring of stable hands to take care of the horses and the establishment. Also, because she has two rings to ride in, the space makes the argument that it would be practical for people to ride there and pay money to be taught lessons. Of course the barn makes many other arguments that I will continue to find with more research.

In class: analyzing visual objects

candy cigarette:
My attention is immediately drawn to the young girl holding the cigarette. I believe that my attention is draw to it because of the shock factor pathos argument that it makes. It also makes an pathos argument because most believe than eight year old should not be already smoking and it is not a practice that i and many others would advocate.
As i pan outward, i notice the other little girl. She makes it clear the the girl holding the cigarette is in fact not very old, yet she also makes the girl look much older. I think the picture is trying to portray that smoking ages you and take away the innocence. It is also integrating to seethe way the girls are dressed. it seems like it could have come right out of a country music video and that it was taken at night time on a farm in Alabama.
I think this picture tries to portray two things. First, like i said before, that smoking takes away innocence and that too many young people are now smoking. And second, that poverty and ruralness inspires smoking in young children. The young girl that has seemed to have to grow up too fast seems very mad at the world around her instead of seeming scared.
I think the photographer wants to preach against the young people smoking and that he/she want to increase awareness of children growing up too fast around us.

In class: logos

i found everything in this chapter pretty self explanatory. This chapter, to me, seemed the easiest to understand because its the type of arguments that we are the most accustomed to. In high school, i was in public forum debate. There are three different types of debate in Texas high schools, ld (which is based on ethos and pathos), cx (which is all logos with complete cramming of facts), and finally pfd (which involved pathos and logos) My partner and i foudn that we used a lot of logos arguments to actually stir the emotions of the judges. Examples of these include; facts, statistics, surveys, and testimonies, etc. The judge in pfd is a lay person, so we always found ti much easier to cram hard facts and logos arguments into their head. My partner was a more pathos debater and i added the needed logos. The only thing i found a tad confusing is when the book explained how Cultural Assumptions and Values could be a logos argument, but after class im sure i will better understand that. besides that, i found the chapter pretty straight forward.