![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIn that same interview with Charlie Rose I mentioned last week, our esteamed maximalist leader reassured the listening audience that due process applies to "American persons" when it comes to military telecommunications surveillance. This statement stuck out like a sore thumb for a number of reasons. I thought back on my American educational experience in a search for any mention of this expression in a high school or college civics class. My search was in vain but it was not very thorough either. It is possible that I heard it mentioned but paid little or no attention to it. My sensitivity to the amorphous concept of personhood is something that came into my life at about the time that Operation Rescue began to make headlines with its campaign against feminine health care.
Another aspect of Obama's expression was how little attention it was given by the interviewer, Charlie Rose. A qualified journalist should be sensitive to the subtleties of this kind of word play. Rose made no attempt to get Obama to define the term. What exactly does he mean by an American person? Is his meaning the same one used by everyone in the executive branch? There could be a significant discrepancy between his meaning and the meaning of the people in the military or law enforcement. Rose made no attempt to obtain a practical criterion for who (or what) falls into the set of American persons and who (or what) does not.
In discussing the term with some of our students the ideas of non-American persons and American non-persons came up. The Feds might consider me to be a non-American person because my knowledge of American culture exceeds a certain critical ceiling. Only non-Americans are as interested as I am in American culture. Would the Feds consider me to be an American non-person? They might cover their surveillance-happy posteriors with a case that anyone who professes to transcendence has an irrational psyche and falls outside of the norm for legal personhood.
None of this bothers me because the more effort that the Feds spend keeping tabs on me, the better for me. It also serves the interests of our school because it expands our base of students to include people we might never have considered educating.
What do you think of the fuzzy set of "American persons?" Do you sympathize more with the members of the set or with those on the outs? What do you think of the division of people into two distinct classes of legal status? Will this have any effect on the willingness of non-Americans to do business in the US?
Links: Charlie Rose's Fathers' Day interview with President Obama.
Another aspect of Obama's expression was how little attention it was given by the interviewer, Charlie Rose. A qualified journalist should be sensitive to the subtleties of this kind of word play. Rose made no attempt to get Obama to define the term. What exactly does he mean by an American person? Is his meaning the same one used by everyone in the executive branch? There could be a significant discrepancy between his meaning and the meaning of the people in the military or law enforcement. Rose made no attempt to obtain a practical criterion for who (or what) falls into the set of American persons and who (or what) does not.
In discussing the term with some of our students the ideas of non-American persons and American non-persons came up. The Feds might consider me to be a non-American person because my knowledge of American culture exceeds a certain critical ceiling. Only non-Americans are as interested as I am in American culture. Would the Feds consider me to be an American non-person? They might cover their surveillance-happy posteriors with a case that anyone who professes to transcendence has an irrational psyche and falls outside of the norm for legal personhood.
None of this bothers me because the more effort that the Feds spend keeping tabs on me, the better for me. It also serves the interests of our school because it expands our base of students to include people we might never have considered educating.
What do you think of the fuzzy set of "American persons?" Do you sympathize more with the members of the set or with those on the outs? What do you think of the division of people into two distinct classes of legal status? Will this have any effect on the willingness of non-Americans to do business in the US?
Links: Charlie Rose's Fathers' Day interview with President Obama.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 16:05 (UTC)either
a. he means corporations as well as humans, and/or
b. he wandered onto LJ one day and got viscously attacked by the PC crowd about typing certain offensive (to some) gender biased words, so this is his attempt to be gender inclusive.
:D
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 16:11 (UTC)Just saying.
Bill Mahr made an excellent career out of being constantly politically incorrect.
Date: 8/7/13 18:23 (UTC)We all have our peccadilloes, my fine global person. We all do. Just like the original post above, there are those who can dig really deep to find things to be offended about.
Only to find themselves standing in a hole of mud.
I find obsessive Political Correctness to be quaint yet disturbing. I find its defenders to be vindictive and constricted by rigid rules who seem to *ahem* go out of their way to comment on, not the subject, but some offending 'tone' about the post.
PI dismissing as 'unacceptable behavior' does not address that this is a problem for some and a gang mentality power trip for others (see sf_d, blackfolk, et al). All they can do is drive away diverse opinion.
Ergo the answer should always default to 'b'. "You must talk like us. You must think like us. You must respect my right to be offended, and adjust accordingly.'
We are all asked to respect culture and diversity of opinion. Really?
Your post was directed at criticizing me, and not addressing the subject of what the POTUS said, or why I am right or wrong, or even other potential options. Only you are tired of my oldness.
Did you expect it to be productive, or just give me another well deserved PC lecture?
Liberals give me one reason to fear them and conservatives the other. We are all Bozos on the same bus, but I'll take the center aisle, please!
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 18:31 (UTC)BTW, is a faux pau anything like a faux POW?
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 19:30 (UTC)*looking around on floor*
(no subject)
Date: 9/7/13 10:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/7/13 15:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 16:18 (UTC)As for the PC crowd, I prefer to use a Mac.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 16:20 (UTC)A true American person would've used stuff that has abbreviations in their names.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 16:26 (UTC)slaveoppressed labor in China.BTW, the Scottish have been major players in the US since the days of the Paxton Boyz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxton_Boys).
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 16:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 16:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 16:54 (UTC)(Of course, I suspect that after hearing it, I'd wanna kill anyway, so...)
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 19:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/7/13 02:55 (UTC)Won't let me embed it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP9BtScBQaI)
(no subject)
Date: 9/7/13 15:27 (UTC)BTW, the red beard reminds me of Robert the Bruce. Robert derives from the Saxon word for "red beard."
(no subject)
Date: 9/7/13 16:46 (UTC)Thanks for the tip about the embed icon; I'll keep it in mind in the future!
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 17:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 17:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 18:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 18:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/13 22:57 (UTC)That explains a lot!
(no subject)
Date: 9/7/13 15:15 (UTC)