We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Pull the other one, Giuliani

Leave my family alone, just like I’ll leave your family alone.

Seriously, can we get this promise in writing?

Then again, I am pretty familiar with what politicians consider “leaving [us] alone”. It is akin to saying, “Well, I am still going to bugger you senseless, and I am still going to do it without your consent, but from now on I will not force you to grab your ankles and beg for more.”

19 comments to Pull the other one, Giuliani

  • guy herbert

    From this particular politician it is a very sick joke. This is the man who wants a compulsory federal ID card, supports arbitrary wiretapping and surveillance and torture-lite. He’s prepared to leave your family alone only to the extent it would be equivalent to major organ failure or death. (Though he hasn’t completely given up on the death penalty for enemies of the state.)

  • Ay!
    Dja know who I am?
    Does ya, motherfucka?
    Yeah!
    Rudi!
    Rudi Giuliani!
    Youse wants ta know what that means?
    Do youse?
    Lets me tells ya sump’n.
    I will leaves ya family alone.
    Get it?
    I will leaves ya family alone!
    Do you understand?
    Do ya, motherfucka?

  • Kim du Toit

    Let’s not forget gun registration and “assault rifle” bans, both of which he supports.

    Giuliani is an authoritarian. That worked in New York, when it was in a deep crisis. It’s not going to work in the country as a whole, when we’re not.

  • Kim du Toit

    “Well, I am still going to bugger you senseless, and I am still going to do it without your consent, but from now on I will not force you to grab your ankles and beg for more.”

    It’s when they also force you to pay for their Vaseline that it becomes really irritating.

  • Paul Marks

    Many Democrats also support I.D. cards. For example, the senior Senator for New York, the man who is really in charge of the Democrats in the Senate (Harry Reid just says what C.S. tells him to say, although he sometimes fluffs his lines).

    Supposedly they are needed to find and kick out illegal immigrants – although President Eisenhower’s people had no trouble in finding and kicking out illegals without any I.D. cards (so I suspect it is just an excuse).

    As for “wire tapping”. The real debate is whether this should be done legally or illegally.

    Mrs Clinton may be many things, but the lady is not a fool. A Madame President H. Clinton would order all sorts of listening operations (both for overseas conversations – and domestic ones) rather than just wait for terrorist attacks to happen. But a Republican President might get into trouble from the powers-that-be (the elite media, the universities, the courts, and so on) if these listening operations were illegal – hence the desire (by all the major Republican candidates) to make sure they are legal.

    Again the debate is not really whether the operations should occur or not – it is whether they should be under a clear legal framework.

    The Republican candidates know that if they became President the powers-that-be would be attack them if they were found to have ordered illegal operations.

    There is a long pre 9/11 history here.

    The various things that were normal practice for F.D.R., J.F.K., and President Johnson (activities that were well known to the elite media, and so on, at the time) were terrible crimes when President Nixon ordered them (on a much smaller scale).

    Torture – ditto.

    A Democrat could order more or less anything that he or she wanted, but a Republican must set out clearly what should and should not be allowed (John McCain, for example, believes that virtually nothing at all should be allowed – although why, if this is the case, prisoners should be taken he has not explained, after all under the Geneva conventions if an enemy is in civilian clothing he or she can be shot, one does not need to take them prisoner).

    In short having a President H. Clinton would not mean you were not held down in water till you gave the information that was wanted. It would mean that there was no written regulation saying you could be held down in water (so basically anything could be done to you).

    As for Mr Giuliani as a candidate for President, I would have thought that social liberals would like him. Not in favour of a Federal ban on abortion, pro homosexual rights, treated illegal immigrants with kid gloves (even handed education and health care, at the taxpayers expense, to them) when he was Mayor of New York…….

    If people are scared of Giuliani I wonder what they would make of (say) Duncan Hunter.

    I have problems with Giuliani (although as I am not American I doubt he should lose any sleep over me having problems with him) – for example his publicity seeking raids on New York financial traders (who had not committed fraud as the common law understands fraud – although they had at least broken statutes or regulations, these days people in the financial world in New York are “legally” attacked simply for being unpopular with powerful people, such as the man who is now Governor) and his support of “gun control” whilst Mayor.

    However, I fully accept that being a Republican in a Democrat city like New York means that one has to do and say various things to get ahead.

    A certainly Giuliani was much less statist than either Mayor Dinkins or Mayor Bloomberg.

    Indeed Giuliani cut taxes, and (for awhile at least) controlled government spending.

    Besides Steve Forbes is on the campaign – so it can not be all bad.

    However, like many people I will be watching for Fred.

    “But Paul, I reject all this, both legal and illegal operations, – I want to return to the old Republic”.

    I have a lot of sympathy for the Republican principles of Cato the Younger or Calivin Coolidge, myself – but “I would not start from here” (as my Power family ancestors would say) and even Cicero used some unethical methods in his defence of the dying Republic.

    “And Cicero failed in the end”.

    Quite so – but then so did the honouable Cato the Younger. And Calivin Coolidge lived till 1933.

    As F.A. Hayek was fond of pointing out “welfare state” and “police state” have both a common root and a common history in German thought and practice. One can not rationally demand that the government have the power to do all sorts of nice things, and then complain when it does not respect “civil liberties”. Either government is limited or it is not.

    F.D.R. (to give one example) had no more respect for “privacy” than he had for privatly owned gold. And if he was allowed to give “old age pensions” by what princple (the Constitution being a dead letter) could he be prevented from controlling who got a radio broadcasting “license” (so that the voters heard news presented in a pro “Social Security” way).

    All the above should not be interpreted to mean that I hold the United States is a de facto dictatorship (as Rome was from Augustus onwards).

    The United States (like Britain) is more like Rome in the dying decades of the Republic. Elections (and so on) were still real things, but the rule of law was breaking down and the Populari filth were very powerful.

    It should be remembered that (contrary to what is often thought) some of the Populari were both wealthy and of noble birth, and that some of their enemies were neither.

    However, the Populari had learned (as Pericles and others had learned at Athens long before) that government spending and regulations are often good politics.

    As for war, whether one thinks that a given war was a good idea or not does not mean that one does not have to win it.

    For example, it did no good to cry about the great war between Athens and Sparta. Critics of the war in Athens would have done better to spend less time complaining about the war and more time working to win it – for, once it had started, a long term peace was not going to come again (till one side or the other was defeated). The dream of a long term peace deal was a delusion.

  • John K

    Can someone tell me what was great about Giuliani’s performance on 9/11? As Mayor, what did he actually do that day? I give him credit for staying in the city, unlike the Mayor of New Orleans, but apart from that, what did he do to earn the good press?

  • He wandered about in the rubble of the command center he ordered built in the World Trade Center after it was bombed, and shouted into megaphones.

    Then he made a great deal of money with a consulting company which presumably advised politicians on how to look good wandering in rubble and shouting into microphones. This is an important subject, which Nagin (of NOLA) would have done well to study, as he looked awful (and racist) wandering in his rubble. I’m not sure if Rudy teaches Swimming Above Rubble or not.

    Anyway, his experience is how to capitalize on an attack, which might be why he’s so anxious to provoke attacks.

  • Paul Marks

    Mayor Giuliani was up front.

    A German film maker was looking for firemen who thought that Giuliani did a bad job (his adverts made it clear that he did not want to talk to firemen who thought that Giuliani had done a good job), but the leftist film maker did not get much support.

    Giuliani was up against a Democrat council his entire time as Mayor, and taking that into account he was a very good Mayor.

    Certainly his record is much better than that of Mitt Romney who “those in the know” (such as Robert Novak) think is going to win in the end.

    Still (as I have said before) I will be interested to see what Fred Thompson can do.

  • Paul Marks

    The United States is “not in crises”.

    Credit bubble financial system, comming collapse of the “entitlement programs”, and world war against radical Islam (plus the threat from Russia and China).

    Sounds like a crises to me.

    Although the prospects for Britain are even worse.

  • Steevo

    Giuliani has been misquoted, quoted out of context, mischaractized, or misunderstood as much as anyone running for the Republican presidential nomination. On domestic or social issues he’s largely a federalist. He believes the best way to resolve conflicting values and interests of concern is to leave it up to the states to decide. Each state can reflect the prevailing values of their populace. He understands there would be differing solutions from state to state but believes it is the best equilibrium for the nation as a whole. So, whether gun control, gay rights, abortion… Washington should stay out.

    As he said: “Where our society on a national level ends up being very divided” we are to apply the “principle of federalism.” Concerning the issues above and others, these “are issues that I think the founding fathers would say should be consigned to state and local governments, experimenting, deciding, having different views, and the federal government having a more limited role.” When he was mayor of New York, coming into office when the level of crime was intolerably high he banned assault weapons for the city. As president he ‘wants’ to leave such a decision up to the states.

    He’s not not a conservative and he’s not a libertarian and he’s not a liberal. He’s a man who does prefer the individual to determine his/her own choices, and on the next level the state. But if he believes it necessary he would enact law from Washington. He is highly defense-minded.

    Concerning domestic efforts on security, he has said a lot. Here’s one quote: “We must preserve the gains made by the U.S.A. Patriot Act and not unrealistically limit electronic surveillance or legal interrogation. Preventing a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack on our homeland must be the federal government’s top priority. We must construct a technological and intelligence shield that is effective against all delivery methods.” I think most Americans agree with this. I think most understand we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. How many efforts have been foiled… no doubt a lot. We also need to get a grip on illegal immigration.

    Giuliani has been misquoted, quoted out of context, mischaractized, or misunderstood as much as anyone running for the Republican presidential nomination. On domestic or social issues he’s largely a federalist. He believes the best way to resolve conflicting values and interests of consern is to leave it up to the states to decide. Each state can reflect the prevailing values of their populace. He understands there would be differing solutions from state to state but believes it is the best equalibrium for the nation as a whole. So, whether gun control, gay rights, abortion… Washington should stay out.

    As he said: “Where our society on a national level ends up being very divided” we are to apply the “principle of federalism.” Conserning the issues above and others, these “are issues that I think the founding fathers would say should be consigned to state and local governments, experimenting, deciding, having different views, and the federal government having a more limited role.” When he was mayor of New York, coming into office when the level of crime was intolerably high he banned assault weapons for the city. As president he ‘wants’ to leave such a decision up to the states.

    He’s not not a conservative and he’s not a libertarian and he’s not a liberal. He’s a man who does prefer the individual to determine his/her own choices, and on the next level the state. But if he believes it necessary he would enact law from Washington. He is highly defense-minded.

    Conserning domestic efforts on security, he has said a lot. Here’s one quote: “We must preserve the gains made by the U.S.A. Patriot Act and not unrealistically limit electronic surveillance or legal interrogation. Preventing a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack on our homeland must be the federal government’s top priority. We must construct a technological and intelligence shield that is effective against all delivery methods.” I think most Americans agree with this. I think most understand we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. How many efforts have been foiled… no doubt a lot. We also need to get a grip on illegal immigration.

    On foreign policy he is no dummy and I believe will be better than any Democrat hands down, and probably most Republicans.

  • Zhombre

    Well said, Steevo, though a bit repetitive.

  • Sunfish

    “We must preserve the gains made by the U.S.A. Patriot Act and not unrealistically limit electronic surveillance or legal interrogation.

    The Fourth Amendment was such an unrealistic limitation anyway. All that crap about warrants and judicial oversight plays right into the hands of our enemies.

  • Many Democrats also support I.D. cards.

    They just don’t want you to have to show them before you vote.

  • Paul Marks

    That is true triticale.

    For all the, false, talk about how George Walker Bush “stole Florida” in 2000 – if voter fraud was ever hit the Democrats would be the big losers and they know it.

    In many States they are desperate to prevent photo I.D. (of virtually any sort – not just a special I.D. card) having to be shown for people can vote.

    Rich Paul said something about how Rudy Giuliani “looked racist” after 9/11.

    How does one “look” racist? Was he walking in the ruins of the World Trade Centre in a K.K.K. outfit or what?

    This whole “racist” thing is hard for a non young person to understand anyway.

    When I was young (not a vast amount of time ago) being “racialist” (as we used to say then) meant that you wanted to attack people because of their race (shove them into gas chambers, as with some of my family, or just hit them in the face or whatever).

    Then (sometime in the 1980′s or 1990′s) it mutated into being what LANGUAGE people use. So we have people like Winston Churchill being denounced as “racist” because of the words they used – which almost everyone used then (“that just means that almost everyone was racist” O.K.).

    Even school yard expressions like “lying Arab” and “thieving Arab” would be considered racist today – even though they were not used to Arabs at my school (there were no Arabs at my school – or anywhere else in the U.K. apart from London).

    Like most prejudice such language was folk memory of encounters with a certain culture (A CULTURE NOT A RACE). Horribly unfair to certain individuals in a culture, but with more than a grain of truth about the culture as a whole.

    I NEVER used such expressions myself (so I pass the P.C. test there), but I got the information direct (rather than as a folk memory) as a friend of my family (“Uncle Bill” we called him) had served in Iraq many decades before and told me that, whilst the local people had many virtues, one should never believe a word they say (about any subject) and should never leave anything where someone might be tempted to take it.

    Again horribly unfair to many individuals. But wise advice generally – certainly wiser than the position of the, neocon influenced, Bush Adminstration that the words of defectors (concerning not just W.M.D.s but other matters) could be trusted and that no special precautions had to be taken to prevent looting on the fall of Saddam.

    Any contrary opinions expressed by people who actually had some knowledge or experience of the area were dismissed (in the best P.C. style) as “racist”.

    “Prejudice must never be allowed to influence policy” was one of the milder things that was said in defence of the Iraq operation.

    The words of Edmund Burke “prejudice is latent wisdom” might as well have never been spoken.

    Of course good and honourable individuals can be found in any culture. But unless one knows an individual very well one has a choice.

    One can either operate on prejudice (i.e. one can errr on the side of caution and “pre-judge” them on the basis of experience and knowledge of the general culture) or one can operate on the basis of wishful thinking.

  • Paul: my family keep scratching their heads seeing as they do that I read almost nothing but Samizdata these days. I just copied your last comment and e-mailed it to my husband as an explanation.

  • Richard

    Funny thing about the quote is that it’s taken out of context as we’ve been using it here. It was Giuliani’s response to an intrusive question into his relations with his (grown adult) children, by members of the Priesthood of Truth at what they euphamistically refer to as a “press conference” (“Inquisition” being out of favor these days).

    I don’t think I’d vote for the guy at the moment (we have over a YEAR until the election, folks! Give it a rest already!), but I’m glad that *someone* is standing up to these pressroom scorpions, letting them know that some things should not be part of their intrusive purview.

    (Hm, could the intrusiveness of the press these days be a part of their support for intrusive government? And do they fail to see that an intrusive gov’t takes away from what makes them–in their own minds at least–a specially privelidged class?)

  • Nick M

    Paul,
    But it’s worse than that. I very much doubt that if you read Huck Finn you’d come away with the idea that in any serious sense of the word Mark Twain was racist but I do recall that it is/was(?) widely banned in state-schools in Georgia. Why? Well I bet you can guess. And quite how anybody could write a novel set in the US in the early nineteenth century and avoid using that word is beyond me.

    You are right about the cultural thing too.

  • Paul Marks

    Alisa – thank you for what you said. I wish you, your husband and family all the best.

    James

    Actually I welcome the media attacks on the family of Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson – let the media make their attacks. It shows what the elite media are – and it means they have less surprises to pull for the election campaign with their candidate Mrs Clinton.

    Nick M.

    Yes I remember.

    I rather hope that next door Alabama is different (even in the government schools).

    I am not sure why (after all I have never visited the place), but I rather like Alabama.

    Even in the hard racist days (and I have not forgotten the bombings) most whites in the State managed to admire the black academics the State was famous for (Booker T. Washington, and George Washington Carver). And all the Alabama people I have seen (on television news over the news) seem to be somehow winking (not quite physically but “you know what I mean”).

    I even found out where lost luggage on airlines winds up (I have never been on an aircraft – but I had wondered).

    It seems there is an entire block in a small Alabama town which is made of a big store that sells nothing but items people have lost whilst on aircraft.

    Not just luggage, the contents – everything from diamond rings and mink coats, to underwear (carefully cleaned of couse).

    I am sure it is all quite honest – sort of.

  • Andy Jackson

    re: “the US not in crisis”

    The, er, ahem, “world war against radical Islam” hasn’t really gotten rolling just yet.