Show Notes: 2018-01 1/7/18

BeforeShow Notes: None

AfterShow Notes

Episode Title: "Who IS Citizen?"
Special Guest(s): None

The inaugural show for 2018 went, overall, very well. There were a few issues:

1. I (Bud) have a cold that nearly required today's show to be cancelled (cnx). Given the audio quality of the show, a positive argument could be made that it should have been. Sniffling, coughing, etc. was very distracting and pronounced. Given how the show turned out, I believe my call was correct. My apologies to all who did or will hear the episode for the sorry state of my health on this day.

2. The original show went for 2:02:02 (auspicious, anyone?) and edited to 1:45:58. The edited show was loaded to the original episode page, the syndication pages and the blog. The original was filed away in the show archives, along with the edited version beside it.

3. I owe one caller an apology, and a promise. Michael, from Minnesota was the star of today's show who gave a most credible performance for the side of the "true conservative Republican" (sic). I gave him pretty much all the time I could to present his case(s) given today's topic. We learned he was a naturalized citizen who had quite a bit to say from his point of view. We agreed on many things, and the only substantive disagreement I had was that he has the unfortunate habit of doing a "Rush Limbaugh" on himself, me, and the listeners of the show.

Whether from habitual practice as a well-prepared speaker (he definitely was so), or from an inate fear of speaking (highly doubtful, given his performance on today's episode), he would first make a most credible argument, and then kill it with poison tags for effect.

Example:

"Argument" 1. Expansion of argument 1: The Leftist Media. Communists of the left. Liberal Hollywood/Media elites. Etc.

I call this the "Limbaugh" effect for a reason. Over several decades of listening to the shows of himself, I have made three primary observations. Two of them (not the third) I felt applied to many of Michael's arguments today:

1. He presented completely legitimate arguments from a decidedly personally held view (conservative). They were, for the most part, factually accurate, well considered, and additive to the discourse. The listener could clearly understand and appreciate his positions. It is at this point that, in my personal view, Limbaugh (and others) should simply shut up, invoking the authenticity of silence. They either do not, or cannot.

2. He then sets out to completely destroy his own legitimacy, in (in Limbaugh's case, definitely) an attempt to make himself (not the position) superior to any inquisitor via attack by ad hominem. "You leftists." Etc. STOP IT!!

It does not add to, but merely destroys any legitimacy your argument may have had to your opponent. This logical fallacy of Rhetoric is known as "The last defense of a failed argument." In Michael's case, in at least four instances I can recall, it was also the FIRST failure of the argument made. With Rush et al, it is to be expected as day is to follow night.

3. Finally, Rush works tirelessly to convince his listeners that Rush is correct because Rush said it. Period. To argue his position is to make yourself to be seen a fool. Quite the opposite usually occurs, and costs Limbaugh a good number of listeners on a regular basis who wish to be informed, not preached to.

Michael could well have gone traipsing through this particular garden; he did not. I believe that could well be due to a particular tactic I used in hopes of keeping his feet from going there:

I blatantly interrupted him on several occasions, either stopping his words or overtalking them.

This is a (usually) unnecessary and completely disrespectful tactic in the course of civil discourse. I use it very sparingly. I do not want to interrupt a person while they are losing their own argument, much less when said position is in argument against ones self. It was a rude thing to do.

I hope Micheal will accept my sincerest apologies, and my promise that, should he deign to participate in dialogue with me in the future, I will not submit him or my listeners to such disrespectful behavior. At least now, Michael, you know why I did so. Next and future times are entirely upon your shoulders. I stand absolved my sin. :)

Today's show focused on what will be for at least the next episode, a topical overview journey through the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It remains today, as it has since it's initial, revised, and final ratifications as one of, if not THE most litigated Amendment, or of any part of our Constitution. The constitutional definition of "citizen" is found within it's first section. Michael's question given our producer (Progressive Patty) was:

"Does today's show have to do with illegal immigration?"

At that moment, the show became about illegal immigration, so the answer to his inquiry was "Yes!"
It does seem a bit of a stretch to go from the definition of citizen to illegal immigration in 2018, but that was precisely the point of today's show. From the definition of who citizen is, to who is or may be excluded from citizenship, and why, to how one loses citizenship are all contained within the body of this Amendment and the case law springing from it. That does include, up to and including the current lifesupprt struggles to impose an immigration ban in America today.

I do not concede that Michael's inquiry was coincidental. As it turned out, we learned that Michael is not a "birthright" citizen; he is a "naturalized" citizen. I strongly urge you to listen to this episode for just that reason. His perspective is not a unique one in our country, but could well be very unique to our listeners. I appreciate his willingness to share his views with us; they definitely added to the discourse of this, and future episodes of Progressive Politics: Tennessee Style (PPTS).

The answer to this episode's challenge question: "Who was the first President of the United States of America?"

Photo courtesy of the Free Social Encyclopedia

The first President of the United States of America was George Washington.



The answer, sadly, lies in the formulation of the question.  (Hey, we respect the intelligence and research skills of our staff and listeners!)

We were not known as The United States of America until after March (or November, depending on your point of view), 1789. Prior to that date, we were, under at least three different variations, known as the USCA: the United States in Congress Assembled. From the origination of the Articles of Confederation through the Second Continental Congress, a total of five USCA's officially existed, and one of which never met. Each of them had their own President. Of the five men either selected or elected, two never served, one served for less than one year, and one for two years.

                                                     John Hanson, Courtesy of Brittanica.com

The most famous of these was John Hanson, of Maryland. It is not accurate to say that John Hanson was, in fact, the first President of the United States; he was not. It is significantly more than a mere technical argument to say otherwise: it is purely historical revision of the facts. That's why it matters, both historically and legally, as the John Hanson Memorial Society has discovered to their dismay since the 1970's.

Up until that point, the Society was leading the charge in the preservation and honoring of all things John Hanson for his contributions to our founding--and, I submit, rightly so. However, when the inaccuracy was clearly identified and labelled as such in the early 1970's as a result of significant historical research into the matter, the purpose of the Society changed.

Since that time, the Society has worked to correct the error. The myth is still highly transported across every venue including the internet. It went a long time underground, barely beneath the surface of American history (and squarely through the American Civil War, for anyone interested). Today, the Society gives honor to an American Patriot, which Hanson surely was, while endeavoring to place his historical relevance in it's proper position.

Thanks to Michael, Patty, the entire team, and you our listeners for a good show. I appreciate it, very much.

The Tennessee Progressive

PS:

Take a moment, and attend to the PPTS first comment of 2018:

Yngve Soegnen

"I'm not a US Citizen and don't live in the USA, but am a European and live in Latin America close to the USA. The world and its people are all the same basically. but what goes on in the USA is important for the world because of its might, so we from outside need to chime in about what's happening there some times.
Tennessee isn't the place with the most progress in the world to put it very politely, but deep darkness is needed for a very small light to be seen far away. Many pinpoints of lights become a blazing sun. We can only do what we can do. Then big things happen..."