Victory and Concession speechs

I think that both of these speechs showed the true character of both candidates. I have to admit even tho i voted for him i was still sceptical. His speech silenced any doubt i had. As most know Obama is a very strong speaker and that night he was in his prime. I felt he was able to convey that he was truely in it for the country and really wanted to make an impact in the years to come, not only as the first black president but as a policy maker and ground breaker. As for McCain, i felt that if the man speaking that night was the man that ran in the campaign, he would have won. McCain was gracious in his concession and even tho some spectators disagreed he still called for his fellow republicans to rally behind obama and back him. Overall i think that both speechs were awsome and a good show of what true patriots are.

Handling

of the sources ive choosen so far only one is completly objective in my opinion. My first two sources come from the presedential candidates websites so it can be assumed that they will take a side on certain issues. As for my other source it is a brief history over the attempts and ideas of healthcare as well as the reasons it came into fruition. THe candidates websites outline how they will enact their plans for universal healthcare while telling how the other candidates plan is undeveloped or wrong. Both take a firm stand on their ideas and the sources are filled with facts on why their plan will work and the others will fail. The other source is objective and never states its own take on things, just other peoples.
it begins with a breif history in the beginnings of healthcare; what events led to it, who suggested it, and why it hasnt already been enacted. I like this source because it helps to explain why healthcare is needed in todays world annd what kind of people would be getting it.

Healthcare Study

Ive found that researching the topic of universal healthcare to be easy and hard at the same time. Finding sources was very easy as universal healthcare is one of the biggest issues in the current campaign. The problem is that because i havent really researched the topic before so my views on it were blank. I find it hard to keep it this way after looking at so many different view points. I think i have already taken a stance on these views but for now im going to keep them to myself to make sure the paper is completely objective. Both of my sources are from each canadites websites because they are the foundation of the arguements. Some might think they both want the same thing, and in some aspects this is true. The difference between the two is how the plan to attain it.

My Topic

For my topic i decided to go with what my group went over, Universal health Care. THis is one of the major factors in the election and i felt it was a good place to start. I also think its a good topic for me to be objective on because ive never really thought about it or how it is going to effect the world we live in. To narrow it down we went from why we need it, to how we would go about changing it, to who would get it, to how this would effect doctors and insurence companies.

Primary sources for this issue could come from the candidates plans for changing it, doctors and companies views on it, and coutntries who already use universal healthcare like Canada. Most people who are follow the healthcare debate closely are those without it. Many people in the US are to poor to afford health insurence and in danger of coming into debt or being seriously injured because they have no way to get medical attention or pay for it.

Humorous Argument

SNL Comedy Sketch: Dropping the Ball…
(Humorous Argument)


Characters: Private Griffin (Grif)
Sergeant Johnson (Sarge)


Setting: Some point in the latter months of 2001, somewhere in the Iraqi desert. Private Grif and Sarge look over a convoy as it makes its way into Iraq. Private Grif looks somewhat depressed at the view of the convoy. Johnson notices this and proceeds to question Grif as to what’s wrong.

Grif: Well here we are sir…
Johnson: Yes sir private, long have we traveled to this desolate and ill trodden to overthrow the shackles of tyranny and oppression, to instill freedom and justice, and to wave the flag of democracy in the face of evil! It’s like were super heroes from the comic books! Except we can’t fly and melt things with our eyes... (Sighs)
Grif: If you say so sir…
Johnson: What’s this? Something got you down Grif? Are you feeling lonely, depressed perhaps? I won’t have no touchy, feely emotions dulling the edge of my killing machines! No sir!
Grif: Well sir, it’s just….I don’t know about this whole invasion. It seems ill conceived. I mean why Iraq, I mean yea there’s Saddam but what does he have to do with the war on terror? It’s like were going on some kind of paramilitary goose hunt lead by some trigger happy redneck from Texas! Not to knock W but this just seems like it won’t end well for us…
Johnson: (Chuckles) My little Grif, so naïve in the ways of war and politics. Were here because these poor people have cried out for our help and we were all to happy to oblige. (Grif tries to interrupt to correct him but he is stopped by Johnson’s hand) I know we didn’t find any of them weapons of mass destruction, but that doesn’t mean we won’t! Don’t worry boy, with good ole George W leading us we’ll overthrow Saddam, install democracy and be outta this sandbox in 6 months tops! (In a fast paced, repetitious manner) Theres no way this will turn into a long drawn out conflict coasting the American government billions of dollars, thousands of young soldiers lives, inflating gas prices, destroying the US economy, discrediting George Bush for the rest of him life, and leading to an eventual Democratic takeover of the United States led by a well spoken, charismatic black man! No there’s no way in hell that’ll happen! Why before that goes down Al gore will win a noble peace prize and Ben Affleck will win an Academy Award! (scoffs)
Grif: Actually sir, Ben Affleck already won an Academy Award for co-writing goodwill hunting with Matt Damon…
Johnson: You’re kidding?!
Grif: No sir I’m not unfortunately.
Johnson: (scratches his head in confusion) Well I’ll be damned, I thought all he did was sit on a couch for 6 months while Damon worked his ass off…But I wouldn’t worry Private. Theres no way all those misfortunate, forshadowess sounding events will happen, and Al Gore will never get a noble peace prize!

Scene cuts to a slide with text which says SEVEN YEARS LATER…(THE DAY AFTER AL GORES HAS WON THE NOBLE PEACE PRIZE) Johnson and Grif are in a forward patrol base, listening to the radio. Grif has been wounded and is in a bed, Johnson is sitting next to him.
Johnson: Grif, do you remember I made about seven years ago concerning events such as this one.
Grif: (with a sarcastic, yet disdainful undertone) Why yes sir, I believe I do recall said statement….
Johnson: (nervously) Hehe….yea….I might have dropped the ball on that one….
Grif: (Sarcastic with a hint of anger) NO SHIT………sir…..

Comments for this are under the previous post. I apologize for not getting this up sooner but my original draft was written on paper!

Democracy Kicks In !

For my humorous arguement i chose a segment from the show Family Guy. Family Guy is known for its random humor and satirical content that sometimes gets viewers wondering where its all going. This clip is criticising the American government for staying in Iraq until a secular democracy is in place. The show argues that it seems like the guys in charge are simply waiting for Democracy to Kick In.

Heres the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlIm-riMN6Q

Patriotism

For my argument of Definition i chose an article about a veteran named Peter Uhlendorf, who in an act of protest of the war in Iraq flew his American flag at his home upside down. The article itself discusses the views of patriotism and how certain symbols can be recieved. Uhlendorf himself is a veteran of the coastgaurd and said that he was trying to make a point by flying the flag upsidedown. The article explains that flying the flag upside down used to be an old maritime signal for a ship in distress. It also talks about the meaning of patriotism and how some peoples acts of patriotism, like Uhlendorf's can be precieved as unpatriotic at certain times. This can be seen by Uhlendorf's story, he began flying the flag in 2005 and only began to recieve critisim in october of 2007 after the flair in insurgent attacks in september.



Article:


GLOBE NORTHWEST 1
Peter Uhlendorf may not be the modern Henry David Thoreau, but he certainly shares a few ideals in common with the reclusive scribe from Concord.
Uhlendorf is not refusing to pay his taxes to protest a war. He hasn't penned essays on issues of civil disobedience. But like Thoreau, who was frustrated with the Mexican-American War, Uhlendorf wanted some way to vent his opposition to the current Iraq situation. So, two years ago, when the Iraq War was at a low point, he began flying his American flag outside his home on Pepperell's Brookline Street upside down, a maritime signal used on the high seas to show a vessel is in distress.
The move, which did not stir public outcry for the last two years, has touched a nerve in town of late.
Joe Moore, post commander at Pepperell's Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 3291, said the Leighton Street post has received several complaints about Uhlendorf's protest in the past few weeks. Some claim flying the flag upside down is irreverent and unpatriotic. Others have lodged concerns about the condition of the flag, which was tattered and worn before Uhlendorf recently replaced it.
Moore said he had no comment on the issue, though he did say his post mailed a note to Uhlendorf, asking him to replace the old flag with a new one. He added that Uhlendorf has sent the old flag into the post, where it will be burned as part of an annual formal flag retirement ceremony.
For Uhlendorf, who says he served in the Coast Guard in the '60s as a search-and-rescue air crewman, the message he's attempting to drive home is neither unpatriotic nor an act of flag desecration. Upending the flag on the pole outside his home, he said, is merely a means of focusing scrutiny on the Bush administration and the war abroad, one which Uhlendorf called "an illegal act."
"It's an international distress signal," Uhlendorf said, during a recent phone interview. "I consider [the flag] to be a sacred thing. It can be displayed in many ways. It can be displayed in many ways with a message."
Uhlendorf, 67, a part-time salesman at a New Hampshire lumber yard, said he protested the Vietnam War in the 1960s, writing letters to Washington in an attempt to change the direction of the conflict. But, he said, letter-writing "falls on deaf ears." Using the maritime signal of distress became his new vehicle of protest, a concept that leverages the symbolic potency of the flag to generate awareness.
"I have limited ability to make a statement, and I chose that one," he said.
Sue Smith, a town resident and Pepperell's assistant assessor, said Uhlendorf is not breaking any laws by turning the flag upside down. A tattered flag is often construed as "unpatriotic and disrespectful" among veterans and other patriotic folks, though he has recently replaced it, she said.
Uhlendorf "is making a statement," said Smith. "I think it's one of those things: we do have certain rights."
Uhlendorf, a 23-year resident of Pepperell who has served on the town's now disbanded Dog Leash Law Study Committee, said he has received mostly positive feedback from many neighbors about his protest, although he had one unpleasant exchange with a man during his recent yard sale. The man offered to buy the flag and his flagpole from him, and, after a brief conversation, Uhlendorf told him to leave his property.
During a phone interview, Uhlendorf bristled slightly at any suggestion by others that what he was doing was unpatriotic or disrespectful to the symbolism of the flag.
"I'm a very patriotic person," he said. "If there were more patriotic people who made a stand, then maybe this war would be over quicker."

Obamas stance not Seen

For my arguement on fact i used an article from the Defense Daily International. This talks about the candidates stance on foriegn defense contracts and involvement in the pentagon. The author begin by saying while John McCain has already said that he favors more foreign contracts Barack Obamas stance remains unclear. The author uses facts and quotes from Obamas campaign management to back his alligations and further continues to explain conflicts that are happening that have already showed his unclear stance on the "Buy America" issue. He then uses more quotes from defense contracters and political anaylist like the Teal Group further backing his claims that Obamas stance is still unseen.

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor

Although he is right in the fact that is necessary to have a well conceived plan for removal of troops from Iraq, I believe that the author of this article has not completely looked at the facts that are now circulating through the American public. Although it is not an immediate plan for removal John McCain does have plan for removal of troops from Iraq. Until the political situation in Iraq has been solved it is ill conceived to start pulling troops out. Iraq’s government needs to be stable before we leave because if we leave Iraq’s government in its current state, it is open to attack from the very people that used to oppress them. The problem is not with the American government, like the author says it is with the Iraqi’s refusal to compromise over political matters. This however does not mean it is President Bush’s fault or John McCain’s. In order to solve the Iraqi problem the US needs to start making compromises with the Iraqi government. John McCain’s plans for withdrawal include such compromises that will ensure that troops will be removed from a secure Iraqi government that will be able to defend itself. This also solves the problem in Afghanistan. McCain’s plan will ensure that a steady withdrawal from Iraq will allow more troops to be transferred to Afghanistan to help bolster forces dealing with the Taliban. As for Obama’s plans for Iraq, he has promised full troop removal by 2010. While this may give the Iraqi’s the space they’ve been wanting it also leaves them open to attack. With fewer forces in Iraq insurgents will almost assuredly come down on the remaining US troops in the country. Another problem with Obama’s plan is that by leaving troops in Iraq and ordering more to Afghanistan he will be creating a two front War as the troops in Iraq will undoubtedly need support when the insurgents begin to take advantage of the weakened American presence. As for the 4,500 troop’s president Bush has promised for Afghanistan, it is really opinion in how effective they will be. Other sources have stated that this number will be enough to hold the Taliban until the situation in Iraq can be fully resolved. I do believe, however, that the author makes a good point in saying that American forces are be overtaxed and that the American government needs to switch its attention from Iraq to Afghanistan. Although current enlistment rates are higher than previous years the number of new troops cannot meet the increasing demands in the Middle East, especially in Afghanistan. Although the insurgents are still a threat that needs dealing with, the brunt of the US army needs to be focused on the reemergence on the Taliban.
Although I disagree with him on several points, I believe the author of this article makes a valid argument on several key points in the 2008 presidential campaign. Whether his views will come to light, that is up to the American people and the candidate that will become the next US president.


Note, i added the Link to my Article so everyone should be able to see it now.

War Policy

For my article i chose a peice from the New York times. In the author argues how hopeless the war in iraq is. He explains how president Bush or the GOP nominee John McCain have not come up with solid plans for removal from Iraq. He says that both have hopeless dreams of winning a war that can't be one, citing that the US does not have enough troops to back up their hopes. he also argues that the Iraqi government is also growing tired of US occupation and wishes the US would simply pack up and leave. He also argues that barack Obamas plan for Iraq is sensable and that removing troops from Iraq qill help with the growing need of Troops in Afaganistan.
While i would love to tell this guy of in this BLog i think that will have to wait. My chosen topic for Unit 1 is the War Policy of the 2008 canadites because i believe it is one of if not the most important issue at hand. Not because of the length for which the war has spanned but because the war in Iraq is the first thing the new president will ineviatbly have to deal with.

A link to my Article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/opinion/10wed1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Still%20no%20exit&st=cse&oref=slogin

Aspects of the Election

Probably the most obvious issue of the 2008 election that i am most interested about is the war in Iraq and how each candidate is going to approach it. Both Claim to want an end to it, but Obama wants to pull out immediately while McCain suggest somewhat of a slow retreat. I agree more with McCain's approach. We cannot leave Iraq without first making sure its government is stable and making sure the Iraqi Armed Forces are strong enough to stand on their own.
Another issue of the campaign I'm watching is foreign policy. Being that in roughly 3 years i will be a soldier I would like a commander and chief who want go picking fights and will only send troops in when absolutely nessary. Both candidtes are promising better foreign policy and better relations for the world, but i would like to see how they would react to global problems like the conflicts with Iran and North Korea.

War Support on the Rise

For my example of Logos i chose an article from March on politico.com. The article explains that current support for the war effort is at its highest since 2006. It states that 53% of Americans now believe that the U.S. will ultimately achieve its goals in Iraq. This number is up from 43% in September of 07. The article continues to talk about support for the war effort and gives numerous statistics and percentages to enforce its argument. Besides the war effort it also talks about public support of the presidential candidates and how support has fluctuated between Obama and McCain regarding their views and promises concerning the war and its future.

The link for the Article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9016_Page2.html

Ministerium fur Staatssicherhet

For my second visual argument I decided that nothing said Pathos like good old fashioned communist propaganda! For those who don't know the Ministerium fur Staatssicherhet (Ministry for State Security) or more commonly referred to as the Stasi, is widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world and was headquartered in East Berlin from 1950 to 1989. The Stasi controlled almost every aspect of political behavior in the GDR(East Germany). The Stasi used mass propaganda to oust any aspect of the west and made it a point to find any who spoke against the government. The pathos of the Stasi came in the form of fear and respect. Signs like the one I'm bringing to class were shown everywhere encouraging support for the Stasi, and many in order to avoid the wrath of the Stasi became informants and spies, many giving up those close to them. Pathos like these are uncommon in most of todays country, but the memory of them shows the power of arugement and what it can be used for.

Intro to 20803

Well to start of, my name is Tom Adams. I'm from Lampasas, Texas and I'm a sophomore at TCU. I'm not sure what major I'm gonna declare but I'm thinking about Criminal justice or History. I guess I'm taking English 20803 because its required of me. I'm pretty good at writing for the most part, except for grammar, most of my papers will probably be edited and look like they were written in red. I'd like to become better at making written arguments through this course, because I'm joining the army after college and ill be doing a lot of arguing being an officer. I'm only accustomed to argumentative writing i guess, most of the papers I've writ are informative or take a position on an issue. For the most part i think my writing is pretty good, except for my grammar.
I don't have a lot interest in politics at the moment but i know i probably will become more interested when i enter my career as a soldier, simply because many political decisions affect the military. The most interesting aspect i find about politics are the arguments and the fact that sometimes two sides argue on a certain problem and how both arguments want to accomplish the same goal but in different ways.
In the most literal sense i believe this blog is an informative argument. I argue that I'm a man of many interest and hobbies. My back round argues my love for the greatest baseball team in the world, the name of my blog shows that i like to be goofy, my picture shows what i hope to achieve one day, and this blog argues certain aspects of my personality and who i am.....and that my grammar is, really, really bad!

I have read, and understand the elements of the core syllabus.