I consider my dad and uncle fairly significant in my genetic make-up and on the side, there is some importance in my cultural and environmental heritage that those guys fit in as well.
Has your dad spent time in the can?
Are you making things up to define me? And what things are you attempting to use to incorporate me into some sort of profile?
The other thing that is very troubling is that he views schools as training grounds for citizenship. Citizenship according to whom?
See, I want schools to teach my kids reading, writing and "rithmatic". I will take care of the citizenship piece.
His views of the role of schools offers as much insight on his views as the rest of the speech. His view is more in line with the liberal view of schools as centers of indoctrination.
Gee CC, I'm just asking you to explain a seemingly racist statement. And being very polite about it, I may add.
And no, my dad was a Special Agent for Hoover's FBI in the 1950's. None of my relatives are criminals.
If some are thugs ( or possess other non popular character traits ) by genetics, then what people, by their genetics, are superior?
( Seems like a fair question to me. )
I am currently seeing two guys in their 40's with liver failure that is likely conected to a poor genetic constitution.
Many mental health disorders are passed along.
Most of the kids I worked with at the Youth Center had fathers who had serious criminal records.
I can't answer what people are superior, most stories I've got are about inferiority.
I have represented several VERY squared away and honest Italian cops. The name Vince Bugliosi ought to be familiar to anybody who followed the Manson prosecution. Cops of Italian heritage are ubiquitous and integral within the law enforcement community.
Here is a bio of one such genetically predisposed "thug":
Frank Serpico is a retired New York City police detective, author, lecturer and policing expert. He was born on April 14, 1936 in Brooklyn, New York. His mother, Maria Giovanna, was born in Ohio and moved back to Italy when she was a young girl. His father, Vincenzo, was born in Italy. Frank enlisted in the U.S. Army at the age of 18 and served for two years in Korea. When he returned home he worked part-time as a private investigator and youth board counselor while he attended college.
None of my relatives are criminals.
I know my dad has spent a lot of time ON the can!
rklindell wrote:(Giuliani is at his core a cop)
(Giuliani is at his core a cop)
By genetic heritage he is a thug.
He dances on the thin blue line.
Here at AMG I have seen a great deal of revisionist history attempted. Bill Randall was an expert in the "I never said that" school. I thought the above important to preserve independent of the poster's ability to edit or delete.
Wow! It looks like you guys are talking up Italians?
Do I got this correct? You think I was making racist talk against Italians?
LOL That's beautiful and a bit spleeny.
I think your words speak for themselves. That's why I made sure they are preserved.
Do you have any kind of supervisory authority at your place of business? If so, I'd be VERY careful with how you deal with anybody whose name sounds Italian. If they read this website, you might find routine supervision pretty challenging, with all the time you'll be spending at the Maine Human Rights Commission.
What words exactly Jon?
And if you are going to accuse me of racism you'd better be goddamned sucinct.
I like Mark's point. How do you define genetic heritage as it relates to Giuliani's alleged thuggery?
His father and uncle were bad guys.
I would think this falls under the category of profiling and accusatory
That's how I took it CC. Not spleeny, merely a literal reading of your own words. But if you meant his "genetic heritage" was his profession, that's fine.
Not a well crafted statement, but we've all posted things that were not gems of clarity.
Oh wait, you were refering to his family. Well, that isn't any better, is it? You think criminal behavior is a genetic trait?
Mark, I am sorry if I offended you or any other Italians. When I wrote that it was clear to me that I was speaking of his criminal genetic and familial environment only.
CC, you don't owe me an apology. I'm just glad it's cleared up. Maybe the better choice of words is "familial influence" or "familial heritage", or if you want to be humorous, "family tradition".
Now back to the point. Is this guy more thug than cop? Does he dance on the thin blue line?
Recent events and disclosures (some of his close associates) indicate a drift over the line.
Now we read this and I'd think the red flags would be hard to walk past.
His talk on citizenship in schools is a bit weird, just weird enough for me to seek further on his philosophy.
I prefer Kennedy's statesmanship on the individual's relationship to country, for example..
I have no enthusiasm for him as president, and it is too bad, because he has sufficient Executive experience as NYC mayor to be a president.
Returning to the first portion of this thread: I would side with Thomas Jefferson in such matters; I even have no real difficulty with Ayn Rand's "virtue of selfishness" except to observe it's somewhat Thomas J. coming in the back door & most folk don't like being forced to think that deeply about most things, especially their own objectives and motives.
I think RKLindell is wrong to sumarize Rudy's speech as "Freedom means submitting to authority." Yes, "Freedom means authority" is a "boneheaded phrase" (as one poster remaked). "Freedom requires authority" might make more sense.
Rudy is not philosophically out of line with the founding fathers; they understood that defending individual liberty required us to live under a strong government with strong laws. They also believed that power and authority came neither from the government nor the people's will but directly from God. Freedom was also about the freedom to submit to His authority.
It is silly to compare this speech to the philosophy of an authoritarian dictator; anyone who is serious about the idea of freedom has to wrestle with what is required of us to live free.
On another note, I work with a chef in Blue Hill who worked in NYC throughout Rudy's terms in office. His description of how the city changed is truly amazing. Cleaning up the debauchery in Times Square, and getting rid of the windshield wahsers is something that everyone hears about, but the stories I've heard about the gangsters he took on in the wholesale markets and the daily death threats he put up with are simply amazing.
Rudy may not be the leader of a true conservative movement but I really think he would be a great president -- much better, and much more conservative, than anyone the democrats can deliver.
You get points for trivia knowledge. Indeed:
Harold Giuliani had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing after his release he served as a Mafia enforcer for his brother-in-law Leo D'Avanzo, who ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn.
-- per Wikipedia.
You'd have gotten points in the communication area if you had been more specific.
You are right John but sometimes specificity becomes painful and I have a certain reluctance here sometimes.
What do you make of this part of his speech?:
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.
It sends a chill up my spine. How about you?
I am not questioning his administrative skills which are plainly second to none. It is where his heart and his mind exists that worries me. That said I would still pick him over any of the Democrats!
An interesting discussion. I always enjoy watching Chris twist in the wind! :) I'm not going to defend Rudy. He knows what he meant and the rest of us think we know. The Paulist phenomenon seems to have spawned an "anarchist" approach to the constitution. I live by the constitution...therefore I need not obey the written law if I feel like it. Do we not cede authority to the government in just about every aspect of our daily routine? You may not like it, but if it's the law aren't you bound to follow it? I suppose you could exercise freedom to do as you wish and violate the law, but not without possible penalty. I go nuts every time Mr Lindell and his legislative buddies enact some foolish law in Augusta. I may not like it, but I have to live with it.
New York City was the arm-pit of the world before Rudy became mayor and when he left office it was one of the safest cities of any size in this country. He was tough on crime as a US Attorney and as the mayor. I suppose if we follow along the roots of our own family tree we might even find someone of Irish, English, French, or African ancestry who may have broken some laws along the way. My mother's father had a brother who went out west to seek his fortune in the gold rush. He allegedly wound up killing his partner and was hanged. Not a pleasant thought, but at least so far my immediate family and I have managed to stay out of jail.
Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone!
Jim, Hitler made the law in Germany, was it right that all Germans followed his law. Stalin made the law in Russia, was it right for all Russians to follow his law. The king made the laws for the colonies. Should the American Colonists have followed the kings laws?
New York City was the arm-pit of the world before Rudy became mayor and when he left office it was one of the safest cities of any size in this country.
That passage does give me chills if I read it as an Orwellian statement like "Freedom equals submission." But I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just trying to express the tension between individual liberty and social order. It is a hard concept to wrestle with -- especially in the city he was dealing with.
Here in Maine and throughout most of the country I don't think his idea of "lawful authority" is as important. Leaders like Rudy become necessary in places where higher authorities like God, family, and community are disregarded.
My hope is that as president, Giuliani will be wise enough to understand that the brand of lawful authority he employed in NYC will not apply to the nation as a whole. (I'm also hoping, however, that he will use that toughness in dealing with our enemies).
I hope we get to hear from him in this campaign about his concept of freedom (if anyone has quotes please supply them). If it's his heart and mind you're worried about we really need to hear about his positions today; not in some speech from last century.
I consider myself a conservative but less than two years ago I was a stark raving mad liberal. If you were to find a copy of something I had said in the past it would have very little relation to the positions I hold today.
Bud - The US Constitution is the foundation of US law. We're not talking about Nazi Germany! We're talking about the United States of America. The constitution gives the Legislative Branch the "authority" to enact legislation. The constitution gives the Judicial Branch the authority to decide if the laws meet constitutional muster. Now I believe that the Supremes sometimes get it wrong, but what am I going to do mount a coup and overthrow the government? The constitution is more than the Bill of Rights. Would you prefer to scrap it all and just keep the Bill of Rights? I find the Paulists view very confusing!
"The king made the laws for the colonies. Should the American Colonists have followed the kings laws?
Most did. Fewer than 10% in the beginning decided to resist George's authority. Now another George is restricting our "privilege to travel" as he puts it. It takes fewer than 10% of the people to effect significant change.
I'm glad someone else has brought the Pauline Hypocrisy to the discussion. Appealing to authority is one of the fundamental logical fallacies; cherry-picking authority or claiming supernatural revelation as authority is even more fallacious. The Constitution - all of the Constitution - is the fundament of U.S. law. Only laws which can stand the test of constitutionality are worthy of observance. Willing observance, blind observance, reluctant observance are all of a much lesser magnitude than the test of constitutionality.