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.