http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/08/22/tomo/story.jpg
I decided to write my 5th blog on this political cartoon I found through searching on Google. The cartoon is concerned with the war in Iraq, a very controversial subject. It is addressed to Americans and basically is making fun of Americans who support the war in Iraq by portraying them as being oblivious and unaware of what is really going on in Iraq. The meaning of this cartoon would definitely change if the audience did. If the Iraqi people saw this cartoon, or any American cartoon commenting on the war, I’m not sure they would find it very funny considering they are in the true midst of the conflict. I think it would be very interesting to learn more about how Iraqis react to American cartoons of this nature. The argument being directed towards Americans is that the war in Iraq is not something to take lightly and the author argues this by sarcastically having his characters optimistically support the war. The author uses a few common fallacies of argument to do this. He appeals to widespread belief when the male character talks about his “numerous ribbon magnets” on his car, which show his support for the war in Iraq. We are all familiar with these yellow ribbon magnets that support our troops, because they are a common trend in American society. The author also uses the Ad Hominem fallacy when the male character insults Cindy Sheehan and calls her “such a traitorous America-hating @#&$%*”. Here the author is attacking Cindy Sheehan (a anti-war activist who lost her son during the Iraq war), instead of attacking her anti-war beliefs. Another tactic I found the author use was when he had the characters use the term “transport tubes” instead of “body bag”. “Transport tube” is much more delicate of a term to describe a body bag because it doesn’t even give the idea that it is used for a human body. The author’s use of language and abuse of the fallacies of argument make this comic strip humorous.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Blog 3
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/that_full_house_episode_where_they
I chose to write my third blog on the front-page article from this weeks Onion. The title is “That Full House Episode Where They Meet The Beach Boys Is On Tomorrow At 3 P.M.” and is labeled as a “National Alert”. The article is addressed to the people of the United States, warning us that the country is on high alert because tomorrow the episode of Full House is on, where the Tanners meet the Beach Boys. Specifically, this article is really addressed to anyone who has seen this specific episode or is familiar with this old 80s/90s sitcom. I have a faint memory of this specific episode and when I read the article, all the specific details they described I could picture clearly in my mind, making it even more humorous. The main point of this article is to make fun of the Department of Homeland Security (who are responsible for the alert) and also the once very popular show. The tone of the text is quite serious as it is supposed to be imitating a national alert. However the subject, the specific episode of Full House, is not so serious. This is what makes the article funny; it tries to make Full House appear to be a very important and serious matter, when in reality it is pretty typical American sitcom that has no deep significance. While the article appears to have the purpose of informing the reader of this well-known episode airing, in all actuality it’s purpose is to amuse the reader. As I mentioned earlier, details of this episode were used to remind the reader that the article is making fun of the show. For example, when the article reads, “It is up to and every one of you to be aware of the small but memorable moments, like Joey and Jesse’s jingle for Beach Butter Suntan Lotion, or that ridiculous yellow blazer Deej wears to the concert.” Another point I think this article has is to remind Americans of the relevance that popular sitcoms have in today’s society. Full House is part of American culture and this article makes fun of how a T.V. show of no real importance can be what our society revolves around.
I chose to write my third blog on the front-page article from this weeks Onion. The title is “That Full House Episode Where They Meet The Beach Boys Is On Tomorrow At 3 P.M.” and is labeled as a “National Alert”. The article is addressed to the people of the United States, warning us that the country is on high alert because tomorrow the episode of Full House is on, where the Tanners meet the Beach Boys. Specifically, this article is really addressed to anyone who has seen this specific episode or is familiar with this old 80s/90s sitcom. I have a faint memory of this specific episode and when I read the article, all the specific details they described I could picture clearly in my mind, making it even more humorous. The main point of this article is to make fun of the Department of Homeland Security (who are responsible for the alert) and also the once very popular show. The tone of the text is quite serious as it is supposed to be imitating a national alert. However the subject, the specific episode of Full House, is not so serious. This is what makes the article funny; it tries to make Full House appear to be a very important and serious matter, when in reality it is pretty typical American sitcom that has no deep significance. While the article appears to have the purpose of informing the reader of this well-known episode airing, in all actuality it’s purpose is to amuse the reader. As I mentioned earlier, details of this episode were used to remind the reader that the article is making fun of the show. For example, when the article reads, “It is up to and every one of you to be aware of the small but memorable moments, like Joey and Jesse’s jingle for Beach Butter Suntan Lotion, or that ridiculous yellow blazer Deej wears to the concert.” Another point I think this article has is to remind Americans of the relevance that popular sitcoms have in today’s society. Full House is part of American culture and this article makes fun of how a T.V. show of no real importance can be what our society revolves around.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Blog 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_RlTnr-iE
For this blog, I watched part of an “Ali G” episode where he interviews Ralph Nadar and other people who support the Green Party. The subject is the Green Party’s position on many issues, which is of course a controversial one as politics usually are. This piece I believe is addressed to an adult audience and more specifically to those who are politically aware at least to some extent. The tone of the text is comical, and seems to be more focused on Ali G’s mockery of the Green Party. The purpose is mostly to amuse the audience and though the topic is controversial, I do not think in any way it tries to persuade or inform the audience. The humor mostly lies in what Ali G says and asks the people he interviews and sometimes when the interviewees try to respond to his absurd questions. The text shows two discourses interacting. On the one hand, there is Ali G who is a wannabe gangster character and then there is Ralph Nadar who ran for President in 2000. The author is applying a professional discourse to a foreign situation in which it does not fit in. This creates amusement for the audience as they watch the two different types of people attempt to have a conversation, where one is serious and professional (Ralph Nadar) and the other is just an entertainer playing an outrageous yet humorous character (Ali G). There is also another discourse that appears when Ali G interviews supporters of the Green Party. These people, as Ali G refers to them are “loose, hippy bitches”. Ali G in this situation becomes more of the “foreigner” as he goes to the dessert to support an anti-nuclear protest. In the beginning of his first interview with one of the “hippies” this discourse is noticeably clear when Ali G asks if they should sit or stand and she says sit, so that they can be closer to the earth. This merging of these discourses creates an awkward yet again funny situation, which seems to be a trend with Ali G’s shows.
For this blog, I watched part of an “Ali G” episode where he interviews Ralph Nadar and other people who support the Green Party. The subject is the Green Party’s position on many issues, which is of course a controversial one as politics usually are. This piece I believe is addressed to an adult audience and more specifically to those who are politically aware at least to some extent. The tone of the text is comical, and seems to be more focused on Ali G’s mockery of the Green Party. The purpose is mostly to amuse the audience and though the topic is controversial, I do not think in any way it tries to persuade or inform the audience. The humor mostly lies in what Ali G says and asks the people he interviews and sometimes when the interviewees try to respond to his absurd questions. The text shows two discourses interacting. On the one hand, there is Ali G who is a wannabe gangster character and then there is Ralph Nadar who ran for President in 2000. The author is applying a professional discourse to a foreign situation in which it does not fit in. This creates amusement for the audience as they watch the two different types of people attempt to have a conversation, where one is serious and professional (Ralph Nadar) and the other is just an entertainer playing an outrageous yet humorous character (Ali G). There is also another discourse that appears when Ali G interviews supporters of the Green Party. These people, as Ali G refers to them are “loose, hippy bitches”. Ali G in this situation becomes more of the “foreigner” as he goes to the dessert to support an anti-nuclear protest. In the beginning of his first interview with one of the “hippies” this discourse is noticeably clear when Ali G asks if they should sit or stand and she says sit, so that they can be closer to the earth. This merging of these discourses creates an awkward yet again funny situation, which seems to be a trend with Ali G’s shows.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Blog 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K4VieMjZYfI
My first blog is an analysis of a SNL skit pertaining to the unveiling of the iPhone. The iPhone is another clever invention by Mac and this skit exaggerates the smugness of that Mac is often recognized for. The controversy over the iPhone and advertising for it really only has to do with the publics' preference of whether they like Mac or not. This skit appeals to an audience of young adults to adults and specifically those interested in new technology. Overall, the skit makes fun of how many things the iPhone can do. The iPhone in reality is like a mini-computer and phone combined capable of playing music, shows, movies, accessing the internet, storing pictures and of course making phone calls. This skit ridicules the iPhone by listing even more nonsensical applications that obviously aren’t part of the iPhone. The tone of the skit is noticeably comical. The Apple CEO talks in at a slow pace and occasionally repeats himself and acts with a smugness as though the iPhone is the most important thing on earth. The purpose of this skit is to ridicule the iPhone. The skit not only makes fun of all the excitement that came with its unveiling and the “cocky” people behind the invention, but it mainly just makes fun of the invention as a whole. Who really needs to be on the phone, listening to music and surfing the web at the same time? No one. That is what this skit is getting at. Our technology today keeps growing and growing and something more impressive or advanced is always coming out. Now we have a phone that can do anything, but what is so necessary about that? This skit just goes to make fun of how our society is obsessed with innovative technology and how ridiculous it can sometimes be. The author is obviously appealing to the audiences emotions and trying to make them understand his opinion of the iPhone by mockery. I think he was successful in doing this because many of the comments on the site put down Apple and agree that the skit is funny.
My first blog is an analysis of a SNL skit pertaining to the unveiling of the iPhone. The iPhone is another clever invention by Mac and this skit exaggerates the smugness of that Mac is often recognized for. The controversy over the iPhone and advertising for it really only has to do with the publics' preference of whether they like Mac or not. This skit appeals to an audience of young adults to adults and specifically those interested in new technology. Overall, the skit makes fun of how many things the iPhone can do. The iPhone in reality is like a mini-computer and phone combined capable of playing music, shows, movies, accessing the internet, storing pictures and of course making phone calls. This skit ridicules the iPhone by listing even more nonsensical applications that obviously aren’t part of the iPhone. The tone of the skit is noticeably comical. The Apple CEO talks in at a slow pace and occasionally repeats himself and acts with a smugness as though the iPhone is the most important thing on earth. The purpose of this skit is to ridicule the iPhone. The skit not only makes fun of all the excitement that came with its unveiling and the “cocky” people behind the invention, but it mainly just makes fun of the invention as a whole. Who really needs to be on the phone, listening to music and surfing the web at the same time? No one. That is what this skit is getting at. Our technology today keeps growing and growing and something more impressive or advanced is always coming out. Now we have a phone that can do anything, but what is so necessary about that? This skit just goes to make fun of how our society is obsessed with innovative technology and how ridiculous it can sometimes be. The author is obviously appealing to the audiences emotions and trying to make them understand his opinion of the iPhone by mockery. I think he was successful in doing this because many of the comments on the site put down Apple and agree that the skit is funny.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)