posted
We just scheduled an interview with OSC for this coming Monday (Nov 5) on our podcast. The main topic we're going to talk about is the article he wrote about global warming being a myth. It's going to be a live show, and we will be taking callers. So if anybody is interested and wants to listen in, or call in and ask OSC a question, you're invited to to it. We are very excited about this interview.
posted
Wow that's going to be intense...I do hope you get a chance to talk about something else besides global warming at some point.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure we will. We'll have about 25 minutes of "open phone lines" after the interview, and I know callers will ask about other things.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a reference to the Teddy Roosevelt quote "There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100% Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else."
That's why we chose "All American Blogger" for our blog name too.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you consider yourself an American and nothing else? Would you not, for example, describe yourself as a man?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you consider yourself an American and nothing else? Would you not, for example, describe yourself as a man?
Welcome to Hatrack. Your thread is about to be hijacked and your choice of wording will be dissected and discussed and argued for 13 pages.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*blink* Where? If I say "Sally is an American," am I implying she is a transvestite?
Now, I know I'm stepping around the thrust of Roosevelt's point -- inasmuch as he had a point -- but I'm driving at something: the idea that this country cannot afford to have people who are not willing to be "American" to the exclusion of all else is ludicrous on its face. If anything, the opposite is true: we cannot afford to have people who are only willing to define themselves as "Americans" without also being willing to claim for themselves other meritorious traits. Otherwise being "American" becomes a tautology -- I am all-American because that is all I am -- and ultimately meaningless.
Are you an American who has family in England or Saudi Arabia? Are you an American with an interest in football? Are you an American who really cares about global warming? Are you an American who wants to marry his same-sex high school sweetheart? Are you an American who protests outside abortion clinics? Are you an American who opposes torture in all its forms, but has become conflicted on the issue lately?
All of these Americans are not merely American. They're Americans informed by their personal morality, their familial obligations, their hobbies and their interests. Even the fifty/fifty Americans Roosevelt was targeting -- the ones who also considered their own additional heritages worthy enough of note to merit an awkward hyphen -- were just that: Americans who also wanted to make note of cultural or ethnic backgrounds they felt were relevant, even if Roosevelt (rightly or wrongly) believed that this was divisive and counterproductive.
Many of these Americans disagree with each other -- often on policies that are very important to the Republic. But none of them are any less American than the other, unless you're using a definition of American that's deliberately attempting to shut down debate by narrowing the definition to include only those Americans who already agree with you.
The concern I have with someone calling himself "100% All-American" in this context is the implication that the people on the other side of any given debate are not, and that there are criteria for being American which go beyond citizenship and love of country.
posted
Tom, TR was speaking in the context of the WWI era about American immigrants who, in the opinion of many, pushed their original nationalities interests with little concern for those of America. At the the time, certain factions of the political parties were wooing these voters by appealing to this chauvanism.
Triple A, I'm a big TR fan, but I have to admit that's not a quote that I find all that relevant outside of the context he said it in. What does it mean to you, that you've adopted it?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:TR was speaking in the context of the WWI era about American immigrants who, in the opinion of many, pushed their original nationalities interests with little concern for those of America.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I think Tom has an interesting question. I, personally, don't agree with all-or-nothing thinking...
I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I know there are plenty of people who won't agree with me. Someone asked what it meant, and that's what it means.
If you want to try to convince me otherwise, we do a live podcast three times a week.
Don't try to debate the subject during the OSC interview though. It will be off-topic for that particular show and you'll probably get muted.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
How sad is it when a statement like "all American" is vilified. Wow…. I'm really shocked. I really thought it could stoop no lower, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised since so few are proud to be American.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, Jay, I'm not vilifying the use of "All-American." I'm actually saying that the term, if anything, should be applied more broadly and universally than I worried Andrew was seeking to use it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, can’t we leave the political rhetoric to the other side of the board and keep this one a pure OSC like we have traditionally done.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, from my perspective, it depends. Do you think OSC is going to stop writing political articles any time soon? Otherwise, I suspect it'll remain relevant.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I know there are plenty of people who won't agree with me. Someone asked what it meant, and that's what it means.
I don't think you've explain what it means, though. You've pointed out what it was a reference to, but it is not immediately obvious from that reference what you are using it to mean.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Hey, it works for NPR, I suppose, and the Randi Rhodes show...and every political podcast/radio show out there...but it isn't something I'd listen to.
I like a real diversity of opinion."
In other words, you don't listen to anything? I would be curious to hear what you listen to that has a diversity of opinion.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Are you going to be getting any dissenters? Looking at the website, it doesn't look like much of a place that would actually engender discussion.
Hey, it works for NPR, I suppose, and the Randi Rhodes show...and every political podcast/radio show out there...but it isn't something I'd listen to.
I like a real diversity of opinion.
If you don't call in, who will provide that much-needed diversity?
The other thing... there is no "I" in team, and there is certainly no hypen in American.
The show is tonight at 10pm Eastern. Every diverse one of you is welcome to call in. OSC will be the star of the show tonight. If you find me to be more interesting than a Hugo and Nebula winner we can keep the lines open for extra innings and I'll be happy to talk about my name, philosophy about hyphens, or whatever. I have a great recipe for vegetable soup...
posted
I really enjoyed the show. I'm sometimes irked at Card's tone in the articles, but hearing him talk about it put things in much better perspective. I also cracked up at the admonition of him being a "closet socialist". He's got a great voice, too.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's much more polite when talking. I wish his World Watch essays were written in the tone he used on the show rather than the angry tone that they are written in now.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads, I find that's very common. I know several times I've liked a commentator and thought they seemed reasonable on a talking heads analysis show (even if I disagreed with them), only to be shocked by their angry tone in their written columns.
I'll listen to Card's podcast tomorrow and see.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should definitely listen. I like his columns but sound so much calmer and in a lot of ways got his point across better to me. Reasonable tone is better than an argumentative tone at least for me.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you mean this the way it sounds, you are using the quote to mean near the exact opposite that TR did.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |