Favorite Blog Post

My favorite blog post for the semester is titled "the data cycle", posted on May 17th, 2010. I would say this is exemplary of the progress I have made blogging this year because it displays several important things that are important to blogging in our class: making connections between material and discussions and analyzing texts. I, in this post made the connection that I saw between the Kentucky Cycle we were reading in class and the topic of Mr. Bolos' blog post a few days before. I made this connection which I believe shows that I am thinking critically about the things I see and hear. I also used textual examples in my post, which I think is very important. One of the main things I took away from AIS this year is that if you want to make a claim, you have to bring evidence. And in the case of my blog I did just that. I think that over the course of the year, my focus in blogging has shifted. I began blogging about pretty arbitrary topics that I found interesting personally, and finished by writing posts that thought critically about our class. All in all the blogging experience was pretty unique, and I enjoyed it a lot. I'm looking forward to weighing in on a few discussions next year on the Am Stud Blog!

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Hannity vs. Moore

Over the weekend I was flipping through the channels and came upon at interview being held between conservative talk show host Sean Hannity and film-maker Michael Moore. I knew that any combination of Michael Moore and a republican would make for quality television, and I was not dissappointed.

I was particularly interested in this because I have been an avid fan of Moore's films for many years. However I have felt that unchecked, Moore at times manipulates information for a more dramatic effect in his films. I was intrigued to see if Moore could stand his ground against a more then competent adversary in what was for all intents and purposes a debate between conservative and liberal.

After a brief introduction, the drama commenced, and Hannity wasted no time cutting directly to big name topics. Hannity attacked Moore's 2007 movie "Sicko", in which Moore argues for the benefits of univeral health care. He lets Moore begin and within minutes, the two are in a an all out verbal brawl. All I could hear from the TV for minutes was "can you please let me finish", "did I talk when you were speaking!", "that's just ridiculous", "I understand what you're saying but that still makes no sense". After two grown men behaved themselves like mere infants on national television, the part that I was awaiting came. They both laid out the basis of their argument. Moore considered Hannity unpatriotic for not supporting those in need in this own country. Hannity, on the other hand, challenged Moore to give ninety five percent of his income to the goverment, as a display of his patriotism. And to this Moore had no answer.

When the interview finally ended, I was exhausted. This interview was essentially an episode of Jerry Springer with suit wearing men as the stars of the show. However exhausted I was, I sure had enjoyed the show. I enjoyed it nearly as much as anything on television these days, and I have a hard time believing that I am the only one that feels this way. This prompted me to question why we do not have more unformal debates such as these on television these days. It was both interesting and informative at the same time and a perfect way for anyone to refresh themselves on the big topics in politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0EKWDisi7Y

1 comment:

  1. I agree with that this makes the best television, but not to the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans want to watch "reality" tv instead of informative debates. Although these debates often become heated, it is important for the two sides of the political spectrum to communicate and debate with eachother. It's a shame that more debates such as these are not more prevelant.

    ReplyDelete