According to Anglo-American tradition, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) is a dope.

Jeff Sessions:

"I want to thank every sheriff in America. Since our founding, the
independently elected sheriff has been the people’s protector, who keeps
law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elected
process,” Sessions said in remarks at the National Sheriffs Association
winter meeting, adding, “The office of sheriff is a critical part of the
Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.  We must never erode this historic office,”

Sen. Brian Schatz;

"Do you know anyone who says “Anglo-American heritage” in a sentence?
What could possibly be the purpose of saying that other than to pit
Americans against each other? For the chief law enforcement officer to
use a dog whistle like that is appalling. Best NO vote I ever cast."

Comments

  • edited February 13
    This proves DJT is a misogynistic racist!

     

    I wonder if Sessions was trolling.

    The average schmuck (Sen. Schatz)  will likely hear that & cry Dog whistlezz!!!

    Folks with a legal background actually understand the term & it's specific use.


  • I wonder if the term "Western Civilization" would have gone over better.
  • Seabird said:

    I wonder if the term "Western Civilization" would have gone over better.

    It wouldn't have been appropriate in the context of Sessions' comments.  A reeve of the shire isn't something common to western civilisation generally.  It's a specifically anglo-american thing.  It's part of a tradition that stands in opposition to continental code traditions.
  • 2.FOH. said:

    ...Folks with a legal background actually understand the term & it's specific use....




    Sessions had to know both that his remarks would be quoted, and that shire reeve is hardly common knowledge. I think he also likely realizes his public life is over nano-seconds after Trump's, so he's having fun tweaking noses as he goes.
  • The idea that reference to anglo-american legal traditions is nose tweaking is far enough beyond ordinary stupidity that one could wonder whether the Schatz response was genuinely ignorant or maliciously deceptive.

    What would be the purpose of decrying the use of the term "anglo-american" other than to pit americans against one another?
  • edited February 13
    Sessions' reputation precedes his every utterance. And he didn't say "legal traditions," he said "law enforcement" which hits the ear very differently. 
  • vwtool said:

    Sessions' reputation precedes his every utterance. And he didn't say "legal traditions," .... 




    Which is why I noted reference to anglo-american legal traditions. He actually said "Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement".
    vwtool said:

    ... he said "law enforcement" which hits the ear very differently. 




    Let's get those ears checked.

    Every system of law will include enforcement. He is speaking to a room of LE officeholders with a heritage sneaking up on a millenium old. He urges retention of this LE heritage.

    It takes something more than ignorance to be appalled by that.
  • edited February 13
    nbody said:

    ...Every system of law will include enforcement. He is speaking to a room of LE officeholders with a heritage sneaking up on a millenium old. He urges retention of this LE heritage...

    A fine sentiment if expressed as you have done, and one with which I have no argument.
    nbody said:

    ...Let's get those ears checked...

    Let's not be literal-minded. I'm trying to explain a rationale for why his remarks caused a minor fuss that doesn't require reflexively seeing the worst in people, or concocting a theory like this:
    nbody said:

    ...It takes something more than ignorance to be appalled by that.




    Don't go all deep state over this. Maybe he doesn't know his reeve from his shire? Maybe it's run-of-the-mill political opportunism combined with some genuine concern over a remark because of the speaker more than the content.
  • To be appalled by the the phrase anglo-american requires more than simple ignorance of our legal traditions.  It's plausible that Schatz was made incapable of competent analysis because of his personal animus for the speaker.
  • I don't know if his animus is personal or he's playing for his constituents, so I can't assess if it's genuine or not, but I think it's entirely understandable that a politician who stands in opposition to Sessions' policies would be quicker to take offense at remarks that could be taken more than one way. 
  • He only took it one way. That’s the problem. One could say that Schatz’s application of critical thinking was a bit niggardly.
  • vwtool said:

    ... but I think it's entirely understandable that a politician who stands in opposition to Sessions' policies would be quicker to take offense at remarks that could be taken more than one way. 

    Seabird said:

    He only took it one way.




    There is no ambiguity in Session's statement. That's the problem I see with Schatz' reaction. Every statement can genuinely be taken anyway by someone who doesn't know what the words mean. It isn't plausible to imagine that a US Senator, a legislator, doesn't know understand the reference.

    It seems reasonable to conclude that this fellow just doesn't like Sessions and that Schatz' misunderstanding was synthesized for the consumption of impaired constituents.
  • Seabird said:

    He only took it one way. That’s the problem. One could say that Schatz’s application of critical thinking was a bit niggardly.

    That thing you did there.

    I seen it.
  • edited February 15
    2.FOH. said:

    ...That thing you did there.


    I seen it.



    He was having a gay old time cheekily pretending that the meaning of words can't change over time in a way that would now preclude their polite usage. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
  • edited February 15
    nbody said:

    There is no ambiguity in Session's statement...

    Nonsense. Sessions could state that he loves black and white photography and it would cause ears to prick up at this point, and that's not an over-reaction considering the man's history. It's not just that people don't "like" him in some dumb, facebook sense of the word, it's that they're genuinely opposed to the policies the man advocates.
    nbody said:

    ...It seems reasonable to conclude that this fellow just doesn't like Sessions and that Schatz' misunderstanding was synthesized for the consumption of impaired constituents.




    That's one possible conclusion, but not the only one.
  • vwtool said:



    Nonsense. Sessions could state that he loves black and white photography and it would cause ears to prick up at this point, and that's not an over-reaction considering the man's history.

    This is one of those times when your own words are the best argument against a position.
  • Noting that people are wary of Sessions' words whenever he either speaks, or seems to be speaking, on the subject of race is hardly controversial.

    You can reasonably conclude that Schatz over-reacted in this instance. You can't reasonably conclude that you know for certain why he did so.
  • It’s also an example of what I mean when I say that these Marxists live in an alternate reality.
  • edited February 15
    Zuk cannot know for certain that Schatz "synthesized" his reaction to Sessions' words.  Choosing this reaction among the other possibilities is the very sort of error he's accusing Schatz of making: In both cases, the listener assumes malice on the part of the speaker that either isn't there, or can't definitively be proved. 
  • vwtool said:

    Zuk cannot know for certain that Schatz "synthesized" his reaction to Sessions' words. ;




    I agree. Schatz could genuinely be that grossly ignorant of our american heritage. I doubt that explanation because he is a senator.
Sign In or Register to comment.