Analyze the cartoon in terms of the rhetorical triangle and appeals (logos, pathos, ethos). Is the cartoon effective? With which audience? Posts DUE 9/7 by midnight.
The cartoon’s subject is saying that with our government’s huge and uncontrollable spending, the government is letting down the people by squashing their own responsibility to be fiscally responsible and instead to waste our tax payers’ money. You can see this quite well in a report from ten years ago. The report came out the day before 9/11 and said that the Pentagon couldn’t account for 2.3 trillion dollars. However, due to the following day’s events, this announcement was conveniently forgotten by the public. And do you think they’ve found this money since then, or have stopped this mysteriously vanishing cash flow?
The author is clearly in favor of a budget, and therefore is likely a conservative. He’d be in favor of small government. The audience is the American people, whether to have like-minded individuals sympathize with the author’s complaints, or to scold and hackle those in who prefer large governments with large spending programs.
The cartoon appeals to pathos strongly. It shows you the powerful image of a young boy, trying to enjoy his kiddie pool. Into his happiness comes this old, wrinkly, obese man, a repulsive sight to see when wearing a bathing suit. This large behemoth comes and completely ignores the desires, not to mention the safety, of the child already inside the kiddie pool. In regards to logos, you are able to get a grasp on how different our budget is, and yet our government’s revenues do not compare. This leads one to think, how are we ever going to overcome this gap? If we do not cut the budget soon, the only viable option is to dramatically increase taxes in all areas of life. As for ethos, for anyone who is of the same opinion as the author, the author’s credibility is immediately established in the fact that they share the same values. If someone is of the opposing view point, however, this cartoon will work to discredit the artist of the political cartoon in question.
The cartoon, I believe, is effective. When one considers a small child being crushed under the weight of an obese man, you immediately want to take sides with the child being suffocated under the old man’s girth. When one considers the political implications being made, however, this cartoon undoubtedly insults those of the opposing view, losing their sympathy and subduing their desires to consider the author’s message any more thoroughly. If one agrees with the author, then one can feel the perceived truth of the message flow over them in indignation. They want someone to do something about this unjust practise harming the American society, though many will only gripe about the subject before returning to their day to day life. Still, with this crowd of people the author’s purpose will sink in with repeated exposure so that come Election Day these compatible minds will turn up and vote for candidates who preach along the same line as this cartoon.
The cartoon itself shows the government spending as the large man in the patriotic swimsuit. Where the little kiddy pool shows fiscal responsibility. Now the government spending is much to large compared to the responsibility of the money in the first place. I think the author might even hint on the spending attempt to squash the fiscal responsibility. Even so, i belive the picture is geared for those with below average knowledge on how the governemnt works can still understand that this will not turn out very well. Making me belive that the cartoon is indeed effective.
Pathos is in the adults face, and the little childs face. There facial features are diffrent, where the adult hasnt a care in the world the child looks confused and quite scared of whats about to happen to him and his pool in the next few seconds.
There is also logos in the scene. The amount of spending is quite larger then the fiscal saving and or responsibility by a very large factor compaired to this picture. Not to mention the fact hes going to do a cannon ball into the pool hes going to make all the saving pointless anyways.
In the end, the spending will still spend while the saving and responsibility will be constantly abused by the governments constant never ending spending.
I think this cartoons subject it’s that the government as this massive uncontrollable spending that is throwing themselves into the fiscal responsibilities. As the cartoon portrays, the little kid is almost forced to watch this overweighed person jump into his little kiddy pool. The speaker of this cartoon is people who see the government for its irresponsible spending and warning people to watch out for it. I believe its appealing to logos. Logos because it has to do with the fact that the government isn't being very responsible with their spending. By them doing that, they decide to, through stupidity, throw themselves onto the fiscal for their responditily. Pathos too because, this does have an effect on people. For the government doing this this does affect them. The cartoon is effective because you don't want to see a darling little boy being crushed by this over weighted person! So you would feel bad for the kid for becoming a pancake. This wouldn’t be pleasant. It’s effective toward the people who have the deal with the government and their stupidity on their over spending.
The illustrator of this cartoon is attempting to reach the American people, particularly tax payers, to show them his idea of government spending. Tax payers need to pay attention, and realize that their money is going towards a lot of spending, and fiscal irresponsibility. Many people may not realize exactly how much money is going towards programs that would probably survive a budget cut. The little boy has a good grasp on his pool; that is until a corpulent adult man blows everything up. He squashes any hopes for responsibility of our money in this country, and that really shows in our enormous debt we have. In reality, roughly $1 billion is going towards wars every three days, and currently about $30 billion has gotten lost to contracting fraud. That does not sound like a responsible action on the governments part. The government of all people should know how important our financials are, and should keep it in the right place. No one enjoys seeing little kids getting smashed by massive obese men, now do they? And in seeing the face of the little boy you truly realize that this is going to be an issue soon, with potentially a horrid outcome. The glee with which big government likes to take out the security of the "little guy" also adds to the irresponsible factor, which is shown in this cartoon. This cartoon is effective in the sense that you are more willing to pay attention to where our money is if you think of it as a little kid being cannon balled on by a giant man. Most people are ignorant to where there taxes go because they have to pay them no matter what, but really our government is losing it's responsibility to the little guy(people) to it's need to spend.
The first thing I noticed about this cartoon is the bigger guy’s face. It looks like he knows what he is doing, and he thinks it is funny. I interpreted this as our government know what they are doing, knows what bad is going to come out of it, and is STILL going to do it. The speaker is trying to present to us is a few things. One, the government is spending more money than we can handle. Two, the government isn’t paying attention to what they are doing. And three is that the government doesn’t care about the American people’s thoughts.
If you look at the bigger guy’s face, you see that he is looking at the kid that is sitting in the pool. To me this shows that the government knows that they are heading for disaster. But instead of taking a step back and looking at what they are doing, they are just going all in without thinking. The subject that the author is presenting is the situation involving government spending. He doesn’t agree with what the government is doing, and is showing people his opinion in this cartoon.
The appeal that the author is presenting is logos. He is trying to show the idea that the government is spending money that they don’t really have. It is affecting America as a whole. I also think that the author is trying to appeal to pathos. The cartoon shows that the American people aren’t happy with the spending and that it needs to change. The emotion it is portraying is kind of being scared of what the government is doing. The government needs to realize what they are doing before they get into an even bigger mess.
Our speaker, Matt Handlesman, is illitrating the biggest problem that our government has to our politically curious audience. He is showing that our government, illistrated as the fat fellow jumping into the kiddy pool with patriotic swim shorts on, is going overboard with the amout of spending that it is doing while completely underminding our public revinue, illistrated by the small boy in the kiddy pool.
Ethos is used highly within this cartoon because it is using facts about our governments irresponsible spending. While pathos is used in the sense that the facts used in this illistration are supposed to enrage you, and you are supposed to get angry at our government for treating money like we do water, and neither are unlimited. Finally logos is used with the logic of how irresponsibly our government is handling our money.
The cartoon is effective to a point, that would be the fact that yes we all can get angry at our government but there's not much that we can do to stop it. Without a large amout of people or a change in the governments additude, there will be no change in revinue spending. This appeals typically to those who are always looking to find more dirt on the US government or people who are curious on our governments current status.
This cartoon's subject is government spending. A topic that has been in debate for years but especially now due to our country's current economic situation. The cartoon shows how the government's outrageous use of income is in a sense crushing the American people (represented by the small child in the inflateable pool.)
The author obviously thinks the US government should somehow control their spending in a more acceptable fasion, because frankly that kid doesn't look too excited about his current situation. The kid in this cartoon is the American people.
The cartoon mainly utilizes pathos to get its point across. The author wants you to feel sorry for the small child who is about to be crushed like an insect under the sheer mass of his over-weight opponent, which in this case, the child is the average american, and the behemoth of a man is government spending.
I think the cartoon is very effective at getting across its message. The author clearly wants us to see his point of view, which is that the government spends too much with no regard for the United States as a whole. In this cartoon it seems as if, in the author's mind, that government spending will soon bury us as a country.
We can rant all day about how we are going to contain and manage the debt crisis, but at the end of the day have we made any progress? At almost the end of 4 years have we made the slightest amount of progress financially? On the contrary, NO! In-fact we've been dragged so far down the dark, wet, dismal, indefinite, leaden, non-translucent, bottomless pit known as debt that it looks as if there is no way out. Sure we can cut the budget... but what definite long-term effect will it have on our immense twelve trillion dollar debt? If we think about this in the grand scheme of things, and look at this whole situation rationally most can objectively reason that we won't be completely out of the debt pit in this lifetime at-least. How will our government's decisions today affect the people TOMORROW? Will my and as-well as your children be raised under the burden of debt? Will they ever know what is truly like to be free from the clutches of such a monster?
This political form of propaganda illustrates to me that our once held ideal of minimal debt, that the ideal of fiscal policy was to be maintained, is as of present a tainted ideal. Not only have we not stood by our own guidelines to manage national debt, but we have also taken our original motive and flipped it front side down. In turn our 'Government Standing', cannot abide by its own set law of fiscal responsibility and in-turn is a perfect analogy for the snow ball effect...
Pathos is the most noticeable characteristic of this cartoon at first glance, the young boy in awe-shock at the gargantuan behemoth that is in free fall above him. No doubts in the boy's mind "Man I'm in for it". Some might inquire, why is the 'Government Standing's' backside facing the young 'Fiscal Responsibility'? Is this an insult to the Fiscal policy?
On the other hand, Logo's is widely projected in and through this depiction visually. Is the government standing exceeding its fiscal responsibility? YES, very much so.
This cartoon was very effective, it gives us the in-side-que to what is and has been insinuating in the mind of Americans for the past 4 years. It also gives us fore-sight into what is to come if we don't manage the debt crisis as best we can, if it is at all still possible. I honestly find that this cartoon would be very puzzling to decipher if I had no remote clue about what was stirring up in the economy. This cartoon in my opinion was published for the well-read, up to date political analysts / enthusiasts.
The artist has illustrated a very large old man about to crush a small boy in a small swimming pool. The old man represents the governments spending and the boy represents the American people and the responsibility the government has for them. He is saying that the United States Government is crushing the American people with its uncontrollable spending. After thoroughly analyzing this cartoon I have come to the conclusion that it appeals primarily to pathos. I have formulated this opinion based on how the artist attempts to convince the reader of his position, he provides a metaphorical image of what the government is doing, but he himself does not provide any facts to support his claim. This cartoon could possibly appeal to ethos, depending on where it was published and who it was illustrated by. It is very hard for political cartoons to appeal to logos because it is difficult to incorporate cold hard facts into an (often times) metaphorical representation of the issue. Being that it is just a picture it does do a good job at getting the viewer on the authors side, because in reality you can state any argument and have mass appeal as long as you represent your side as a kid about to be fatally injured.
Our government has made many poor choices over the years, and this cartoon takes one of them and shows the sickening reality of the situation. Again, we have the reference to a rather obese Uncle Sam, symbolizing the United States government. However, I think that the artist is referencing more than just the US government. Part of the country's debt goes into food! One of the leading causes of preventable death in the US is obesity. US citizens spend boat loads of money on fast food! This is an important factor to add to the equation of the source of our debt problems. The other signs we must take into consideration are, the words used in the cartoon.The cartoon labels the obese man man as, " Government spending." We watch in horror as his tumultous weight hangs inches away from the child's head. The poor child is stuck underneath him and there is no chance of escape for him. The Government's spending is destroying any chance at "fiscal spending." The debt crisis is so great that even if the government were going to try to dive into the pool of budgeting and spending wisely, they wouldn't have a chance. I think that overall the artist is appealing to the pathos, but i also think they are appealing to logos as well. They are evoking a sense of pity and worry for the kid in the pool of fiscal spending! They make us angry at the fact that the government is quenching life because of debt problems. They also appeal to logos because they are stating the facts about our debt crisis: we have a severe debt problem, we don't know where most of the money disappeared to, and because of all of this citizens are no longer able to purchase things they need because they can't afford it! The cartoon is, in my opinion, very effective because they effectively appealed to pathos to make us question our governements choices. They chose to set up the situation of a child's life at stake to demonstrate the brutality of our debt crisis.
The cartoon is saying that our governmet is huge and that it spends so much more than what it's bringing in. It's also jumping in a kids pool that is supposed to be fiscal responsiblity.
This appeals to pathos and logos, because it is not only showing what the government thinks about responsiblity but of our country and their spending. It appeals to pathos because the little boy representing America is frightened by the government's size.
The cartoon is slightly effective it shows what the government really thinks of us, the audience is American people.
Lord knows I'd have the same look on my face if there were to be a wrinkly, decrepit man hurdling himself into my pool. Whether or not the little sprout was planning on getting out of the pool is hard to say. Instantaneously, the weight of the heavy set man would have the boy pummeled and squashed. The government spending, essentially is bombarding us and needs to be controlled.
I'm leaning towards pathos on this one. The emotion with this political cartoon is very simple: fright. What's happening to our money? Where is it all going? You look at the child's face and it screams worry.
The cartoon is effective. It's carefully planned out and shows both sides of the story: the about-to-be- pummeled boy and the careless cannon ball of the government. Can you say BELLLLY FLOPPP?
The artist of this cartoon is speaking to all of us Americans out there. He is warning us about the huge problem that is the government is spending too much of our money, and even money that we don't have. Government spending is a really gigantic problem in the U.S. and in this cartoon's case, a really gigantic man. The amount of spending that the government does is a huge burden on our shoulders and is bound to crush us eventually if we don't do something about it. This man looks like he is of some weight and would be a literal huge burden on the kid's shoulders and would eventually crush him if something wasn't done about it. Also, I think that another reason whey he is so huge is because the amount of money that our government is spending is also really huge. I think that when it comes to our spending we are just diving in to a whole lot of trouble without thinking of the consequences.
I think that this cartoon appeals to all three of the appeals. I think that this cartoon appeals to ethos by creating a scenario that we all have seen in cartoons, or at least it's similar to some in cartoons. This is getting us to relate to the situation, and also if you think that the government is messing up, you have something in common with the artist. I think that this cartoon appeals to logos by stating facts in a figurative way. The amount of overspending and spending money that we don't have is a huge problem that we have in the U.S. right now and the author is stating that by showing the problem that's about to happen which is a small kid being crushed by something we can't handle. The U.S. and our economy is like a little kid that is about be crushed by the spending, which if we let it get out of hand, is something that we cannot control. The political cartoon appeals to pathos by getting you to feel sorry for the kid that's about to get destroyed by this huge man. By getting you to feel sorry for the kid and makes you almost want to do something about it to save him. The artist wants you to feel this way about the U.S. economy, he wants you to feel bad about what's happening to the U.S. economy and wants you to feel like you need to do something about it.
I think that this political cartoon is highly affective in getting its point across. Its point is to warn you of the dangers of how much the government is spending. The government is creating a huge problem that will come back and bite you us in the butt.
The government's spending is going all kinds of crazy. They are being careless, and not paying attention to their financial responsibility. They are having fun while they're at it.
The audience is most likely the people who are being affected by the government, the American people. Based on the fact that this is framing the government as the bad person, the author was probably also an average American citizen. The purpose was to make out the government to be reckless spenders.
Ethos comes in because this cartoon is against the government, and if you agree that the government is being careless, then you trust the author. The government is not caring about its financial responsibility which is us, and children. We feel bad for the child, and there fore ourselves and anger towards the government, appealing to pathos. Thus, it is most effective for the average citizens. The cartoon tries to appeal to logos, by showing the straight facts, that the spending is out of control.
The financial spending is not controlling the government because the government's spending is looming cannonball that isn't stopping.
Ethos is established by the size and color of the charater potraying the amount of goverment spending. Pathos is appealed to by the rendering of an innocent child as the fiscal responsibility being ignored and put into physical danger. The appeal to logos is demonstrated by the obvious discrepancy between goverment spending and fiscal responsiblity. Authors purpose is to express his frustration with the goverments irresponsible money managment. His intended audience is those who share his exasperation with our goverment and the disregard they have for our growing debt crisis.
This cartoon says a lot about what the artist thinks about government spending in our country. The obese man in the cartoon symbolizes many things: the massive amounts of debt, the way that the government seems to almost be enjoying their spending on this and that and everything (based on the joyful look on the obese man’s face,) and how they are crushing every aspect of fiscal responsibility (represented by the child in the pool). This cartoon is speaking from a common man’s view (the artist) to more average people of the general public. The artist is trying to make his statement through a clear appeal to pathos: "Look at our government, they are spending radically at our expense, and they obviously couldn’t care less. They have no sense of fiscal responsibility, and instead choose to ruin themselves and the ‘little guy’ by not caring about anything.” There are appeals to ethos and logos in the cartoon as well, but they are less obvious. The artist appeals to ethos by saying, “Look what government spending is doing to the little people. I feel strongly about this, you should too, we should do something about this.”
The other part of this cartoon that caught my attention and made me think was not the big dude in swim trunks, but the smallness of the child and the smallness of the pool he is in. The child represents the American public, yes? I found it very interesting how the millions of Americans were represented by one small child in a miniature wading pool. I’m not sure if the cartoonist intended to draw it for this purpose, but to me it seems as though he is not only making a statement about the government’s fiscal responsibility, but the American citizens’ as well. It is a statement about how little fiscal responsibility there is throughout the country; there are very few individuals truly being responsible with their money, shown by the young age of the child. I feel like the artist is saying that Americans are immature about money management, and that there is very little fiscal responsibility in our country already without our government trying to smash every last bit of it. If the “pool” were bigger, that is to say, if more Americans were smart with their money and managed to keep themselves out of debt, banks would not go under as easily, fewer mortgages would overturn, and life would be easier for everybody. If this were to happen, the government’s spending would not have such a great effect on the way our country works. If the pool were larger, the little guy might manage to stay afloat in the midst of the shockwaves of radical government spending.
The artist is trying to say that government spending is too large and is crushing fiscal responsibility. The cartoon is saying that instead of spending our money wisely, the US government is spending too much of it, possibly in the wrong places. This cartoon is trying to speak to the American people; trying to explain that that the government needs to be more fiscal responsible or the economy will fail
This article appeals to logos and pathos. It appeals to logos because it is stating the fact that the government is spending a lot of money, it appeals to pathos because it makes people feel that fiscal responsibility is a poor innocent child being crushed by the big bad government.
If political cartoons were comparable to the very foods we eat, this one would be quite delicious. Its texture is easy to digest, and the insatiable aftertaste leaves you craving for more sensibly restrained political propaganda. Your mouth waters as you shamelessly attempt to gorge just one more piece, only to be swatted by your mother like an infernal housefly. The diversity of flavor gently rests against each other like old, distant lovers. Suddenly, you realize that LIFE IS WORTH IT.
I sincerely doubt that the author of this cartoon directly uses the rhetorical triangle as a base for this delectable, intellectually fattening cartoon. In spite of this, he seems to have somehow successfully displayed a clear message that ties itself within both the audience and his authoritative correctness. More specifically, there is an obvious message being put forth that is as gaudy as a TV reality star. It made me cringe. Still, it directly credits the communicator's comprehension towards the topic. After all, only an expert could so graciously produce such a culinary work of art.
The triangular void is fulfilled by the audience, which connects the author's credibility to message of the cartoon like an online dating site. The audience in this case is represented once again by political junkies; those who dedicate their lives to the likes of politics. After all, who else could enjoy such a delicious trifle?
Keep in mind that political cartoons in general tend not to have an audience. Truthfully, anyone who looks at something like this would easily be able to fully comprehend and appreciate it. The audience therefor would be anyone who happens to stumble upon it. Those who follow politics just seem to savoir its contrived ingenuity even more.
Now, certainly I'm not a gambling man by nature, but if I had any money in my pockets, then I'd bet that maybe, just maybe, the author of the cartoon is, perhaps, against government spending. I am as shocked as you are. This message is joined by the audience as well as the author's apparent credibility to satisfy the rhetorical triangle.
If you ask me (and you probably wouldn't), this cartoon appeals exclusively to Pathos. By definition, fiscal responsibility is when the government equally earns as much as it spends in taxes. As you can see from the cartoon, fiscal responsibility is about to be destroyed by a large and suspiciously patriotic man. I daresay it will be the end of fiscal responsibility as we all know it, and we have nothing but GOVERNMENT SPENDING to blame. When you think about it, this cartoon couldn't be any more blunt: the government is spending too much of our gosh darn well earned money. Why, I can feel the Pathos running through my veins!
The subject of the cartoon is how fiscal responsibility is affected by government spending. You see government spending portrayed as an obese man who completely disregards the fact that a little boy, fiscal responsibility, is already enjoying his little kiddy pool and decides to fulfill his own wants and needs before those of the little boy. The speaker is the cartoonist, who by his view of government spending, thinks that government spending should be kept in check. The audience is American tax payers as their money is what the government is spending irresponsibility and in large doses. The audience is most likely people who agree with the stand point of the cartoonist, that the government spending should be monitored and kept in check.
The cartoon appeals mostly to pathos by means of making the audience sympathize with the little boy representing fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility receives sympathy for the fact that it is going to be smashed and harmed by large government spending shown as an obese man. It also appeals to ethos as people who share the viewpoint of needing restricted government spending will find this cartoonist trustworthy, but this appeal wouldn’t work for those who have an opposing viewpoint. Lastly, it appeals to logos because the logic of large government spending not being healthy for fiscal responsibility is sound.
The cartoon is effective for those who hold the viewpoint of limiting government spending especially because the appeals are geared towards them. People who hold an opposing viewpoint won’t find this cartoon as effective because once they move on from the appeal to pathos, the appeals to logos and ethos won’t fit for them as well as for the other audience because only the appeal to pathos will truly appeal to everybody. Tatyanna Brown-Ibarra
The cartoon’s subject is saying that with our government’s huge and uncontrollable spending, the government is letting down the people by squashing their own responsibility to be fiscally responsible and instead to waste our tax payers’ money. You can see this quite well in a report from ten years ago. The report came out the day before 9/11 and said that the Pentagon couldn’t account for 2.3 trillion dollars. However, due to the following day’s events, this announcement was conveniently forgotten by the public. And do you think they’ve found this money since then, or have stopped this mysteriously vanishing cash flow?
ReplyDeleteThe author is clearly in favor of a budget, and therefore is likely a conservative. He’d be in favor of small government. The audience is the American people, whether to have like-minded individuals sympathize with the author’s complaints, or to scold and hackle those in who prefer large governments with large spending programs.
The cartoon appeals to pathos strongly. It shows you the powerful image of a young boy, trying to enjoy his kiddie pool. Into his happiness comes this old, wrinkly, obese man, a repulsive sight to see when wearing a bathing suit. This large behemoth comes and completely ignores the desires, not to mention the safety, of the child already inside the kiddie pool. In regards to logos, you are able to get a grasp on how different our budget is, and yet our government’s revenues do not compare. This leads one to think, how are we ever going to overcome this gap? If we do not cut the budget soon, the only viable option is to dramatically increase taxes in all areas of life. As for ethos, for anyone who is of the same opinion as the author, the author’s credibility is immediately established in the fact that they share the same values. If someone is of the opposing view point, however, this cartoon will work to discredit the artist of the political cartoon in question.
The cartoon, I believe, is effective. When one considers a small child being crushed under the weight of an obese man, you immediately want to take sides with the child being suffocated under the old man’s girth. When one considers the political implications being made, however, this cartoon undoubtedly insults those of the opposing view, losing their sympathy and subduing their desires to consider the author’s message any more thoroughly. If one agrees with the author, then one can feel the perceived truth of the message flow over them in indignation. They want someone to do something about this unjust practise harming the American society, though many will only gripe about the subject before returning to their day to day life. Still, with this crowd of people the author’s purpose will sink in with repeated exposure so that come Election Day these compatible minds will turn up and vote for candidates who preach along the same line as this cartoon.
The cartoon itself shows the government spending as the large man in the patriotic swimsuit. Where the little kiddy pool shows fiscal responsibility. Now the government spending is much to large compared to the responsibility of the money in the first place. I think the author might even hint on the spending attempt to squash the fiscal responsibility. Even so, i belive the picture is geared for those with below average knowledge on how the governemnt works can still understand that this will not turn out very well. Making me belive that the cartoon is indeed effective.
ReplyDeletePathos is in the adults face, and the little childs face. There facial features are diffrent, where the adult hasnt a care in the world the child looks confused and quite scared of whats about to happen to him and his pool in the next few seconds.
There is also logos in the scene. The amount of spending is quite larger then the fiscal saving and or responsibility by a very large factor compaired to this picture. Not to mention the fact hes going to do a cannon ball into the pool hes going to make all the saving pointless anyways.
In the end, the spending will still spend while the saving and responsibility will be constantly abused by the governments constant never ending spending.
I think this cartoons subject it’s that the government as this massive uncontrollable spending that is throwing themselves into the fiscal responsibilities. As the cartoon portrays, the little kid is almost forced to watch this overweighed person jump into his little kiddy pool. The speaker of this cartoon is people who see the government for its irresponsible spending and warning people to watch out for it.
ReplyDeleteI believe its appealing to logos. Logos because it has to do with the fact that the government isn't being very responsible with their spending. By them doing that, they decide to, through stupidity, throw themselves onto the fiscal for their responditily. Pathos too because, this does have an effect on people. For the government doing this this does affect them.
The cartoon is effective because you don't want to see a darling little boy being crushed by this over weighted person! So you would feel bad for the kid for becoming a pancake. This wouldn’t be pleasant. It’s effective toward the people who have the deal with the government and their stupidity on their over spending.
The illustrator of this cartoon is attempting to reach the American people, particularly tax payers, to show them his idea of government spending. Tax payers need to pay attention, and realize that their money is going towards a lot of spending, and fiscal irresponsibility. Many people may not realize exactly how much money is going towards programs that would probably survive a budget cut.
ReplyDeleteThe little boy has a good grasp on his pool; that is until a corpulent adult man blows everything up. He squashes any hopes for responsibility of our money in this country, and that really shows in our enormous debt we have. In reality, roughly $1 billion is going towards wars every three days, and currently about $30 billion has gotten lost to contracting fraud. That does not sound like a responsible action on the governments part. The government of all people should know how important our financials are, and should keep it in the right place.
No one enjoys seeing little kids getting smashed by massive obese men, now do they? And in seeing the face of the little boy you truly realize that this is going to be an issue soon, with potentially a horrid outcome. The glee with which big government likes to take out the security of the "little guy" also adds to the irresponsible factor, which is shown in this cartoon.
This cartoon is effective in the sense that you are more willing to pay attention to where our money is if you think of it as a little kid being cannon balled on by a giant man. Most people are ignorant to where there taxes go because they have to pay them no matter what, but really our government is losing it's responsibility to the little guy(people) to it's need to spend.
The first thing I noticed about this cartoon is the bigger guy’s face. It looks like he knows what he is doing, and he thinks it is funny. I interpreted this as our government know what they are doing, knows what bad is going to come out of it, and is STILL going to do it. The speaker is trying to present to us is a few things. One, the government is spending more money than we can handle. Two, the government isn’t paying attention to what they are doing. And three is that the government doesn’t care about the American people’s thoughts.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the bigger guy’s face, you see that he is looking at the kid that is sitting in the pool. To me this shows that the government knows that they are heading for disaster. But instead of taking a step back and looking at what they are doing, they are just going all in without thinking. The subject that the author is presenting is the situation involving government spending. He doesn’t agree with what the government is doing, and is showing people his opinion in this cartoon.
The appeal that the author is presenting is logos. He is trying to show the idea that the government is spending money that they don’t really have. It is affecting America as a whole. I also think that the author is trying to appeal to pathos. The cartoon shows that the American people aren’t happy with the spending and that it needs to change. The emotion it is portraying is kind of being scared of what the government is doing. The government needs to realize what they are doing before they get into an even bigger mess.
Our speaker, Matt Handlesman, is illitrating the biggest problem that our government has to our politically curious audience. He is showing that our government, illistrated as the fat fellow jumping into the kiddy pool with patriotic swim shorts on, is going overboard with the amout of spending that it is doing while completely underminding our public revinue, illistrated by the small boy in the kiddy pool.
ReplyDeleteEthos is used highly within this cartoon because it is using facts about our governments irresponsible spending. While pathos is used in the sense that the facts used in this illistration are supposed to enrage you, and you are supposed to get angry at our government for treating money like we do water, and neither are unlimited. Finally logos is used with the logic of how irresponsibly our government is handling our money.
The cartoon is effective to a point, that would be the fact that yes we all can get angry at our government but there's not much that we can do to stop it. Without a large amout of people or a change in the governments additude, there will be no change in revinue spending. This appeals typically to those who are always looking to find more dirt on the US government or people who are curious on our governments current status.
This cartoon's subject is government spending. A topic that has been in debate for years but especially now due to our country's current economic situation. The cartoon shows how the government's outrageous use of income is in a sense crushing the American people (represented by the small child in the inflateable pool.)
ReplyDeleteThe author obviously thinks the US government should somehow control their spending in a more acceptable fasion, because frankly that kid doesn't look too excited about his current situation. The kid in this cartoon is the American people.
The cartoon mainly utilizes pathos to get its point across. The author wants you to feel sorry for the small child who is about to be crushed like an insect under the sheer mass of his over-weight opponent, which in this case, the child is the average american, and the behemoth of a man is government spending.
I think the cartoon is very effective at getting across its message. The author clearly wants us to see his point of view, which is that the government spends too much with no regard for the United States as a whole. In this cartoon it seems as if, in the author's mind, that government spending will soon bury us as a country.
We can rant all day about how we are going to contain and manage the debt crisis, but at the end of the day have we made any progress? At almost the end of 4 years have we made the slightest amount of progress financially? On the contrary, NO! In-fact we've been dragged so far down the dark, wet, dismal, indefinite, leaden, non-translucent, bottomless pit known as debt that it looks as if there is no way out. Sure we can cut the budget... but what definite long-term effect will it have on our immense twelve trillion dollar debt? If we think about this in the grand scheme of things, and look at this whole situation rationally most can objectively reason that we won't be completely out of the debt pit in this lifetime at-least. How will our government's decisions today affect the people TOMORROW? Will my and as-well as your children be raised under the burden of debt? Will they ever know what is truly like to be free from the clutches of such a monster?
ReplyDeleteThis political form of propaganda illustrates to me that our once held ideal of minimal debt, that the ideal of fiscal policy was to be maintained, is as of present a tainted ideal. Not only have we not stood by our own guidelines to manage national debt, but we have also taken our original motive and flipped it front side down. In turn our 'Government Standing', cannot abide by its own set law of fiscal responsibility and in-turn is a perfect analogy for the snow ball effect...
Pathos is the most noticeable characteristic of this cartoon at first glance, the young boy in awe-shock at the gargantuan behemoth that is in free fall above him. No doubts in the boy's mind "Man I'm in for it". Some might inquire, why is the 'Government Standing's' backside facing the young 'Fiscal Responsibility'? Is this an insult to the Fiscal policy?
On the other hand, Logo's is widely projected in and through this depiction visually. Is the government standing exceeding its fiscal responsibility? YES, very much so.
This cartoon was very effective, it gives us the in-side-que to what is and has been insinuating in the mind of Americans for the past 4 years. It also gives us fore-sight into what is to come if we don't manage the debt crisis as best we can, if it is at all still possible. I honestly find that this cartoon would be very puzzling to decipher if I had no remote clue about what was stirring up in the economy. This cartoon in my opinion was published for the well-read, up to date political analysts / enthusiasts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe artist has illustrated a very large old man about to crush a small boy in a small swimming pool. The old man represents the governments spending and the boy represents the American people and the responsibility the government has for them. He is saying that the United States Government is crushing the American people with its uncontrollable spending. After thoroughly analyzing this cartoon I have come to the conclusion that it appeals primarily to pathos. I have formulated this opinion based on how the artist attempts to convince the reader of his position, he provides a metaphorical image of what the government is doing, but he himself does not provide any facts to support his claim. This cartoon could possibly appeal to ethos, depending on where it was published and who it was illustrated by. It is very hard for political cartoons to appeal to logos because it is difficult to incorporate cold hard facts into an (often times) metaphorical representation of the issue. Being that it is just a picture it does do a good job at getting the viewer on the authors side, because in reality you can state any argument and have mass appeal as long as you represent your side as a kid about to be fatally injured.
ReplyDeleteOur government has made many poor choices over the years, and this cartoon takes one of them and shows the sickening reality of the situation. Again, we have the reference to a rather obese Uncle Sam, symbolizing the United States government. However, I think that the artist is referencing more than just the US government.
ReplyDeletePart of the country's debt goes into food! One of the leading causes of preventable death in the US is obesity. US citizens spend boat loads of money on fast food! This is an important factor to add to the equation of the source of our debt problems.
The other signs we must take into consideration are, the words used in the cartoon.The cartoon labels the obese man man as, " Government spending." We watch in horror as his tumultous weight hangs inches away from the child's head. The poor child is stuck underneath him and there is no chance of escape for him. The Government's spending is destroying any chance at "fiscal spending." The debt crisis is so great that even if the government were going to try to dive into the pool of budgeting and spending wisely, they wouldn't have a chance.
I think that overall the artist is appealing to the pathos, but i also think they are appealing to logos as well. They are evoking a sense of pity and worry for the kid in the pool of fiscal spending! They make us angry at the fact that the government is quenching life because of debt problems. They also appeal to logos because they are stating the facts about our debt crisis: we have a severe debt problem, we don't know where most of the money disappeared to, and because of all of this citizens are no longer able to purchase things they need because they can't afford it! The cartoon is, in my opinion, very effective because they effectively appealed to pathos to make us question our governements choices. They chose to set up the situation of a child's life at stake to demonstrate the brutality of our debt crisis.
The cartoon is saying that our governmet is huge and that it spends so much more than what it's bringing in. It's also jumping in a kids pool that is supposed to be fiscal responsiblity.
ReplyDeleteThis appeals to pathos and logos, because it is not only showing what the government thinks about responsiblity but of our country and their spending. It appeals to pathos because the little boy representing America is frightened by the government's size.
The cartoon is slightly effective it shows what the government really thinks of us, the audience is American people.
Lord knows I'd have the same look on my face if there were to be a wrinkly, decrepit man hurdling himself into my pool. Whether or not the little sprout was planning on getting out of the pool is hard to say. Instantaneously, the weight of the heavy set man would have the boy pummeled and squashed. The government spending, essentially is bombarding us and needs to be controlled.
ReplyDeleteI'm leaning towards pathos on this one. The emotion with this political cartoon is very simple: fright. What's happening to our money? Where is it all going? You look at the child's face and it screams worry.
The cartoon is effective. It's carefully planned out and shows both sides of the story: the about-to-be- pummeled boy and the careless cannon ball of the government. Can you say BELLLLY FLOPPP?
The artist of this cartoon is speaking to all of us Americans out there. He is warning us about the huge problem that is the government is spending too much of our money, and even money that we don't have. Government spending is a really gigantic problem in the U.S. and in this cartoon's case, a really gigantic man. The amount of spending that the government does is a huge burden on our shoulders and is bound to crush us eventually if we don't do something about it. This man looks like he is of some weight and would be a literal huge burden on the kid's shoulders and would eventually crush him if something wasn't done about it. Also, I think that another reason whey he is so huge is because the amount of money that our government is spending is also really huge. I think that when it comes to our spending we are just diving in to a whole lot of trouble without thinking of the consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think that this cartoon appeals to all three of the appeals. I think that this cartoon appeals to ethos by creating a scenario that we all have seen in cartoons, or at least it's similar to some in cartoons. This is getting us to relate to the situation, and also if you think that the government is messing up, you have something in common with the artist. I think that this cartoon appeals to logos by stating facts in a figurative way. The amount of overspending and spending money that we don't have is a huge problem that we have in the U.S. right now and the author is stating that by showing the problem that's about to happen which is a small kid being crushed by something we can't handle. The U.S. and our economy is like a little kid that is about be crushed by the spending, which if we let it get out of hand, is something that we cannot control. The political cartoon appeals to pathos by getting you to feel sorry for the kid that's about to get destroyed by this huge man. By getting you to feel sorry for the kid and makes you almost want to do something about it to save him. The artist wants you to feel this way about the U.S. economy, he wants you to feel bad about what's happening to the U.S. economy and wants you to feel like you need to do something about it.
I think that this political cartoon is highly affective in getting its point across. Its point is to warn you of the dangers of how much the government is spending. The government is creating a huge problem that will come back and bite you us in the butt.
The government's spending is going all kinds of crazy. They are being careless, and not paying attention to their financial responsibility. They are having fun while they're at it.
ReplyDeleteThe audience is most likely the people who are being affected by the government, the American people. Based on the fact that this is framing the government as the bad person, the author was probably also an average American citizen. The purpose was to make out the government to be reckless spenders.
Ethos comes in because this cartoon is against the government, and if you agree that the government is being careless, then you trust the author. The government is not caring about its financial responsibility which is us, and children. We feel bad for the child, and there fore ourselves and anger towards the government, appealing to pathos. Thus, it is most effective for the average citizens. The cartoon tries to appeal to logos, by showing the straight facts, that the spending is out of control.
The financial spending is not controlling the government because the government's spending is looming cannonball that isn't stopping.
Ethos is established by the size and color of the charater potraying the amount of goverment spending.
ReplyDeletePathos is appealed to by the rendering of an innocent child as the fiscal responsibility being ignored and put into physical danger.
The appeal to logos is demonstrated by the obvious discrepancy between goverment spending and fiscal responsiblity.
Authors purpose is to express his frustration with the goverments irresponsible money managment. His intended audience is those who share his exasperation with our goverment and the disregard they have for our growing debt crisis.
This cartoon says a lot about what the artist thinks about government spending in our country. The obese man in the cartoon symbolizes many things: the massive amounts of debt, the way that the government seems to almost be enjoying their spending on this and that and everything (based on the joyful look on the obese man’s face,) and how they are crushing every aspect of fiscal responsibility (represented by the child in the pool). This cartoon is speaking from a common man’s view (the artist) to more average people of the general public. The artist is trying to make his statement through a clear appeal to pathos: "Look at our government, they are spending radically at our expense, and they obviously couldn’t care less. They have no sense of fiscal responsibility, and instead choose to ruin themselves and the ‘little guy’ by not caring about anything.” There are appeals to ethos and logos in the cartoon as well, but they are less obvious. The artist appeals to ethos by saying, “Look what government spending is doing to the little people. I feel strongly about this, you should too, we should do something about this.”
ReplyDeleteThe other part of this cartoon that caught my attention and made me think was not the big dude in swim trunks, but the smallness of the child and the smallness of the pool he is in. The child represents the American public, yes? I found it very interesting how the millions of Americans were represented by one small child in a miniature wading pool. I’m not sure if the cartoonist intended to draw it for this purpose, but to me it seems as though he is not only making a statement about the government’s fiscal responsibility, but the American citizens’ as well. It is a statement about how little fiscal responsibility there is throughout the country; there are very few individuals truly being responsible with their money, shown by the young age of the child. I feel like the artist is saying that Americans are immature about money management, and that there is very little fiscal responsibility in our country already without our government trying to smash every last bit of it. If the “pool” were bigger, that is to say, if more Americans were smart with their money and managed to keep themselves out of debt, banks would not go under as easily, fewer mortgages would overturn, and life would be easier for everybody. If this were to happen, the government’s spending would not have such a great effect on the way our country works. If the pool were larger, the little guy might manage to stay afloat in the midst of the shockwaves of radical government spending.
The artist is trying to say that government spending is too large and is crushing fiscal responsibility. The cartoon is saying that instead of spending our money wisely, the US government is spending too much of it, possibly in the wrong places. This cartoon is trying to speak to the American people; trying to explain that that the government needs to be more fiscal responsible or the economy will fail
ReplyDeleteThis article appeals to logos and pathos. It appeals to logos because it is stating the fact that the government is spending a lot of money, it appeals to pathos because it makes people feel that fiscal responsibility is a poor innocent child being crushed by the big bad government.
If political cartoons were comparable to the very foods we eat, this one
ReplyDeletewould be quite delicious. Its texture is easy to digest, and the
insatiable aftertaste leaves you craving for more sensibly restrained
political propaganda. Your mouth waters as you shamelessly attempt to gorge
just one more piece, only to be swatted by your mother like an infernal
housefly. The diversity of flavor gently rests against each other like old,
distant lovers. Suddenly, you realize that LIFE IS WORTH IT.
I sincerely doubt that the author of this cartoon directly uses the rhetorical triangle as a base for this delectable, intellectually fattening cartoon. In spite of this, he seems to have somehow successfully displayed a clear message that ties itself within both the audience and his authoritative correctness. More specifically, there is an obvious message being put forth that is as gaudy as a TV reality star. It made me cringe. Still, it directly credits the communicator's comprehension towards the topic. After all, only an expert could so graciously produce such a culinary work of art.
The triangular void is fulfilled by the audience, which connects the author's credibility to message of the cartoon like an online dating site. The audience in this case is represented once again by political junkies; those who dedicate their lives to the likes of politics. After all, who else could enjoy such a delicious trifle?
Keep in mind that political cartoons in general tend not to have an audience. Truthfully, anyone who looks at something like this would easily be able to fully comprehend and appreciate it. The audience therefor would be anyone who happens to stumble upon it. Those who follow politics just seem to savoir its contrived ingenuity even more.
Now, certainly I'm not a gambling man by nature, but if I had any money in my pockets, then I'd bet that maybe, just maybe, the author of the cartoon is, perhaps, against government spending. I am as shocked as you are. This message is joined by the audience as well as the author's apparent credibility to satisfy the rhetorical triangle.
If you ask me (and you probably wouldn't), this cartoon appeals exclusively to Pathos. By definition, fiscal responsibility is when the government equally earns as much as it spends in taxes. As you can see from the cartoon, fiscal responsibility is about to be destroyed by a large and suspiciously patriotic man. I daresay it will be the end of fiscal responsibility as we all know it, and we have nothing but GOVERNMENT SPENDING to blame. When you think about it, this cartoon couldn't be any more blunt: the government is spending too much of our gosh darn well earned money. Why, I can feel the Pathos running through my veins!
Curse You, Politics.
The subject of the cartoon is how fiscal responsibility is affected by government spending. You see government spending portrayed as an obese man who completely disregards the fact that a little boy, fiscal responsibility, is already enjoying his little kiddy pool and decides to fulfill his own wants and needs before those of the little boy. The speaker is the cartoonist, who by his view of government spending, thinks that government spending should be kept in check. The audience is American tax payers as their money is what the government is spending irresponsibility and in large doses. The audience is most likely people who agree with the stand point of the cartoonist, that the government spending should be monitored and kept in check.
ReplyDeleteThe cartoon appeals mostly to pathos by means of making the audience sympathize with the little boy representing fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility receives sympathy for the fact that it is going to be smashed and harmed by large government spending shown as an obese man. It also appeals to ethos as people who share the viewpoint of needing restricted government spending will find this cartoonist trustworthy, but this appeal wouldn’t work for those who have an opposing viewpoint. Lastly, it appeals to logos because the logic of large government spending not being healthy for fiscal responsibility is sound.
The cartoon is effective for those who hold the viewpoint of limiting government spending especially because the appeals are geared towards them. People who hold an opposing viewpoint won’t find this cartoon as effective because once they move on from the appeal to pathos, the appeals to logos and ethos won’t fit for them as well as for the other audience because only the appeal to pathos will truly appeal to everybody.
Tatyanna Brown-Ibarra