Meta Blog Post

 While looking back at my posts, I can very easily now separate my blogs into two categories, those which were making an offensive argument, and those that were simply discussing an interesting topics. One of the easiest way to tell the two apart is by whether or not the posts ended in an question. For example, my posts Chemical Castration, Oakland: the next Wild, WIld West?, and A need for iZoning Committees?, were all post where I did not necessarily have much of my own opinion stressed in the writing, but was more so bringing up the various subjects for the purpose of discussion. These posts also all ended in questions, such as, "What do you think about this bill? Would it pass? Should it pass?"(Chemical Castration) Perhaps the only exception to this is the two part post on the ethicality of violent sports like UFC, which did not end in a question (Part 1, Part 2). On the converse, as expected, the posts that did not end in a question all had a clear claim that was trying to be proven. For instance, my very first post started with a very specific claim, "speed can corrupt our otherwise good judgement." This intro was very to the point, and while that could be a good thing, it did not leave much room for interpretation of the following video. Blog posts are supposed to be about connecting ideas and furthering thought, but such a straightforward post could not do such a thing.

Speaking of connecting ideas, this was a problem many of the posts had. Were we tasked at the beginning of the year to try to connect our blogs with a preexisting text in order to give some context. However, linking my post to a text with come context was sometimes under-emphasized in the posts. For instances, one of my more profound posts, misdirection in haze. talked about the Ground Zero 'monument.' When reviewing such a touchy subject, I would have hoped to include a more solid link than just including some pictures.


However, one key matter in the posts if being able to link our ideas to an American theme. I can safely say that throughout my post, there was a reference or discussion of some American value. What I fear is lacking, is the direct approach to these values. This means that while yes, I did have some connection to an American theme, I was not including empathy for the reader by showing where and how to make the connection. In some ways you could call it lazy writing.


Speaking of lazy, the last thing, and perhaps simplest issue, was punctuality. Functional Theories consist of far fewer posts than I would like to admit, and the distancing between them were increasing throughout the semester. Fortunately, being the writer of said blog, it didn't take me long to realize why. Despite how easy it was for ideas to flow onto the screen from my head once I starting writing (and this I like very much about blogging), it would take me an incredibly long time to find a topic that seemed interesting enough for me to write about. Sure, I could have always taken advantage of those times in class when Bolos or O'Conner would  say, "that would make for an interesting blog post," but to me that seemed too non-unique, and blog post are supposed to be unique, or at least that is how I see it. Thus, finding a topic that included a piece of textual evidence or a base with which I could connect a post to took much longer than both you, the reader, and I probably would have expected. On the positive side, habits do change over time, and I, for one, am hoping that the frequency of content being posted on Functional Theories will increase of the next semester.


Now, with all of that being said, I would like to say that I am still quite proud of my ideas and my writing when I did eventually get around to writing it all down, and for those of you in my American Studies class, I wish you the best of luck on the finals.








P.S. In keeping with the spirit of delayed publishing in Functional Theories,notice the time of the particular post's publish time.

That's media with a little-'t' truth

While this is quite a bit after the fact, I remember a discussion we had  in class about Truth vs. truth. we decided that Truth would be real, undeniable fact. In many situations this would be considered inclusive of evidence. We also determined that truth was much more along the lines of varying interpretation, much more personal; for the sake of simplicity, it makes more sense if replaced by the  word 'meaning', or what something or event means to someone.

But what is perhaps more interesting about the varying interpretations or the word 'truth' in a subject area that is supposed to be known for its usage of 'Truth', the news and non-social media. However, what we often find is that these outlets do not frequently use 'Truth' and instead they portray an often-times oversimplified 'truth' or meaning to a certain event of document.

 Let's use a piece of legislature that we also discussed in class, the National Defense Authorization Act, or Bill S.1867. We watched a video in class of Anonymous, the hacking organization, reporting that this '"new" bill was violating the bill of rights, and brings a battlefield to citizens of the United States. However, they did not ever actually quote or cite the bill itself, but instead went to Wired magazine, a technology magazine, to repeat exactly what they had just said. If you couldn't have guessed it, Wired also didn't cite the Bill S.1867.

This is a clear representation of 'truth' being used, inappropriately, I might add, instead a perhaps more respectable evidence, or 'Truth', oriented presentation. Fore example, the video failed to present a quote like this one, "Nothing in this section (AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE). shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." This would be the 'Truth', and if used a little bit more in the media, would perhaps make the would a saner place.

The actual bill can be seen here, and the section referenced is SEC. 1031