January 02, 2008
I'm Rudy Giuliani, and I Approve This Crass AdPolitics
In Vinod’s post last week following Benazir Bhutto’s tragic assassination, there was some legitimate debate about whether and how to criticize the recently deceased (not that we need to restart the argument ;-).
Well, it’s been a week, and we’re starting to see various media outlets printing sharp critiques of Bhutto (see Dalrymple, for instance, in Outlook…). But more than that, we’re seeing American politicans crassly exploiting the tragedy to promote their own sorry asses:
The biggest problem with ads like this, of course, is that they tell people to vote based on fear rather than logic.
amardeep on January 2, 2008 11:27 PM in Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Oh. my. god. That ad is SO over the top that I feel bad for anyone who takes it at face value and votes based on that.
9/11 changed everything. Including the butterfly effect. A gunman fires shots in Pakistan, leading to a fence around Mexico.
I am 9/11 and I approve this message.
Also, I'm really sick of Giuliani exploiting the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers while he was mayor for political leverage.
What's funny (and sad) is that I wouldn't be surprised if that ad or something very similar to it was used as a CNN commercial for one its news reports/'investigations.'
Wow, yes, I would put that one down as a "fear-mongering classic," even though I incline toward the GOP.
is that they tell people to vote based on fear rather than logic.
point taken, but do note most humans are tards who are more moved by emotional appeal. there's a reason why politicians resort to viscerally negative ads. talk to me about logic when everyone's read their quine ;-)
By any chance, is this a parody ad? Just asking...
is that they tell people to vote based on fear rather than logic.
Then he's lock, step with the republican electoral playbook.
"Guiliani likes to talk about how great he was on 9/11, He really stepped it up for NY on 9/11.... but how about on 9/10? 5/24? 3/12? Pick a date mother fucker!"
-Chris Rock.
DISGUSTING on so many different levels, that I cannot even type!
Rudy Guiliani is an opportunistic bastard and interestingly he looks like one. He is truly puke inducing (but good for weight loss)
Seriously, the voiceover might as well have been. "Remember... bad muslims are still out there. Rudy will make them go away.. Vote Rudy Guiliani"
Ugh, horrible, disgusting, etc. Giuliani needs to stop misusing 9/11 for his campaign.
does Giuliani relate EVERYTHING to terrorism, 9/11 attacks, and the middle east. get a life. . .
is that a tower of babel at 0:18? almost subliminal
REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR??
buy american cars.
Giuliani To Run For President Of 9/11
The campaign poster shown in the link is sinister yet hilarious...like Rudy's campaign.
And Guiliani partners will help avert another 9-11 by working for Gulf sheikhs (including supposedly Saudi sheikhs).
Fareed Bhai puts it best, "Guiliani is running for Fear Mongerer in Chief"
You know what's *really* sad about this? I might indignantly point this out to some ignorant individuals I know and they will look at it and think, "I don't get what's so bad about this advertisement--it's not like it's lying! Those things are really happening out there".
*head desk*
As a former New Yorker and JerseyCityite, I'd like to point out that Rudy was most famous for his war on sqweegie-men, prior to 9/11.
That is all.
There is a piece about Rudy in this week's New Yorker. Elizabeth Kolbert isn't a fan and writes about his "clean up the City" years:
However, my favorite line in the article--which I read aloud to appreciate its absurdity--is:
It's not just politicians but marketeers, pornographrs and random bored teenagers. I looked up Sanam Bhutto and was directed to a porn site. And now it turns out that Bilawal's facebook profile is a hoax. I think the devil pic is portentous.
That was over-the-top fear-mongering. But here is my issue: It seems that if he fear-mongered on some other social issue, such as health care or illegal Hispanic immigration, you mutineers wouldn't make many comments about it. It's only when someone fear-mongers on Islamofascists do you people seem to be roused.
Other than that, I do think that Islamofascism is a big threat to the world.
I was disgusted that political hay in this country was being made merely one day after the assassination.
However, what really made me almost throw up in my mouth was when I heard a sound bite of Giuliani saying something like "the American people sympathize with the people of Pakistan in the aftermath of this terrorist assassination because of the similar thing that's happened to us." Bastard.
Of course, I think Joe Biden summed up Giuliani's moribund talking points best of all.
boston_mahesh
sepiamutiny bloggers and posters are largely made up of a self righteous group of liberals who treat anybody who disagrees with them patronizingly or subhuman
in the same threads camille points to you can see that
in fact, you can tell from some of the comments here
i barely even lurk here anymore for that reason (if i want reasoned politics i'd head to tpm or something)
by the way coach diesel. as a current and longtime nyc resident, Giuliani was most famous for reducing crime in nyc which had a positive ripple effect in other areas...you can keep your squeegee's and newark-esque violence, but i'd rather not have to get mugged and see my friends get shot/beat up
22 · boston_mahesh said
Other than that, I do think that Islamofascism is a big threat to the world.
That's because those stories don't necessarily have brown angles to them, whereas this ad specifically used an image of Bhutto to remind us of her assassination and did. I agree with you re: Islamofascism, and I also think the left underplays or even overlooks it, but this ad is just ridiculously over the top and doesn't accomplish anything but more fear mongering.
27 · nala said
Meh. In the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, "What's a few riled up Muslims compared to the fall of the Soviet Empire?" You do realize that most Americans across the political spectrum underplay and overlook their own role in creating the Islamofascists? And would you also agree that the right tends to underplay or even deny the very realer threat of climate change?
Yes, I agree (though I would say that 'most Americans' != 'certain government agencies'). Just because I point out something I believe is a fault among one group (one that I am more familiar with btw, having gone to a very liberal high school and being on a very liberal college campus right now, where disagreeing with popular narratives ironically gets you branded a fascist) doesn't mean that I don't recognize that other groups also over- or under-state certain issues. It just leads to both sides having more extreme views if they won't engage the other side. It's why I try not to be partisan, unfortunately I can't say the same for you though.
29 · nala said
Why is that unfortunate when I have no desire to be non-partisan?
I expressed myself poorly on that... what I meant to say is that, honestly, maybe it's just the nature of the Internet, but I find your tone kind of condescending. It's not unlike the tone I encounter among many liberals who think they have everything figured out and who will try to insinuate that I'm some kind of wingnut just because I bring up a more moderate position or try to add some nuance to their viewpoints. I felt like that's kind of what you did with the 'would you agree that most americans or the right says this too' point, just because I made a statement about what I perceive to be a problem, which is exactly how both 'sides' become more extreme by refusing to engage in dialogue with each other.
Ok, I expressed myself poorly, too. Let's be friends again. You're obviously one of those annoying "mature" people.
First of all, you could have said that by quoting Brzezinski I was actually substantiating your point (about the left downplaying Islamofascism) because he was Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor. I would then counter by saying that Democrats are not really "the left" and then where would we be?
What I really meant to say is, if Islamofascism is indeed a problem, how do you solve that problem? By killing people? They don't want to be killed and they will fight back. In the process, innocent people will die. People who love those innocent people will then become Islamofascists. Or we could arm their enemies, but we see how that played out before (Asian Dub Foundation has at least two songs about this.)
Best response I heard to 9/11 came on 9/13. I had a ticket to see Thich Nhat Hahn in Bezerkeley on 9/13. I had bought my ticket weeks in advance, but then the wheel of history turned and provided an even bigger context to hear this great advocate for peace. But you know what? It was hot up in there, and Thich Nhat Hahn is a very slow- and soft-speaking man. I got bored and fell asleep, but I tell you what, I didn't mind so much because Nhat Hahn's opening act rocked my world.
Seriously. This other monk spoke before him. She spoke of America's greatness. "America is a great nation," she said. "Nobody doubts that. And America has been hurt, we all know that, and sympathize, too. But how much more greatness would it show if America took food and books and medicine to the people of Afghanistan instead of bombs?" I held up my lighter like I was hearing an encore of "Every Rose Has Its Thorn." That's what I was trying to say. That and global warming isn't nearly as much fun to say as Islamofascism.
And finally, how can I be condescending when I use phrases like "very realer?"
30 · Harbeer said
I feel the partisan pull as well. My understanding about how this video might be received among the well-meaning Fox set is probably best summarized by the good folks at Sadly No:
"SAND PEOPLE! VIOLENT AND WICKED SAAAAAAAND PEOPLE!! WANT TO KILL YOU!!! KIIIIIILLLLL YOOOOOOOU!!!! WILL STEAL YOUR SUV AND FLATSCREEN TV!!!! WILL FORCE YOU TO EAT VEGETABLES AND EXERCISE!!!!!! RUDY STRONG!!!!! RUDY STRONG!!!!!"
All of this while spittle-laced exhortations to remember 9/11 cause all within range to gently raise their faces and receive the tough-on-terrorism darshan from Guru Giuliani.
A ripple effect. That's a new one.
Better back that claim up if you want it to be taken seriously.
Yes, but isn't this a symptom of the current conception of what humanitarian aid should look like? The food, books and medicine (I'm assuming she's referring to food, education and proper medical care) while very good things, will never eliminate poppy as the cash crop of choice. There's an infrastructure already in place where bribes, afghan authorities and the common farmer combine to produce some of the largest poppy harvests the world has ever seen. The problem is a bit harder to solve than that, noble as the sentiment is.
oh no...there's history here: "trickle-down" and "domino effect"
Think metaphor, murali. If you want to talk actual policy, I think she would advocate for broad, systemic change (with at least a nod towards ideas of "a commons" and "the common good"), but I may just be projecting.
so you're just thinking of a "military effort" vs. "non-military effort" kind of dichotomy? I mentioned the policy specifics because when my friends who favor intervention of a non-military nature (i'm defining 'military' as including 'peace-keeping' operations as well as offensive ops) are asked to be specific, they often come up with the vague, "books, medicine, food" line. I just find it kind of unsatisfying. end of gripe.
Better to be a good Sepia than a bad Kos. Trying to be
somebodysome blog you're not = failure.32 · Harbeer said
First of all, you could have said that by quoting Brzezinski I was actually substantiating your point (about the left downplaying Islamofascism) because he was Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor. I would then counter by saying that Democrats are not really "the left" and then where would we be?
What I really meant to say is, if Islamofascism is indeed a problem, how do you solve that problem? By killing people? They don't want to be killed and they will fight back. In the process, innocent people will die. People who love those innocent people will then become Islamofascists. Or we could arm their enemies, but we see how that played out before (Asian Dub Foundation has at least two songs about this.)
Best response I heard to 9/11 came on 9/13. I had a ticket to see Thich Nhat Hahn in Bezerkeley on 9/13. I had bought my ticket weeks in advance, but then the wheel of history turned and provided an even bigger context to hear this great advocate for peace. But you know what? It was hot up in there, and Thich Nhat Hahn is a very slow- and soft-speaking man. I got bored and fell asleep, but I tell you what, I didn't mind so much because Nhat Hahn's opening act rocked my world.
Seriously. This other monk spoke before him. She spoke of America's greatness. "America is a great nation," she said. "Nobody doubts that. And America has been hurt, we all know that, and sympathize, too. But how much more greatness would it show if America took food and books and medicine to the people of Afghanistan instead of bombs?" I held up my lighter like I was hearing an encore of "Every Rose Has Its Thorn." That's what I was trying to say. That and global warming isn't nearly as much fun to say as Islamofascism.
And finally, how can I be condescending when I use phrases like "very realer?"
do we have to give credence to the "Islamofascism Awareness Week" folks by ever using the term uncritically(i do see the humor at the end)? I think the ADF songs you speak of are Blowback and Enemy of the Enemy
Funny how the Nazi problem and the Soviet problem were in part defeated by this strategy, killing them and arming their enemies, in large numbers. They didn't want to be killed either. Not an an unexpected reaction on their part.That does seem to be unfortunately the only way to eradicate such ideologies. Why should Islamofascism be treated any differently ? What makes it eligible for any different kinder, gentler treatment ? And yes, there were innocent people killed when the prior two mentioned ideologies were global threats. No extended lighters is going to solve this.
Snark aside,
Except you brought it up as an example of how 'most Americans' don't recognize how U.S. foreign policy has interplayed with the rise of Islamic terrorism, which I agreed with.
I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that fear-mongering is not the answer though, and I expressed several times in this thread my aghastness at this ridiculous ad. I don't think it's as simple as 'we killed their family members so they became extremists' though; there are larger political issues that have to be addressed. By that account, it would be perfectly acceptable for someone whose family was killed by Islamic terrorists to become a hatemonger, right?
And yeah, 'Islamofascism' is kind of a fear-mongering term in itself. I'll refrain from using it.
Also, I don't think the Democrats are really 'the left' either. :)
The problem with the term 'Islamofascism' is that conflates different groups that have different goals and different ideologies, though they may have something in common. The other problem is that battling terorrist groups is harder than battling a state, especially when they're nestled in countries with poor infrastructure and lots of corruption. I mean, if we're going after 'Islamofascism,' why not start with Saudi Arabia?
41 · Vikram said
The Nazis were emboldened and aided by the US and others. The Soviets? They were well on their way to defeating themselves before Reagan inflated the defense budget and made meaningless speeches. They ignored their own intelligence in those cases, too.
I think that is where the battle should have started. But that should have been done years ago. In 1945 Patton wanted to drive the Soviets from Europe after the fall of Germany, when they were at their weakest. But he wasn't allowed to follow that plan. And we spent the next half century paying for that mistake. The same with Saudi Arabia. It parallels the Soviet Union in that sense... an ideological power that has now grown too strong for direct confrontation on its home turf/sand. And just as with the Soviet sponsored global communist insurgencies and terrorism, we seem to be fighting the Saudi exported Islamofascist terrorism in a hundred proxy wars around the globe. It is now a battle of attrition.
Absolutely... no war is without its Neville Chamberlains trying to make deals that embolden the enemy. And we have seen the results, which further emphasizes why no special treatment should be given from the very start. It is easy now to say the Soviets were on the decline. We have that luxury of hindsight today. In WWII Hitler may have been finally overthrown by rebelling Wehrmacht Generals. There was already one failed attempt. But should the Allies have sat around and waited for that unsure scenario to happen ?
40 · muralimannered said
My humor must be too subtle--I should work on that. If you look closer, you'll realize that the real butt of every joke I make is me. Yup, those are the songs I referred to.
44 · nala said
These difficulties are further complicated by our tendency to arm both sides. Short-term benefit, meet the long term repurcussions, aka Blowback.
41 · Vikram said
By the way, we did not eradicate them, we turned into them.
38 · muralimannered said
Not at all. I am thinking systemwide holistic change--a fundamental change of consciousness--that might be better characterized as a multichotomy. Let's start by respecting other peoples/cultures/nations as equals. Let's stop supporting oppressive dictators who serve the short-term interests of an elite micro-minority in this country. Let's stop forcing privitization of public resources the world over. I guess I'm thinking of a "justice" vs. "get everything we can force them to give us" kind of dichotomy. Sure, we can kick any countries ass, in the short term. We can make them dance at the snap of our fingers. But don't we dehumanize ourselves as much as we dehumanize them when we do that?
nala, I don't think Harbeer is arguing that it is acceptable for someone to become a hatemonger because the U.S. helped arm a conflict (or engaged directly) in a way that led to a family member dying. That said, I do think there is a huge disconnect within mainstream American coverage of "Islamofascism" (or whatever the weird word of the day is) between current events and very real political decisions the U.S. made that have contributed to things falling out this way. In short, the "they hate our freedoms" line gets played way more often than the "oh, we just armed both sides of the bloodiest war since WWII" or "oh, we fought proxy wars throughout the 'Cold War' that devastated homegrown democracies" or "oh we train, aid, and abet dictators."
Obama!
Huckabee! Jenny Craig for Veep!
40 · muralimannered said
First of all, you could have said that by quoting Brzezinski I was actually substantiating your point (about the left downplaying Islamofascism) because he was Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor. I would then counter by saying that Democrats are not really "the left" and then where would we be?
What I really meant to say is, if Islamofascism is indeed a problem, how do you solve that problem? By killing people? They don't want to be killed and they will fight back. In the process, innocent people will die. People who love those innocent people will then become Islamofascists. Or we could arm their enemies, but we see how that played out before (Asian Dub Foundation has at least two songs about this.)
Best response I heard to 9/11 came on 9/13. I had a ticket to see Thich Nhat Hahn in Bezerkeley on 9/13. I had bought my ticket weeks in advance, but then the wheel of history turned and provided an even bigger context to hear this great advocate for peace. But you know what? It was hot up in there, and Thich Nhat Hahn is a very slow- and soft-speaking man. I got bored and fell asleep, but I tell you what, I didn't mind so much because Nhat Hahn's opening act rocked my world.
Seriously. This other monk spoke before him. She spoke of America's greatness. "America is a great nation," she said. "Nobody doubts that. And America has been hurt, we all know that, and sympathize, too. But how much more greatness would it show if America took food and books and medicine to the people of Afghanistan instead of bombs?" I held up my lighter like I was hearing an encore of "Every Rose Has Its Thorn." That's what I was trying to say. That and global warming isn't nearly as much fun to say as Islamofascism.
And finally, how can I be condescending when I use phrases like "very realer?"
do we have to give credence to the "Islamofascism Awareness Week" folks by ever using the term uncritically(i do see the humor at the end)? I think the ADF songs you speak of are Blowback and Enemy of the Enemy
Even the Dalai Lama supports force if it prevents/reverses/neutralizes terrorism. I supported and I continue to support our Afghanistan operations. I think that if the Americans should give books, medicine, and food, along with military assistance to win over the hearts/minds of the folks there. Which is what we're doing anyways.
Are you suggesting that the USA *not* use force over there? Those battle-hearted criminals are so over-the-top evil that they had a 12-year old behead an Afghani "spy", and this was on video-tape. Even forcing them to listen to 'Poison' and CC Deville guitar solos won't reform them. Neither will withholding pancakes.
42 · nala said
Except you brought it up as an example of how 'most Americans' don't recognize how U.S. foreign policy has interplayed with the rise of Islamic terrorism, which I agreed with.
I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that fear-mongering is not the answer though, and I expressed several times in this thread my aghastness at this ridiculous ad. I don't think it's as simple as 'we killed their family members so they became extremists' though; there are larger political issues that have to be addressed. By that account, it would be perfectly acceptable for someone whose family was killed by Islamic terrorists to become a hatemonger, right?
And yeah, 'Islamofascism' is kind of a fear-mongering term in itself. I'll refrain from using it.
The Islamofascists are stupid, and they are morbidly pessimistic. They would have found a reason to hate us no matter what! Even the Kuwaitis don't like us as much as you think, even though it was Americans (via Exxon lobbyists) who saved them in '91. No matter what the Americans do, they will get pissed off. Even in India, the Islamofascists there have declared India as an enemy. Is anyone familar with the leader of the biggest mosque in India? This Maulana requested that Saudi Arabia boycott Indian goods. For what? Well, they'll find reasons to hate.
55 · boston_mahesh said
Right. They are subhuman.
42 · nala said
Well, I'm not saying that any of this is "acceptable," I'm just describing a version of reality. If somebody whose family was killed by Islamic terrorists became a hatemonger, I think, to quote Chris Rock, I'd understand. My point though, is that history matters, even if nobody in this country remembers it. Sure, many other factors play into it, like unemployment levels, people's optimism, and real opportunities for people to earn a dignified livelihood.
Again, I think it's telling that the Bush Administration farmed out all the Iraq rebuilding to US-based private contractors, who further subcontracted to people who subcontracted to people who subcontracted who brought in foreign workers from India and Pakistan and Indonesia and took away their passports thereby rendering them captive, slave workers and paid them a pittance while charging them an arm and leg for crappy shipping container accommodations, worse even than the US troops, while management from said US-based private contractors stayed at all the fancy hotels in the Green Zone. (No, not the one where the Al-Jazeera crew got "accidentally bombed" like the Chinese embassy got "accidentally bombed" in Yugoslavia.)
So US corporations are skimming all the malai off the top while sub-sub-sub contracting to South Asian slave labor and all the while young, able Iraqi men are sitting there unemployed, nothing to do, a mom or a wife (or both) who's nagging about the kids need milk and there isn't even water to drink or electricity for most of the day and your homeboy stops by to see if you want to take a walk. What do you do? Check the classifieds?
Anybody read Hanif Kureishi's short story "My Son the Fanatic?" I like the movie, too, but the story has its own charms. Homegrown Islamic fundamentalists--now that's a whole 'nother topic--and one that deserves to be spoken of in the same context as Christian Fundamentalism in this country and also Free-Market Fundamentalism.
50 · Harbeer said
Not at all. I am thinking systemwide holistic change--a fundamental change of consciousness--that might be better characterized as a multichotomy. Let's start by respecting other peoples/cultures/nations as equals. Let's stop supporting oppressive dictators who serve the short-term interests of an elite micro-minority in this country. Let's stop forcing privitization of public resources the world over. I guess I'm thinking of a "justice" vs. "get everything we can force them to give us" kind of dichotomy. Sure, we can kick any countries ass, in the short term. We can make them dance at the snap of our fingers. But don't we dehumanize ourselves as much as we dehumanize them when we do that?
Harbeer,
I'm with you for most of this...although I do think that privatization, when not forced, is neither morally compromised nor imprudent from the risk-management perspective if implemented properly. Your last line reminded me of the comic primer for my very first post-colonial theory class in college (didn't come in the US,funnily enough), which featured a generously drawn Ashis Nandy intoning, "Colonization dehumanized the colonizers as much as it brutalized the colonized."
vikram,
I think we all proceed on the assumption, well-intentioned at best(from the recent history of goof-ups in the intelligence services), that our government uses the best rational methods to analyze the date they receive. There weren't many people calling for an end to the arms race from the perspective of, "they're already goners" during the 80s but there were a few inside the military who wrote about the logistical implications of programs like Star Wars (which represented the zenith of over-the-top useless defense spending during the 80s). Hindsight is 20/20 but you must wonder about the analytical ability of those who set policy in the past.
harb,
well i guess this is the time to admit that I read Marginal Revolution and Asymmetrical Information (as well as fire megan mcardle)almost every day. There should definitely be boundaries but after seeing how money was disbursed by the Government of Sri Lanka after the Tsunami I started to see more and more traditional governmental functions/duties/responsibilities that could be more ably discharged by the private sector--not waiting for the invisible hand to swoop in and make it happen but set public policy accordingly. I've had relatives who worked for the World Bank and so I'm very familiar with the hidebound nature of such organizations, and the damage they can cause by throwing money at problems that they're not willing to consider at the macro level, but I'm not really willing to believe that anyone is a capable provider of aid simply because they say they care and that this development is sustainable.
Regarding the proper level of intervention in the rest of the world, I think Binayavanga Wainaina said it best.
58 · muralimannered said
Actually, the CIA under George H.W. Bush was predicting the fall of the Soviet Union as early as 1976. What you call "goof ups" are actually deliberate attempts to disprove real intelligence. Bush's enemies (the neocons) politicized that intelligence and formed what they called Team B and, well, let's just check this Time Magazine article from 1991 about Robert Gates:
So you see, Vikram, it's not "the luxury of hindsight." You're indulting in the luxury of rewriting history, which doesn't really do anybody any good.58 • muralimannered said
There are some resources (like water, genes, and basmati rice) and services (like education, fire departments, police departments, and health care) which I believe should be maintained as a commons, outside of the profit motive.
58 • muralimannered said
That's pretty well-put. I'm a fan of Marcos, myself.
Murali, I'm not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with "free markets." I just try to use that phrase (Free Market Fundamentalism) because there are too many people (on this site, in this country) who seem to believe that The Holy Market is a cure-all panacea. This is a broad, irrational belief, and in that respect it is not too different from "Allah will solve all our problems" or "Jesus will solve all our problems."
Ok, just so we know this is the track record of the CIA when it comes to "intelligence gathering" :
And 3 years after 1976, the supposed declining Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and remained there for almost a decade.
With such a spotty record over the past 40 years, I can hardly blame anyone for taking the CIA's reports with an few pounds of salt. That list doesn't even include the whole fiasco over the missed/ignored/buried intelligence about 9/11. Me rewriting history ? I think not.
61 · Vikram said
Assuming that list is correct and reasonably objective, you call five mistakes over 40 years "such a spotty record?" I make five mistakes before noon every day (and I'm usually not even awake yet). But maybe you're right. Maybe we should divide the world into "us" and "them" and then have at it.
Some people think that competition is the only way to motivate people. No doubt competition is fun and satisfying, but so is cooperation. I'd like to see more "cooperation" in our national vocabulary and I don't mean the "I know what's best, you better fall in line or else!" variety of "cooperation." I mean listening to people, trying out ways of doing things that might seem ridiculous to you, being willing to be wrong, and who cares if it slows down "progress." Democracy is a messy and laborious process which does not guarantee that you will always get your way, but it's worth it.
I like the music track.
That made my insides cringe.
We New Yorkers remember the Giuliani pre-9/11. He did good for the city, but ever since that tragic date, I can't stand him and his exploitation of that moment. GAH!