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

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.

You are right about the cultural thing too.

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?)

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.

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

“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.

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.

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.

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.