This is probably a clichéd subject (stupid/nasty Rudy) but, searching SD.net, I haven't seen it posted yet, and it's worth it now. It concerns a speech of his from 1994 and it's the single most subtly retarded thing I've read in a long time.
Rudy wrote: 'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime
Published: March 20, 1994
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was among the speakers on Wednesday at a forum about crime in the cities, sponsored by The New York Post. The Mayor discussed how crime and law enforcement had changed in New York over several decades, and how society had changed. Here is an excerpt, as transcribed by The New York Times.
We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.
As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.
We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]
You have free speech so I can be heard.
[ Another interruption. ]
At the core the struggle is philosophical. There are many, many things that can be done in law enforcement to protect us better. There are many things that can done to create a government that is more responsive and more helpful. The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government. . . .
The solutions are going to be found when we figure out as a society what our families are going to be like in the next century, and how maybe they are going to be different. They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.
If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together. We're going to come through this when we realize that it's all about, ultimately, individual responsibility. That in fact the criminal act is about individual responsibility and the building of the respect for the law and ethics is also a matter of individual responsibility.
I literally had to read those sentences twice. Initially I thought he gave some mealy-mouthed compromise definition; he actually gives one wholly antithetical to freedom, bringing fresh shades of Orwell so jarring it's hard not to puke.
"Show me a commie pilot with some initiative, and I'll show you a Foxbat in Japan."
But yea. Rudy's a flat out authoritarian. He's redefining Freedom to suit the far-righties that want, basically, a President For Life, who needs no hinderance from those dirty liberal organs the Congress or the SCOTUS.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Still, you would have thought some last grain of logic in that brain of his would fight tooth and nail to at least stop him... "Freedom... not same as... authority... gaaah"
What is especially frightening is that he said this in 1994, well before September 11th, so he can hardly attach it to that and his leadership there; he really believes in this stuff and not just as a reaction to new dark times.
"Show me a commie pilot with some initiative, and I'll show you a Foxbat in Japan."
DavidEC wrote:Still, you would have thought some last grain of logic in that brain of his would fight tooth and nail to at least stop him... "Freedom... not same as... authority... gaaah"
What is especially frightening is that he said this in 1994, well before September 11th, so he can hardly attach it to that and his leadership there; he really believes in this stuff and not just as a reaction to new dark times.
What can I say? He was ten years behind the times.
The future is one foot stamping down onto a face, for ever and ever.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Rudy wrote: What we don't see is that fascism is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Fascism is about authority. Fascism is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
Fixed that for him.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
I didn't call him Benito Giuliani because all the other nicknames were taken. He's a racist, fascist thug and a sadistic fucktard. Had he been born a few decades earlier he would have been an ideal Fascist complete with a black shirt and bottle of castor oil.
Elfdart wrote:I didn't call him Benito Giuliani because all the other nicknames were taken. He's a racist, fascist thug and a sadistic fucktard. Had he been born a few decades earlier he would have been an ideal Fascist complete with a black shirt and bottle of castor oil.
I dunno, Adolph Guiliani fits so much better considering his real first name.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Hitler comparisons are so ridiculously overdone. Besides, Rudy's foreign policy advisor is already calling everyone in the world besides him Hitler or Chamberlain.
Of course, the fact he's the sort of person who'd have considered Chamberlain a personal hero up until the crossing of the Rhine is beyond the point.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
SirNitram wrote:Hitler comparisons are so ridiculously overdone. Besides, Rudy's foreign policy advisor is already calling everyone in the world besides him Hitler or Chamberlain.
Of course, the fact he's the sort of person who'd have considered Chamberlain a personal hero up until the crossing of the Rhine is beyond the point.
What can I say? I'm fond of using a sledgehammer sometimes.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
That was written about 13 years ago, give or take. By Zach De La Rocha of Rage Against the Machine of all people.
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
Actually, unless the vast majority of participants in a given society cede authority to the central power then no freedom will exist for anyone because the law of the jungle will take effect and society would rapidly devolve to something akin to Road Warrior.
It is only because of the willful secession of absolute freedom to the government that society can even exist.
A corallary world-view that can be easily derived from an argument that condemns Rudy's statement would be one in which the concept of criminality did not exist because the thought of ceding any authority to any "official" entity was anathema.
In such a world, there could be no crime because there would be no authority to set legal limits or prosecute offenders. It would be dog-eat-dog.
When Rudy stated that "What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.", he was explaining the difference between the anarchy that would exist without a voluntary secession of freedom to a central authority in exchange for the protections of living in a society where a person is relatively free from terror and violence and a chaotic world where everyone would be "free" but they would not be able to enjoy it because they would be raped or murdered or enslaved.
What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be.
I agree that people should restrain themselves, but...
Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
Is Guiliani actually advocating that the US should become a police state? I understand he's pissed that Muslim terrorists took advantage of some freedoms to bomb the World Trade Center and, later, bring down the towers, but...
Maybe Guiliani's trying to run for public office in Burma, Communist China, Pakistan, Russia, or some other nations with security forces that exercise their authority at the expense of their citizens' human rights. That, or he's feeling nostalgic towards Spain under Francisco Franco.
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
Sidewinder wrote:Is Guiliani actually advocating that the US should become a police state?
No.
I would end this post at that, but then it might be interpreted as spam.
He was merely citing a requirement for any civil society. Look around.... isn't what he said already present? There is a bank with millions of dollars in it within a few miles of where you are right now. Why don't you take it?
The reason we follow and respect laws is because we have WILLINGLY ceded authority to the government.
Why do we hate criminals so much? It isn't because they are boring, annoying or stupid. It is because they chose to break the rules that we have agreed to be bound by. We ceded that authority to the government. So it irks the hell out of us that some other guy decided to reclaim his freedom from government by breaking a law.
It strikes us as utterly unfair. It isn't fair that a person can wallow in the benefits of a society that exists only because the vast majority of its members follow the rules but still have the gall to break the rules and take more than their fair share.
Should we call Benito Mussolini an "advocate for civil society" too? And cessation of authority to the government is not "freedom", that's a social contract. Ghouliani is deliberately twisting definitions.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
In order to fully understand the problem with what Giuliani said you have to understand something about the American mind. It is true that an orderly society requires individuals to give up some autonomy to authority in order to ensure peace and prosperity. But this thing is not called freedom. It is called the social contract, and freedom and the social contract are opposing qualities that must be finely balanced.
But we Americans are raised to think of "freedom" in a different way. To the American mind, "freedom" is simply the quality that we have and everyone else does not. Sometimes it means autonomy and sometimes it means authority, but most of all it means "what is great about America." We look at it the way Christians look at what they call the virtue of faith. It is impossible to have too much freedom, because freedom is an essential fountain of goodness.
That's why Giuliani's words are so sinister. They aren't merely a self-evident falsehood. They are a deliberate strategy aimed at twisting America's worship of a word into a repudiation of that word's meaning. It's the same reason "Freedom Tower," "Freedom Fries," etc. sound creepy. It's naked Pavlovian conditioning; an attempt to train people to support the ambitions of the powerful by exploiting their irrationality.
Ghouliani's statement is a half-truth. You cannot have freedom without authority; that is the paradox of civilized nations, as Mr. Right-Wing Apologist has been pointing out. The problem is that Ghouliani thinks "freedom is about authority", when in reality freedom is defended by authority.
There's a wonderful line in the movie Crimson Tide where Captain Ramsey says to Lt. Commander Hunter: "We are here to defend democracy, not to practice it". In a similar vein, authority is necessary in order to protect freedom, but that does not mean that the concept of freedom is about authority, any more than the concept of democracy is about the military chain of command.
This, of course, leads me to another point: the comparison I make to military thinking is not a mere analogy: right-wing authoritarians tend to believe that our democracy is inadequate for precisely that reason: because it does not respect the military chain of command. Time and again, right-wing leaders prance about, trying to act like military generals and the warrior kings of old. George W. Bush declares himself the "Commander in Chief" not just of the armed forces, but of the American people.
While the fictional Captain Ramsey seems to have a firm grasp on the distinction between the ideals one fights for and the methods you fight with, it seems that our political leaders do not. They wish them melded together, with the civilian ideals being essentially subordinated to the military ethos.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Repoman wrote:Why do we hate criminals so much? It isn't because they are boring, annoying or stupid. It is because they chose to break the rules that we have agreed to be bound by. We ceded that authority to the government. So it irks the hell out of us that some other guy decided to reclaim his freedom from government by breaking a law.
It strikes us as utterly unfair. It isn't fair that a person can wallow in the benefits of a society that exists only because the vast majority of its members follow the rules but still have the gall to break the rules and take more than their fair share.
What? I hate criminals because of the objective harm that they cause, not out of sour grapes over them 'having the gall to reclaim their freedom' or something. I don't understand how you can think that people hate, for example, child molesters, not because of the harm that's done, but because we wish we could do that harm ourselves.
Repoman wrote: When Rudy stated that "What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.", he was explaining the difference between the anarchy that would exist without a voluntary secession of freedom to a central authority in exchange for the protections of living in a society where a person is relatively free from terror and violence and a chaotic world where everyone would be "free" but they would not be able to enjoy it because they would be raped or murdered or enslaved.
If he was saying that then he would have said it. If he meant 'freedom is ceding to a lawful authority in order to protect people from each other, bringing about true individual liberty' then he would have said that. He did not say that, he simply stopped at 'lawful authority', thus declining to define exactly why we stop at that authority, and shifting the moral or defining emphasis of freedom to authority, in itself. Basically he does invert the definition and in a manner not to protect freedoms in the minimalist, libertarian style, but to give carte blanche justification for any authoritarian practice, under the pretence that it's for freedom. Ditto this argument for Mr Wong.
"Show me a commie pilot with some initiative, and I'll show you a Foxbat in Japan."
Winston Blake wrote:What? I hate criminals because of the objective harm that they cause, not out of sour grapes over them 'having the gall to reclaim their freedom' or something. I don't understand how you can think that people hate, for example, child molesters, not because of the harm that's done, but because we wish we could do that harm ourselves.
I agree with you. I should have said that "one of the reasons...."
Repoman wrote:I agree with you. I should have said that "one of the reasons...."
Oh really? Care to dredge up even *one* example of someone going, "I hate that murderer for having the balls to reclaim his freedom to kill/beat/steal from someone else! He sure has gall, taking more of his fair share of freedom!"
(Ironically, right-wing fundies (many southern-bred) tend to applaud when some psycho 'reclaims his freedom' and kills a gay man or black guy or arab.)
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
The Yosemite Bear wrote:that's because the south shall rise again...
FREEDOM!
(Cookie for the reference.)
"I spit on metaphysics, sir."
"I pity the woman you marry." -Liberty
This is the guy they want to use to win over "young people?" Are they completely daft? I'd rather vote for a pile of shit than a Jesus freak social regressive.
Here's hoping that his political career goes down in flames and, hopefully, a hilarious gay sex scandal. -Tanasinn
You can't expect sodomy to ruin every conservative politician in this country. -Battlehymn Republic
The Yosemite Bear wrote:that's because the south shall rise again...
FREEDOM!
(Cookie for the reference.)
"I'm here to tell you the truth."
Harry Turtledove's TL 191 series (starting with How Few Remain and ending with In at the Death), I presume?
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
And cessation of authority to the government is not "freedom", that's a social contract. Ghouliani is deliberately twisting definitions.
