I think that the only thing that could make this poor Giuliani kid (see below) scream again to the world that she has Daddy issues would be to bring home a girlfriend or, God forbid, a Mexican! I know some people, quite well unfortunately, who've successfully inculcated their daughter--an otherwise bright, engaging, talented young woman--to believe that darker skin is to be feared and disdained, something she does without thinking ( I realize that was redundant but I'm on a deadline here 'cause we're going to FLA tomorrow).
You know how sensitive people are about the appearance of looking or sounding racist or bigoted? All that animus thrown at "illegal immigrants" hasn't been about race or ethnic superiority, because the folks in Arizona are just patriotic Americans. That being said, I agree there is a major problem with the state of immigration in the country. Why else would an 8-y/o classmate of Haydon tell us he wished Godzilla would only attack cities where people who "spoke Mexican lived." When asked why he would say such a thing, he said, "My Dad showed me that Mexicans eat dogs and I believe him because he's my dad."
Now, what would make an innocent kid living in an upper middle class neighborhood harbor such ill-will toward a group of people...unless someone taught him to believe that that way? I Googled the question about dog-eating Mexicans and found exactly one "news" story about a "bunch of dog and cat and rat eating" Mexican gang members. There was no other corroboration of the outlandish charges, but what better way to get American kids to despise Mexicans? A dozen other stories included the question of whether Mexicans eat dogs--curiously, all around the same time frame--with every one of them concluding that, "NO! Goddammit! Mexicans do NOT eat dogs!!!"
Depending on the responses and the amount oF time I have, I may hafta look into this a little more deeply. I've never been prone to conspiracy theories, but the wording and timing of this thing is intriguing as the divisions betwixt the proponents and opponents of the controversial Arizona legislation inre: checking the legal status of EVERY person "of interest". My own feelings (besides the one shown above) are that demagoguery and clever marketing by political machines have effectively branded an entire nation of proud, hard-working and decent people as ruffians, law-breakers, and lazy lay-abouts. Even their legislators are reprobates. But enough about Idaho.
News story:
NEW YORK — Rudy Giuliani's daughter was arrested Wednesday on a misdemeanor shoplifting charge at a beauty supplies store after she was seen on security video pocketing makeup, police said.
Caroline Giuliani, a 20-year-old Harvard University student, was seen taking five items worth more than $100 at a Sephora store in Manhattan, New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said.
Store managers, after calling police, said they didn't want to press charges against her, Browne said. But police arrested her on a petty larceny charge, he said.
Giuliani, wearing black pants and a red sweater and with her arms folded, exited a police precinct Wednesday evening and quickly got into an SUV with a man and a woman. She did not respond to reporters' questions.
Her father, through a spokeswoman, said the case was a personal matter and asked the media to respect her privacy.
The Manhattan district attorney's office had not decided whether to file formal charges against her, office spokeswoman Erin Duggan said.
Caroline Giuliani is the younger of the former New York mayor's two children with ex-wife Donna Hanover, a television reporter and actress. She is believed to be estranged from her prosecutor-turned-politican father.
In 2007, when Rudy Giuliani was seeking the Republican nomination for president, Caroline Giuliani listed herself as a member of Barack Obama's Facebook group supporting his candidacy. But she left the group after an online magazine sent her an inquiry about it, and she didn't comment on the presidential race.
Rudy Giuliani lost to U.S. Sen. John McCain, who lost to Obama.
He has asked for privacy to deal with strained relationships in his family. His son, Andrew Giuliani, 23, has said their relationship became distant after his father's messy divorce from his mother and marriage to another woman.
The arrest Wednesday was first reported by the New York Post.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
I Hate Youism--a paradigmatic & practical polemic on political populism
I am the married father of 2 sons and one step-daughter and I am a disabled veteran who no longer recognizes our country or many of its citizens. I know people who refuse to speak with me because our politics don't match. Someone recently repeated the "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one" adage which is, barring extraordinarily poor genetics or the horrifying results of a terrible accident, pretty much true. However, the problem with many of the citizens with whom I disagree politically and philosophically is that our system of government requires "Informed" opinions if the whole "public discourse" and "exchange of ideas" thing is to work.
While my genteel right-leaning friends scratch their protruding foreheads or begin lathering at the mouth (not you, VQ), I suggest that we, if we are indeed the responsible wards of Our State as the Tea Party contends (and I agree), refrain from the politics of One Issue/I Hate Youism and remain open to the dangerous, on-the-edge proposition that our minds are malleable and must remain true to the ideal that NEW information carries the potential of changing our minds if the NEW Information forces us to re-examine our stance on a given issue.
If any of you believe you understand HOW this country was formed and WHY it was so new and important, you should also recognize the pure American essence of the idea that we are SUPPOSED to use new information whenever it improves our lives. And this goes both ways. If the New Info is not useful and the old way is superior, we should admit as much and continue on our merry way; however, whichever way the cookie crumbles I'm reasonably certain the Founders and primary, iconoclastic draftsmen of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were of the mind that we should fucking think for ourselves! Additionally, not thinking for one's self abrogates your responsibility as a responsible citizen in the Brave, New System they developed. In a sense, every nauseating utterance of "Ditto Rush" or "By God, Glenn Beck KNOWS EVERYTHING, just repeat what HE says" is essentially a traitorous act against the spirit and principles of the Constitution, its amendments and the Representative Democratic Republic, The United States of America.
I care about my country, Our State, and deeply enough to fight--daily, if need be--for the ideals embodied by its enlightened Founders, viz., that EVERY person ought to be fortunate enough to live in a land ruled by a just, informed citizenry who not only respect the egalitarian rule of law BUT in the knowledge that, First and Foremost, inalienable civil rights are not subject to the whimsical nature of political fortune, religious zealotry or personal bigotry.
To bolster my position that allowing demagoguery to fashion and control public discourse, such that it is in our New Age of I Hate Youism, and that my "liberal" stance on this issue is indeed solidly based on the ideals of the Founders, I offer the following statement from some Virginia farmer and tinkerer who was not a very good businessman or steward of his property, the regular horizontal bop with his beautiful slave maid notwithstanding. His mind, nevertheless, was cut from some very rare, eloquent, and prescient gemstone that most people agree was rarified genius.
Please read the following very carefully and critically and tell me if I'm wrong.
If you're certain I'm wrong, I encourage you to respond, tell me how and why but only if you can abide by the following:
a) properly identify the topic; b) stick to the topic; c) cite references that are NOT blogs or web pages of otherwise opinionated jack-offs like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Shawn Hannity, Adolf Hitler, The People's Front of Judea, The Lizard King, Andrew Breitbart, Angry White Dude, et al; and d) write clearly and coherently.
I apologize we have to winnow the field of prospective commentators in such a severe manner, but most people today are not aware that name calling, a tactic called ad hominem or "to the man", is NOT a type of argument. It IS offensive and repugnant, but it does NOT serve any practical purpose except to show the world your mental age lags years, maybe decades, behind the one listed on your driver's license. Also, citing outside references to support your argument is encouraged but limited to sources that one can reasonably expect proper research and vetting techniques were employed prior to informational or scholastic publication. And just because Glenn Beck is starting a university it only proves that enough pinheads bought into his self-serving drivel to allow such an person to pass himself off as an academic. Think of it this way: was Hitler a noted artist because he could paint or because he had one testicle?
This challenge, as it were, is not designed to call out the entire movement, because there are aspects of the "Tea Party" with which I agree. Let's be honest, nobody likes to pay taxes, the wealthy least of all, because they're convinced that the egalitarianism espoused by the Founders really meant "wealthy, land-owning white men." Again, truth be told, that's precisely what was meant at the time Our State was founded and, if everyone was as honest as Abraham Lincoln (who wanted to send all freed slaves to Madagascar because he believed as some of you do that white men are superior) that's what a lot of wealthy, white men want us to revert to.
I don't know about any of you, but I've been harangued by wealthy, white men who spelled it out for me in simple sentences that "this country was great until we allowed women, niggers, and Jews into the process." This is a direct quote spoken to me by my great-uncle, a multi-millionaire who scolded me from the top floor of the condominium he owned in Boca Raton, FLA. And by condo, I mean the entire, fucking 22-story, beachfront building. (I wonder what went through his mind when, years after his death, his pedophile priest of a son, who inherited everything, went to federal prison for abusing teenagers after getting them stoned?)
And don't try the "just because your great-uncle was a great man for making so much money that ALL white men feel that way" argument because I've heard forms and variations of that theme since I was knee-high to Artis Gilmore, the 7'2" former Kentucky Colonels/Chicago Bulls great who I saw buying beer one time. I was 7 at the time, but you get the drift. In fact, one of the WORST polemics I heard on race and economics and imminent collapse of our system of government was from a doctorate-bearing idiot from the Univ. of Louisville Business School.
When this 43-y/o virgin wasn't talking into his beer bottle (I am NOT making this up!), he was "non-responding" to my economics questions and statements and babbling into the bottle about eugenics, race riots, the superior European model of governing which was startling close to real fascism and not the silly shit willfully ignorant Tea Partiers put on placards of Obama made to look more menacing than a regular black man, probably because he's half-white(?)...(I know another "I'm smarter than anyone here or who has ever been born" type, but he was a true-blue narcissist who was/is in DIRE need of professional help. He was also fond of the "answering the question by not answering it" technique which is another way of avoiding any responsibility or ownership of the conversation because it never really happened. Then again, all narcissists are dicks of the highest order.)
So, are the populists right? Do they REALLY want to revert back to the days of the Constitution? I've read some argue that the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY Bill of Rights worth keeping and no mention was made to any of the other amendments after the original set. (I have to apologize, but I cannot recall where I read this. If pressed, I might try to find it, but not if you're gonna be a dick about it.) There has been a little discussion in Facebook of what my core beliefs are, primarily because people cannot take an angle on me if they're not sure where I stand on EVERYTHING, but when it comes right down to it it doesn't matter because there is One Issue that someone can use to proudly pin the I Hate You because... accoutrements on my lapel.
As a result, an entire group of people can take their measure of me as a man, as a patriot, as a father, whatever the Hell they want because my label reveals the essence of who I am without need for further speculation or inspection. Once this VITAL task has been accomplished, the tribal leaders can more easily cast their marching orders to the minions eager to do their bidding against the evil "Other" because "he" can officially say, without saying, I Hate You because "he" told me to, because "you" are evil, because "my" group knows what "your" group always thinks when "that" happens, you son-of-a-bitch hippie terrorist coddler! Do "you" care more about a terrorist than you do an American soldier?
Well, my only real answer to the assumers, the key masters to the doors where all the "real" information is stored, is this: Have you told your secretly bisexual Republican father and Republican mother who dreams of making "Boom-Boom" with a strange, muscular black man that you voted for Barack Obama?
XOXO--JR
While my genteel right-leaning friends scratch their protruding foreheads or begin lathering at the mouth (not you, VQ), I suggest that we, if we are indeed the responsible wards of Our State as the Tea Party contends (and I agree), refrain from the politics of One Issue/I Hate Youism and remain open to the dangerous, on-the-edge proposition that our minds are malleable and must remain true to the ideal that NEW information carries the potential of changing our minds if the NEW Information forces us to re-examine our stance on a given issue.
If any of you believe you understand HOW this country was formed and WHY it was so new and important, you should also recognize the pure American essence of the idea that we are SUPPOSED to use new information whenever it improves our lives. And this goes both ways. If the New Info is not useful and the old way is superior, we should admit as much and continue on our merry way; however, whichever way the cookie crumbles I'm reasonably certain the Founders and primary, iconoclastic draftsmen of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were of the mind that we should fucking think for ourselves! Additionally, not thinking for one's self abrogates your responsibility as a responsible citizen in the Brave, New System they developed. In a sense, every nauseating utterance of "Ditto Rush" or "By God, Glenn Beck KNOWS EVERYTHING, just repeat what HE says" is essentially a traitorous act against the spirit and principles of the Constitution, its amendments and the Representative Democratic Republic, The United States of America.
I care about my country, Our State, and deeply enough to fight--daily, if need be--for the ideals embodied by its enlightened Founders, viz., that EVERY person ought to be fortunate enough to live in a land ruled by a just, informed citizenry who not only respect the egalitarian rule of law BUT in the knowledge that, First and Foremost, inalienable civil rights are not subject to the whimsical nature of political fortune, religious zealotry or personal bigotry.
To bolster my position that allowing demagoguery to fashion and control public discourse, such that it is in our New Age of I Hate Youism, and that my "liberal" stance on this issue is indeed solidly based on the ideals of the Founders, I offer the following statement from some Virginia farmer and tinkerer who was not a very good businessman or steward of his property, the regular horizontal bop with his beautiful slave maid notwithstanding. His mind, nevertheless, was cut from some very rare, eloquent, and prescient gemstone that most people agree was rarified genius.
Please read the following very carefully and critically and tell me if I'm wrong.
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --From the inscription on Panel 4 of the Jefferson Memorial*
If you're certain I'm wrong, I encourage you to respond, tell me how and why but only if you can abide by the following:
a) properly identify the topic; b) stick to the topic; c) cite references that are NOT blogs or web pages of otherwise opinionated jack-offs like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Shawn Hannity, Adolf Hitler, The People's Front of Judea, The Lizard King, Andrew Breitbart, Angry White Dude, et al; and d) write clearly and coherently.
I apologize we have to winnow the field of prospective commentators in such a severe manner, but most people today are not aware that name calling, a tactic called ad hominem or "to the man", is NOT a type of argument. It IS offensive and repugnant, but it does NOT serve any practical purpose except to show the world your mental age lags years, maybe decades, behind the one listed on your driver's license. Also, citing outside references to support your argument is encouraged but limited to sources that one can reasonably expect proper research and vetting techniques were employed prior to informational or scholastic publication. And just because Glenn Beck is starting a university it only proves that enough pinheads bought into his self-serving drivel to allow such an person to pass himself off as an academic. Think of it this way: was Hitler a noted artist because he could paint or because he had one testicle?
This challenge, as it were, is not designed to call out the entire movement, because there are aspects of the "Tea Party" with which I agree. Let's be honest, nobody likes to pay taxes, the wealthy least of all, because they're convinced that the egalitarianism espoused by the Founders really meant "wealthy, land-owning white men." Again, truth be told, that's precisely what was meant at the time Our State was founded and, if everyone was as honest as Abraham Lincoln (who wanted to send all freed slaves to Madagascar because he believed as some of you do that white men are superior) that's what a lot of wealthy, white men want us to revert to.
I don't know about any of you, but I've been harangued by wealthy, white men who spelled it out for me in simple sentences that "this country was great until we allowed women, niggers, and Jews into the process." This is a direct quote spoken to me by my great-uncle, a multi-millionaire who scolded me from the top floor of the condominium he owned in Boca Raton, FLA. And by condo, I mean the entire, fucking 22-story, beachfront building. (I wonder what went through his mind when, years after his death, his pedophile priest of a son, who inherited everything, went to federal prison for abusing teenagers after getting them stoned?)
And don't try the "just because your great-uncle was a great man for making so much money that ALL white men feel that way" argument because I've heard forms and variations of that theme since I was knee-high to Artis Gilmore, the 7'2" former Kentucky Colonels/Chicago Bulls great who I saw buying beer one time. I was 7 at the time, but you get the drift. In fact, one of the WORST polemics I heard on race and economics and imminent collapse of our system of government was from a doctorate-bearing idiot from the Univ. of Louisville Business School.
When this 43-y/o virgin wasn't talking into his beer bottle (I am NOT making this up!), he was "non-responding" to my economics questions and statements and babbling into the bottle about eugenics, race riots, the superior European model of governing which was startling close to real fascism and not the silly shit willfully ignorant Tea Partiers put on placards of Obama made to look more menacing than a regular black man, probably because he's half-white(?)...(I know another "I'm smarter than anyone here or who has ever been born" type, but he was a true-blue narcissist who was/is in DIRE need of professional help. He was also fond of the "answering the question by not answering it" technique which is another way of avoiding any responsibility or ownership of the conversation because it never really happened. Then again, all narcissists are dicks of the highest order.)
So, are the populists right? Do they REALLY want to revert back to the days of the Constitution? I've read some argue that the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY Bill of Rights worth keeping and no mention was made to any of the other amendments after the original set. (I have to apologize, but I cannot recall where I read this. If pressed, I might try to find it, but not if you're gonna be a dick about it.) There has been a little discussion in Facebook of what my core beliefs are, primarily because people cannot take an angle on me if they're not sure where I stand on EVERYTHING, but when it comes right down to it it doesn't matter because there is One Issue that someone can use to proudly pin the I Hate You because... accoutrements on my lapel.
As a result, an entire group of people can take their measure of me as a man, as a patriot, as a father, whatever the Hell they want because my label reveals the essence of who I am without need for further speculation or inspection. Once this VITAL task has been accomplished, the tribal leaders can more easily cast their marching orders to the minions eager to do their bidding against the evil "Other" because "he" can officially say, without saying, I Hate You because "he" told me to, because "you" are evil, because "my" group knows what "your" group always thinks when "that" happens, you son-of-a-bitch hippie terrorist coddler! Do "you" care more about a terrorist than you do an American soldier?
Well, my only real answer to the assumers, the key masters to the doors where all the "real" information is stored, is this: Have you told your secretly bisexual Republican father and Republican mother who dreams of making "Boom-Boom" with a strange, muscular black man that you voted for Barack Obama?
XOXO--JR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)