This years election brought two very good speeches in my opinion. John McCain of course started the night with a very genuine and sincere speech. In comparison to Gore or Kerry, I thought his speech was far more genuine than either of theirs, gore especially. He didn't blame anyone but himself, he took plenty of time to congratulate Obama and didn't beat around the bush in any way when it came to fully backing him as the next president of the USA. He kept it rather short which I thought was an effective way to not make it seem like he was trying to steel the spotlight away from Obama. He was awarded his due time and I think he used the perfect amount. With respect to Obama, despite being a little put off by the massive crowd and unorthodox location, I thought his speech was also good. He payed his respects to John and his family also acknowledging president Bush and his kind phone call. Interesting considering he did nothing but bash bush for his whole campaign. It shows that his speech was based in large part, just like all other concession and victory speeches are, about healing the country and moving together as one. He discussed his plans for the future a little, but was careful not to make it a policy speech. He also used the catchy phrase, Yes we can, which I think caught on quite quickly among his supporters. My only complaint, maybe just a tad long.

Political Speech

I chose to watch John Kerry in his concession speech from the 2004 election and was astounded at how close the format was from that of Al Gores. The themes were the same: we must come together, bridge partisan divides, support President Bush, move forward as one country, ect. The one very obvious difference to me was the attitude behind the speech. Unlike Gore who seemed to be less than sincere at times, I felt that Kerry was very genuine. He even chocked up at one point when talking about all the Americans that he had met along the campaign trail over the last couple of months. Although he was disappointed I’m sure, I really felt as if he was talking from his heart rather than just reading what someone handed him. Despite this, I have seen Kerry appear on news shows quite a few times over the last few years and he always seems to make very unproductive clear jabs at republicans saying stuff like it is all there fault, ect, while proclaiming how correct democrats are. So although he might have been genuine, his record since the election shows just how much of a one-sided politician he is. So many politicians, especially in times of reflection such as this, talk about working together going forward, but with just a little bit of time, it is right back to one sided government. I am anxious to see if Obama will do the same.

Research

So far, I have found three very good sources for my paper. Using the LexisNexis, I was able to get a transcript of Gen. Petraeus talking to congress on his latest report about the conditions in Iraq. I was also able to get an article from Lexis discussing the opinions of the iraqi military generals on the ground. It is very interesting to compare these two opinions and find similarities and differences between the two. There are obviously some confidence level discrepencies between the two military establishments. My third article is an opinion on how to exit Iraq from a former soldier and military proffesor who have been touring the country with marines. They seem to have an objective look at the country from a civilian view. So for my first three sources I have found, I think I have covered a good number of angles. I would however like to get some opinions from current soldiers serving in Iraq right now, but surprisingly, they are hard to find. Hope to find some

Iraq

Even before April mentioned it, I was already thinking about doing something related to the war in Iraq. I further decided to look at the exit strategy. More specfically looking at the military view vs the political views as to how the war should end and soldiers are pulled out.

I am very interested to find blogs or commentaries from soldiers and generals who have deep involvement in Iraq along with personal statements from noteworthy politicians. Another possible aspect could be the view of the iraqi people and govt. Although, that might be getting to broad.

Pretty much everyone has talked about this war at somepoint on all government and civilian levels which means I have a lot to look through and alot of work to do to narrow down to just a few sources.

I think the most impactful and accepted statements will be from the everyday slodiers on the ground, hopefully ones who have been there for multiple tours and can give their own personal feelings on how the war should end. They are the ones ones who really know.

Comedic try

I have never felt that I am much of a comedian, especially when having to write it down or draw a picture, so this assignment is definitely the most difficult out of the three. I decided that my best chance at being funny was going to be to attempt to make a comic. I decided rather than showing off my less than spectacular drawing ability, I would use existing images and put them together on a backround. Another obvious problem was trying to make a joke out of the usually unfunny topic of oil drilling. The only idea I could come up with was to use the animals of ANWR and take a Dr. Doolittle approach by allowing them to talk. So my comic is not just trying to be funny, but to also express one of the points that I made of the minimal enviornmental impacts that new drilling would have. Then I decided to put Palin in and try to be funny by letting the animals talk about her looks. We'll see how the reactions go. . .

Cheney and Gdubb riding bombs

I tend to have a very up and down sense of humor. I don't have a particular type of humor that I respond to, it just depends on when and where I experience it. Some days, everything is funny, other days, there isn't anything in the world that could make me laugh. Today is one of those days that I am not in the laughing mood, but I still chuckled a bit when I found the following commic
http://politickles.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/preemptive_strike_2.jpg

It depics "W" as I like to call him and Cheney riding atop two bombs headed for Iran. Both are well depicted in a very comedic way. There quotes are great because they can be taken and used for either side of the argument on whether to strike Iran. I am not sure if this is a pro or anti attack commic, which in my opinion can be a good think if the commic doesn't intend to portray a politically biased message(if he did-he failed). It allows the illustrator to poke fun at politicians and policies without making a partison attack. Even for someone who likes the President, I can still laugh at commics like this because they are down right funny. Whether he intended to or not, the commic makes a very good point in my opinion about Iran and the role the next president will have in dealing with them and their nuke ambitions. While being funny, he also evokes thinking by the reader, something that is often not accomplished by commics.

Oil prices continue to rise, politicians continue to bicker, and all the meanwhile the United States’ energy situation continues to worsen. The increase in the price of oil has caused prices to rise across the board, from filling our gas tanks to feeding our families. There is no one solution to our energy woes, but there are some clear and decisive steps that need to be taken to ensure that our energy, and therefore economic future is prosperous.
Many Americans may not realize just how critical crude oil is to our every day lives. While the main use of crude is to make fuel for our cars and trucks, it also has other uses that many might not realize. Crude is the source of jet fuel, motor oil, detergent, and asphalt. It is also used to manufacture things we use every day such as plastic, perfume, and electricity. Those who feel that we are going to somehow be able to produce all of these things without the use of oil anytime soon have the knowledge equal to that of a fence post. While there are lots of promising ideas that are being researched and developed as alternatives to oil, most of the alternatives only are targeted only at addressing the issue of gasoline in our cars. Current alternatives to gasoline still face drawbacks that prevent them from entering mass production. Even when we are able to wean ourselves off of gasoline for our cars and trucks, we still have the job of developing alternatives to all of the other products that rely on crude oil.
According to the CIA, the United States consumes an average of 20.8 million barrels of oil a day, while we are only able to produce nine million. Therefore, we obtain more than half of our oil by importing it from other countries. We are not exporting it from stable ally countries however, but rather from unpredictable, often terrorist inundated countries with very negative feelings toward the US. Countries such as Iran could cripple our oil imports at any time and that is not a very comforting feeling. Yet, we continue to pump money into these countries because we need their oil. So why aren’t we exploring additional sources of oil within our own country while we work on alternatives?

The answer is simple, politicians and special interest groups are getting in the way of additional drilling here at home. There are two easy and proven ways that we can obtain more oil within our own territory. The easiest and fastest way is to open up additional land off our coast to drilling. Most oil companies estimate that we can see oil from those additional rigs within five years. All of the infrastructure to maintain and supply the rigs is already in place and therefore it is just the matter of constructing the rigs and putting them in operation. Many in congress have argued that additional drilling should not be authorized because it will take five years before seeing results from the additional drilling. However, this argument is extremely flawed because we will still be consuming just as much if not more oil in five years. Promising alternatives are still a long way from replacing oil as the source of fuel for our many forms of transportation. Additional drilling off shore could produce millions of additional barrels of oil every day that could be fed into our supply. Others argue that the environmental impacts are not the worth the benefits of additional drilling. Although a reasonable concern, according to the Mineral Management Service, eight times more oil seeps naturally from the ocean floor every year than is spilled by humans. And even when spills do occur, new technologies and procedures allow for quick containment and minimal environmental impact. When it comes to additional drilling off our shores, it is clear that the benefits far outweigh the costs. It’s like choosing whether to walk or drive from Texas to California.
In addition to the rich untapped oil fields off our shores, there is also a massive amount of oil sitting untouched in Alaska. The most promising sight for drilling is in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge or ANWR. The US Geological Service estimates that there is potentially 11.8 billion barrels of oil available in ANWR for our use. That amount of oil could supply our country’s entire oil supply for two years. Although more practically, it could replace millions of barrels of oil that we are forced to import from other countries every day for decades to come. Environmentalists and opponents to the proposal have shown the American public astounding images from ANWR trying to convince them that drilling would some how destroy the beauty of Alaska. However, where drilling would actually take place is in a relatively barren coastal plain. And with today’s drilling technology, which allows rigs to drill at angles underground, the proposed drilling site would take up a mere 2000 acres of land. ANWR is over 19 million acres, and Alaska is twice the land area of Texas. Doing some simple math, you would realize that the proposed site for drilling is .01% of the total size of ANWR and less than .001% the size of Alaska.
Don’t think however that those 2000 acres will destroy everything in their path. Drilling has been taking place in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska for many years and Caribou and Bears are commonly seen in and around the facilities living alongside the drilling operation without issue. Photographers have even captured images of the animals using the pipelines as a playground of sorts. There is no measurable downside to opening up ANWR for drilling, and why so many politicians are against it is mystifying.
Oil is a precious commodity these days, and the United States has a horrible addiction to it, but as with all addictions, ridding the addiction takes time and lots of motivation. As we strive to rid ourselves of our addiction to oil, we need to relieve some of the pressure caused from the rising price of foreign oil by producing more of our own. Recent polls clearly show the majority of Americans are for additional drilling. According to a Fox News poll, 76% of Americans favor immediate additional drilling, while 55% favor opening ANWR for drilling. The American people clearly favor increasing our home based oil production and yet, the congress has yet to take any serious action. It is time for congress to come to their senses and adhere to the citizens that they are paid to work for and open up the land for drilling. More drilling is not a long term solution, but rather an interim solution to give us time to perfect our alternative sources so that we may one day rid our addiction of foreign oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6247479.stm
I chose an article for my argument of definition that looks at the definition of an "American Car Company". Toyota has become a monster in the car industry growing at a rapid rate while the American 3 have slowly lost much of their buisness. This argument by the BBC seems to follow the company line of Toyota by talking about all their plants here in th US and all of the many employees that they have hired here in America. However, they don't mention where the money goes that you pay for that Japanese car with. The majority of the profits from the car go right back over seas to Japan. I for one would much rather see the money that I spend stay in my own country. Ford, GM, and Chrystler were born in the United States and have been an intergral part of our nations history. They are deeply rooted true American companies. On the other hand, are Toyota or Nissan or Honda deserving of the title American Car, I tend to think that they are not. And while arguments of quality might have been valid in the past, they have little to no truth to them with today's American cars and trucks. I have driven the same Ford truck since I started driving, and it has been awesome. 150, 000 hard miles and still going strong. Although I am probably part of the minority in our country in relation to this subject, I will forever believe that buying American cars is what is best for America.

Arguements of Fact

This blog assignment is interesting because I kind of already wrote on this unintentionally above in one of my other blog entries. None the less, I found an article on the Wall Street Journal website entitled “Why Obama’s Healthcare Plan is Better”. I chose this because it has lots of arguments of facts within it. The argument of fact premise is misleading in some ways because the facts are often skewed to help the authors cause or argument. To present a true fact, you have to present all relevant data on that fact. Rarely do authors go to the length to report all such data surrounding facts. The author of this particular article says that “One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful”. I think there are lots of doctors and nurses in this country who would adamantly disagree with this statement. Who or what is to say that 1/3 of costs go for services that are unworthy of their price. This is an inference based on uncited factual data. Not a very believable statement. He also states that “Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by keeping people healthy”. While many may feel this way, do you think that the insurance companies would agree? I would be willing to bet that the employees of insurance companies would be quick to dismiss claims. Arguments of fact are very arguable many times. The ones above only begin to show the vulnerability of these arguments.

To the Editor:

Re: “McCain energy follies”

Our country is currently inundated with the rising prices of energy in our daily lives as our struggling economy meanders along. I always enjoy reading and hearing others opinions on how it is we should bring ourselves out of this energy crisis that we are currently submersed in. There are many suggestions and ideas about what to do, but the amount of true reform and change has been minimal. The author of “McCain’s energy follies” approaches the issue in a disturbing way however by starting his editorial evoking fear in its readers in what I suppose is an effort to conform them to his negative views toward Republican ideas for the situation. Although striking fear in people can be a useful tactic in certain situations, is it really appropriate for the extremely serious issue of our future energy plans?
The author also makes statements as if they are proven facts when they are clearly not. He says that “fossil fuel emissions are the main drivers of global warming”, which is a statement that has no concrete scientific validity. Scientists are becoming increasingly open to the idea that our climate change is not necessarily due to our actions, but rather could be a global event that would have happened regardless of human activity. The ice age wasn’t caused by human interference, so what is to say that this time of warming on our planet is due to our actions? He accuses of Sarah Palin of being out of touch with reality because she tends to think human actions are not the main cause of global warming when the only reality is that the globe is warming.
Despite the authors poorly analyzed use of fear and unproven facts initially in his article, he makes a strong and universally accepted statement when he discussed our addiction and obvious over use of our natural resources and our need for a global response. However, that one paragraph proves to be the only reasonable set of statements in the entire article.
Immediately at the conclusion of his one bright idea, the author begins to attack McCain and Palin for their positions on energy, but proves no alternatives on how he or she would address the problems. By attacking McCain and Palin’s desire to open up additional drilling around the country, he quickly distances himself from the majority of Americans. Depending on the poll you look at, Americans favor additional drilling here at home by a little more than two to one. Democratic arguments that drilling won’t produce gasoline for more than five years are mystifying. There is no way all cars, trucks, planes, and almost every other form of transportation and manufacturing will be able to run off something other than oil in the foreseeable future, let alone the next five years. What is the possible disadvantage of giving ourselves a stronger oil supply in the mean time? Arguments from environmentalist are ridiculous and why so many politicians are influenced by them is mind boggling. We need to work on alternative fuels at a rapid rate, but even the most promising alternatives are many years away. Sarah Palin and the American people are clearly the ones in touch with the realities of our situation, not the author!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/opinion/07sun1.html?ref=opinion

Finding an article that fit the criteria for this assignment was challanging. I chose the topic of oil drilling and the broader issue of energy as a whole. You would think that finding an opinion written on this since Sunday would be an easy chore, but I found that articles that directly addressed the issue were few and far between. As a matter of fact, my article doesn’t solely address the issue; it also goes into the choice of Sarah Palin and why John McCain chose her. I wanted to find a liberally based argument that argues against drilling and takes what I deem as unreasonable expectations for energy in the future. This article out of the Chicago paper makes some very week arguments that are less than factual. It points out that global warming being caused by humanity is a known fact, when it is clear that global warmings causes are still quite vague and no one knows for sure what is causing it. The article does however make some general statements that are well written and very true. So this article should fit nicely into the assignment because it will allow me to agree on general ideas, but scrutinize the author for his incorrect statements and unfair assessments.
I chose the topic of energy, more specifically the issue of oil drilling, because I think that the answer is so clear, that I don’t understand how people could possibly be against it in almost any form. Don’t get me wrong, I love nature, but I also enjoy being able to drive places. Therefore, there is a balance here. I also have an interest in the subject because my dad works in the oil and gas business for Wachovia and he has lots of factual information on the impacts of drilling on the environment as well as the prices we experience at the pumps.

Most important topics to me

As I have mentioned before, I think that lots of people go and vote and are rather uneducated on what the candidates stand for and how their decisions in the White House might impact their lives. However, this election does seem to be getting the attention of more Americans than in recent history. 38 and 39 million people watched Barack and John give their acceptance speeches at the conventions. 37 watched Sarah Palin give her speech. Those are the highest watched conventions in US history according to Fox News. So maybe my theory about voters being less educated on the issues is not as true for this election.
I try to stay educated on the candidates and their views on the topics that I care about. The two biggest things that matter to me in this election are energy policies and national security. National security in my view should always be at the very top of everyone’s list. In today’s day and age, it is imperative that our national security be strong. Russia, Iran, and North Korea are all serious issues that will likely have to be dealt with in the next 4-8 years and we need a president who can be strong and make the right decisions. We also in my view need to remain strong in Iraq until the job is done. Whether the war was a mistake or not doesn’t matter anymore. The fact is, we are there, many men and women have died there in service to their country, and we are obligated to honor their sacrifice and finish the job. Not to mention, losing in Iraq would be horrible for our military moral, our position across the world, and would likely fall into chaos if we leave prematurely.
Energy is also very important. It is unreasonable to think we are all of a sudden going to convert to some new fuel in the next few years. While we work on making practical advances in alternative fuels, we need to ensure our gas supply remains high. More drilling is a no brainer in my mind. I could go on and on about why the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but I’ll save that for my paper.
Other things are important to me also, such as I think national run healthcare would be horrible, and taxes should remain low to help hopefully stimulate our dragging economy. Lots of things are important when choosing a president, but I think the topics above are the most important.

Facts or not?

After discussing both pathos and ethos, now we are moving on to more of a definite concept, logos. I for one think that nothing is more powerful than the use of facts. Facts are undisputed and can’t be argued against. If it were able to be argued against, it would be referred to as a theory. People can argue for things based on their theories or things they believe to be true, but there is no way to deny the validity of factual arguments. However, don’t mistake that with factually based arguments. There are lots of ways to twist facts to make them in favor of what you want them to say.
For example, someone wanting to base an argument off statistics might only select one number out of a large group of numbers. That one number could portray a different picture than the larger group of numbers portray when presented together. I guess this would go along with misquoting people. The five million dollar rich comment made by John McCain has been jumped all over by Obama and Biden. Of course, they don’t really take the quote with the context, but rather have simply quoted the one negative line. Watching the video, it is clear that McCain said it in a joking tone and that almost instantly after saying it, said something about how he would be given a hard time about the comment. It is something he obviously should not have said, but it is still somewhat of a twisted fact to only quote that one line. I am sure that the McCain camp has done the same thing to Obama, but I just don’t know of any examples.
I have gone off on a little tangent here, but it does bother me how many people present facts without presenting the whole story. It is important as the book also points out to always be a careful listener/reader. It is easy to take the lazy approach and just assume that the facts being presented by whomever are portraying the whole story, but too often they are not.

emotions/character

These two chapters of the “everything’s an argument” book seem to be very important to not just us as writers, but us as citizens. The concept of Ethos or character is one of the most important things in defining someone. A person without good character is likely not to be much of a person at all, certainly someone I have no interest in being associated with. The quality of someone’s character can tell you a lot more about what they value in life and what kind of moral levels they try to uphold.
As mentioned in the book, ethos can also be very instrumental to writers and speakers in convincing their audience that they are credible. Following along the lines of the election, politicians are often faced with the tough challenge of establishing a credible reputation. Senator Obama has faced some harsh criticism (some unfair, some not) about his credentials which are thought by critics to be less than adequate. Being the Commander and Chief of the largest and most powerful military force on the planet is a very daunting task and many wonder if he is up to that challenge. While Obama has struggled some with his character or ethos image, his extraordinary speaking ability and the way that he comes across to people seems to have convinced many that he is the man for the job. He has the emotional appeal (or pathos) down to a head. I mean, for heaven’s sake, people were crying their eyes out as they listened to his speech at the Dem. Convention.
Pathos, or using emotional appeals has always been a great way for speakers to be able to capture their audience’s attention. The best speakers are always those ones who can make you feel as if you are their best friend. They have the ability to make you laugh with them, cry with them, and feel for them as they speak. It can be very hard not to believe what speakers such as these have to say because their emotional appeal with us is so great. Teachers who are able to make their students laugh and incorporate stories of their lives and others into their teachings are often the ones who have the most luck teaching the material. Furthermore, any politician or teacher who is able to establish both pathos and ethos with their voters and with their students is likely to have great success.

My life, my politics, and my writing

Hey Ya'll,

My name is Tommy Chernosky and I am from the the great state of Texas- more specifically Houston, Texas. I am a Junior here at TCU and am currently studying to be a Mechanical Engineer. It is extremely difficult to keep up with it, but I enjoy it and am trying to grind through it and hope to be able to become a successful engineer somewhere here in Texas.

I am taking this class because it is required, and I hate reading, I do however enjoy writing. Even from a young age I have always enjoyed writing. I even made it a hobby of mine throughout my middle school years. It is one of the few academic fields that seems to come very naturally to me. I enjoy writing in lots of formats and on different topics with the exception of being asked to write on long forced readings that are uninteresting to me. I have never been good at reading comprehension and having little interest in the subject further hinders my abilities in being able to take much from reading a book. I went to Episcopal High School in Houston where they really emphasized writing to us and I think the education I got there really helped me to refine my writing abilities before I came to college. I am very adamant about what I believe in and enjoy writing papers that express and defend my opinions.

As far as politics go, I would describe myself as fairly knowledgeable on the subject. I regularly watch Fox News in the mornings before I go to class or during the day. I like to stay informed about what is happening around the country. You can't really say you are for or against something or someone in politics unless you know enough about the subject to back up what you express to others. I don't care as much about state or city politicians because their actions don't impact our lives very often and when they do, the changes are usually minimal. With respect to the presidential race, I have followed it closely both on the democratic and republican side. I have grown up in a very conservative family and retain those conservative values today. Despite growing up in a republican family, they have never tried to make me choose their ideas and philosophies. I have been able to do that all on my own. I feel that many people in our country are very undereducated and under informed when it comes to politics and often vote without much of a base for their decision, but I know where I stand and which candidate stands closest to me on the issues I care about.

So "everything is an argument". Well I'm not sure I really agree with this completely, but I can see where the generalization would have some validity to it. I have chosen some simple stuff to put on this blog that hopefully will give people a little bit of a taste of what I like and enjoy. I picked colors that I like, mostly colors I relate with an outdoor type of feeling. I am not trying to make any strong arguments, just present a simple way to post my writings which will likely have much more argumentative type feelings to them.

I have read the syllabus and understand the requirements for the class and agree to them!!