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.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, September 22, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
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.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
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!
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!
Friday, September 12, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
