Archive for August, 2011

“American” = “Of the USA”

Sunday, August 21st, 2011

This is a bit of a rant, but it’s something I hear from time to time that rather annoys me.

I first heard my seventh grade history teacher put forth the argument that the adjective “American” can never only apply to the United States of America but must apply to all of the continents of North and South America. I didn’t take issue with the argument then, but after continuing to hear it from a number of other people I’ve come to think that it’s stupid.

As stated, the name of the country is the “United States of America” or indeed simply “America,” so to refer to it’s people or culture as “American” is correct. Everyone should accept that it refers to a country and not a continent, if you say “American” to someone from Europe or Asia without a qualifier like North, South or Latin, they won’t imagine someone from Belize or Argentina.

Some people will insist that because there’s more than one country in North and South America, that people from America should be referred to as “from the United States.” However, the full name of Mexico is “Estados Unidos Mexicanos,” “Estados Unidos” meaning “United States” in Spanish. So if one were extremely anal they might reply to the statement “I’m from the United States” with “Which United States?”

To do so would be deliberately obtuse, but so is insisting that “America” must refer to both North and South America entirely. When we go against established conventions while speaking, we obfuscate our words and make communication much more difficult than it needs to be.

English Riots and Social Networking

Saturday, August 13th, 2011

UK Prime Minister David Cameron addressed the House of Commons a few days ago, concerning the massive riots that have been going on across England:

In his speech he makes the following statement:

“Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

A blog post on Engadget compared this to ousted Egyptian president Mubarak’s crackdown on the Internet during the uprising there earlier this year. The comparison is flawed for two reasons: PM Cameron wasn’t calling for the means to disable countrywide Internet access entirely, only to stop certain people from using social networking to commit crimes when there was cause to do so. Secondly, the riots in England have not been a popular uprising against an oppressive government, but rather a widespread attack on the person and property of ordinary citizens and businesses.

The fact that so many young people took part in such widespread looting and arson is disturbing, and the circumstances that allowed it to happen need to be addressed. But in order to protect people in such chaotic situations, the pragmatic approach would be to give police the ability track suspected criminals’ activities on social networks and stop them from using them to coordinate attacks. Incitement and conspiracy to commit theft and arson are already crimes, after all, and committing them online is no different than by any other form of communication. The notion that giving police such power will lead to an oppressive police state is a rather daft slippery slope argument.

10 Years

Thursday, August 11th, 2011

My new passport photo

Somethings change a lot in ten years, don’t they? Those two photos are hardly of the same person, it seems.