Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Last year, at the funeral for a firefighter who had spent much time at Ground Zero (he died of complications from several lung diseases striking him quickly and together) I was more than amazed at what I heard as part of the eulogies. A high-ranking fire officer said that he was not trying to politicize the funeral, but he wanted everyone in the church to know that Sen. Hillary Clinton was one of the few people in Washington who were actually doing something to help the firefighters and other rescue workers who were developing lung and heart diseases after their work on the site. He went ton to say that, in the coming elections, many politicians would be trying to build their reputations on the deaths of 9-11, and he wanted us all to know that there was one person who had actually done something other than take a photo-op.
Not what I was expecting to hear... but what I was glad was being told. It was after the funeral, talking with some of Tom's friends that I realized how much the firefighters despised Rudy, blaming him for the radios that didn't work, for rushing the search for the remains of the dead and having them dumped into a landfill, and for "standing on the shoulders of the dead".
What little Benito had done in NYC you can see in many 3rd world cities around the world run by oligarchs and fascists. In order to sooth the tourists and placate the middle class, the use the police to brutalize the poor and "undesirable" elements and kick them out of sight, as far away from the shopping areas as possible. The most violent example of that method is used in Rio, where juvenile beggars and street urchins are routinely murdered by cops, moonlighting at night as death squad assassins in the name of protecting commerce. Giuliani had visited Rio as mayor and obviously received advise on how to get rid of the poor without actually dealing with poverty.
...politicians go unscripted. We get to see narcissism and ignorance blindly grandstanding as strength and wisdom.
My old post about Midwesterners got some notice. I am a Midwesterner. If I could type with a Fargo-style accent, I would.
My message is that Giuliani is considered a fresh face and an interesting new alternative by many people in this part of the country. We have not lived through all his history.
And many people have not heard him recently, trying to sound more-brutal-than-thou on the subject of torture. So, unfortunately, Rudy has a pretty good chance within a large segment of voters here.
...BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH!
www.ronpaul2008.com
At the same time Giuliani was MIA at Ground Zero, our local Cardinal was polishing apples and kissing butts at the Vatican for the month of October instead of presiding, as he should have, at every fireman's funeral he could get to. Interviewed from Rome, he had the gall to say that he was enjoying being there. He could have expressed even insincere chafing at the bit but, no. He was having a good time.
His predecessor, Cardinal O'Connor, would have told the Pope that his city had been attacked and that he could not spend a month away from the suffering. And the Pope would have assented because he knew what good episcopal behavior looked like. It looked like Avery Dulles, also a cardinal, who gathered up some kids at Fordham University and helped them wtih their fears.
A lot of people, including Christie Whitman, were AWOL during those weeks and many of the rest of us are bitter about it.
Those Republicans have this wonderful tendency to be AWOL when danger is present. With the exception of McCain, who never saw the people he killed from the air, they are all so brilliant at avoiding danger and discomfort. Romney was converting French catholics into Mormons in France during the Vietnam war. Bush was doing whatever in Texas and then Alabama during Vietnam and flying around the country when the terrorists struck on 9/11(he just has this uncanny ability to stay away from physical danger danger), Guiliani was attending Yankee games while pretending to be at ground zero. The cardinal of NY was in the Vatican, Whittman was far away from the east coast. Not wanting to be exposed to the toxins and share the burden had nothing to do with it of course.
It really makes you wonder what Giuliani's priorities would be if he ended up at the White House. It was embarrassing enough to see that, when he was mayor, he worshiped the Yankees. Imagine all the travel he'd be engaging in merely to attend a Yankee game as President. Perhaps the Yankees can switch states. He should certainly be crowned "honorary Yankee."
This is off-topic, but when I read Garry Owen's "Speaking of assholes, Tony Snow is resigning due to colon cancer. He's dying." comment, my first thought was, "Cold!" "Harsh", "grim", "unrelenting", and "mean-spirited" might apply, too.
But I don't disagree with it, and I'm gratified to be able to read it here.
I appreciate that the issue of the "civility" of Internet discourse is a major bugaboo, and this site among others has devoted much space in ruminating over it. I regard the charge of "incivility" as equivalent to being labelled "subversive" during the McCarthy Era-- which we never really left behind, but that's another story. Respectable patrons of Internet sites, from popular individual sites to commercial sites like Salon, become reflexively defensive and apologetic when accused of promoting or tolerating "incivility".
I have mixed feelings about The Huffington Post, with its aggressive trash-tabloid presentation; I think better of "Common Dreams", which some months ago added comments capability to their material. I'm confident that Garry's comment would've been censored by both sites. HuffPo, in particular, would pre-empt the possibility by simply "closing comments" when publishing the story.
There is a disclaimer, or a warning, about an inch below where I'm typing that puts commenters on notice that Salon reserves the right to censor comments. It recites the usual reasons for deletion: we may remove letters that are far off-topic or excessively rude, or that violate the law or common decency.
If I'm correct to think that Garry's "not-nice" comment will be permitted to remain, Salon's censors are to be commended-- at least they're being thoughtful and exercising restraint. One of the worst aspects of this on-line censorship, especially as practiced at HuffPo and now Common Dreams, is that the sites are typically disingenuous in the manner in which they practice censorship.
HuffPo prefers not to call it "censorship", because of its pejorative connotation. (How can you have a "liberal" or "progressive" site that welcomes comments but censors them?) And Common Dreams is worse; I've never had any comments censored, but I gather from reading vestiges of replies that offensive comments are silently removed without even a "comment deleted" stub to at least mark the deletion.
There's a creepy, old-Soviet approach to simply "disappearing" comments without acknowledgment or explanation; it's like waiting until your puppy is momentarily distracted and hiding its toy ball because you're sick of playing with it. Furthermore, these sites also disappear comments that call attention to the censorship! (BTW, the final irony is that for all of their concern, all manner of profane and abusive comments by wingnut trolls somehow persist at HuffPo.)
In case anyone is wondering why I'm venting about those other sites: it's because of the chilling effect resulting from the presence of the Invisible Censor; they've neatly arranged it so that they can cut off troublesome dissent about their censorship policy-- so I don't see the point in wasting time risking it. Um, isn't this top-down unilateral authoritarianism the kind of problem we're commenting about in the first place? I've asked them, in vain, to at least offer an ombudsman or space to discuss concerns or complaints about censorship; not surprisingly, I've never gotten a response.
Regardless of the general rules posted on sites, the devil's certainly in the details when it comes to deciding what is unacceptably "rude" or "indecent". Passionate comments about important issues will surely elicit intemperate or impolite expressions. I'm glad whichever Mrs. Grundy is on duty here recognizes that comments like Garry's deserve respect.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
