Andrew Giuliani

Let's put it this way : If Rudy Giuliani were a woman, it would matter he is such a bad parent

As someone who not only suffered as a child the trauma of a bad marriage but also the trauma of my parents awful divorce, my heart goes out to Andrew Giuliani. In an interview this past weekend, the always candid son of the Rudester, talked about the strained relationship he has with his father :

New York Daily News - Politics - Rudy's son: 'I got my values from my mother':

"I got my values from my mother," 21-year-old Andrew Giuliani told ABC in an interview quoted on "Good Morning America" yesterday, the same day the Daily News spotlighted the rift between the former mayor and his only son.

"She's a strong influence in my life," Andrew Giuliani said of his mother, Donna Hanover, seemingly drawing a contrast between her and Rudy Giuliani. "She's a strong woman."

As The NY Times aptly points out, Giuliani's children are nowhere mentioned on his campaign site, an omission that has not been missed by GOP contenders like Mitt Romney, who is vying for the conservative-est of them all.

But Giuliani, in trying to be hip has just declared to news wires that it's just a normal problem facing blended families : "I believe that these problems with blended families, you know, are challenges â€” sometimes they are," he said. "The more privacy I can have for my family, the better we are going to be able to deal with all these difficulties."

Yeaaaaaah. Riiiiiight.

» read more | liza's blog | 1 comment | email this blog | 1625 reads

Visit our sponsors

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers
Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network
BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Words to live by

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

—

Lawrence Lessig