Don’t Tase Me, Bro!
After watching the chilling footage, it’s surprising that this event didn’t ignite some widespread awareness. Ironically enough, the officer that tasered Tabatabainejad, Terrence Duren, was knighted “UCLA Officer of the Year” back in 2001, and following the tasering incident, he only suffered a 90-day suspension.
It never seizes to amaze me how differently power can affect people. For instance, back in 1996 when I was appointed supervisor of arts and crafts in my Cub Scout den (we were not exactly the most macho den to say the least, but we made some impressive holiday magnets), the power certainly got to my head. Before I even knew it, I found myself dictating who had access to the feather and bead decorations. While I never exactly whipped out a taser and set my amateur craft-making peers straight, the ability to impose by authority was always somewhat tempting.
Three days ago, power got to the heads of University of Florida police when Andrew Meyer, a fourth-year student, acted a fool at a Constitution Day forum with Senator John Kerry. At the forum, each student was able to ask Kerry one question, yet Meyer decided to savor his moment in the limelight and aggressively ask three
arguably controversial questions:1). Why did Kerry concede the 2004 presidential election before results were tallied and despite allegations of election irregularities?
(Based on the findings of Greg Palast’s 2006 book Armed Madhouse, which Meyer held in his hand during the forum)
2). Why doesn’t Kerry support the movement to impeach George W. Bush?
3). Were Kerry and Bush members of the Yale University secret society called Skulls and Bones?
After Meyer condescendingly threw out his questions, his microphone was cut off. Two university police were ordered by the event organizers to seize Meyer, and in doing so, they pulled him down the auditorium as he shouted “Help!” and “What’d I do?!” numerous times.
Kerry, carefully still perched on the auditorium, said “That’s all right, let me answer his question.”
By the time that the two university police officers had dragged Meyer to the back of the auditorium, two more officers joined in, wrestled him to the ground and attempted to handcuff him. Next, the officers threatened Meyer to either stop resisting arrest, or he would be tasered. Meyer began to beg for the officers to let him go and desperately pleaded, “Don’t tase me, bro! Don’t tase me!” Seconds thereafter, Officer Nicole Lynn Mallo drive-stunned Meyer in the shoulder, leaving him helplessly crying in pain. I would not know what to do with myself if someone actually called me “bro,” but I do know that taser would not have been involved. Meyer was then escorted by police and detained overnight in the Alachua County Jail, where he was charged with resisting an officer an officer and disturbing the peace.
What did Kerry do throughout the altercation, you might ask? He played it safe and nervously stated, “Officers, can we… folks… Hey folks, I think that if everybody just calms down, that this…” Later on after the forum awkwardly wrapped up, Kerry issued a statement the day after that read:
“In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way. I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of responding when he was taken into custody. I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.”
Not aware of the tasering, John? Those blood curdling screams, moans and cries must have just been for kicks. I know that’s how I get attention when I need help at CVS. What Kerry should have done was step up to the police and defend Meyer’s first amendment rights. After all, Kerry repeatedly stated during the arrest and tasering that, “It’s okay! I will answer his question.” Rather than presenting himself as a liberal sage willing to humor the crazy kid’s question, Kerry should have discarded his political status and used the microphone for a better purpose than mumbling, “Officers, can we… folks…” Until the social gap between politicians and the public is bridged, the notion of the politician will continue to carry an air of coldness and corruption.You might be wondering how this is remotely humorous. Despite the “Don’t tase me, bro!” line, there is nothing particularly side-splitting about Meyer’s plight. What was funny, though, was Kerry’s reaction to the mess. His fumbling response to an innocent — if mildly stupid — student being brutally tasered for asking perfectly reasonable questions was priceless and very characteristic of how most politicians would have reacted to such an incident. Kerry could have done a lot more than just idly pretend that the horrors that were occurring mere yards away in fact weren’t. In my personal opinion, Kerry should have been a true bro and stage dived and crowd surfed his way to the scene of the tasering and rescued Meyer.
A Nice Start, but needs to go further
I like the idea of archiving, but still, 30 posts a week is still a lot of stuff to read through, especially trying to implement the idea of having teasers (bits of info on certain blogs) for each section/topic. Since I don’t have access to this at the moment, or unaware if I do, so I can not get rolling on this. This just seems logical to me, but if people think otherwise, let me know.
Beautiful Graffiti
I get bored easily. Things look bland, sound stale, and generally can’t hold my interest. Unless there’s some real soul in them.
The site is looking better, but, it’s not quite perfect, at least not for what we want to do. It needs personality, like our politicians. We need some beautiful graffiti, a barrage of images and sounds. But not random images and sounds, but things with content and meaning. We need to take both our design and our content to the next step. Though that is frustratingly hard to do with Blogger. Maybe it’s just a microcosm for America. We’re given tools to make things, but lack the creativity. We have politicians that can speak, but lack meaning behind their words. Are we becoming like that? Are we just following the path of what we are expected to based on our position? Do we protest because we’re supposed to? Do we write a blog to voice opinions that will get lost in the flow because that is what everyone with an opinion is expected to do? I don’t know. But I know that if we’re going to make a something out of this blog we need to have an attitude to match. We need to look the part, sound the part, and have the content to get noticed…and appreciated.
Living By Their Own Rules
In the September 3rd edition of TIME Magazine, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg delivers a quote about how he will not run for President. It caught my eye because this is exactly the type of man we need in the White House. How ironic. The quote reads: “Nobody’s going to elect me President of the United States. What I’d like to do is to be able to influence the dialogue. I’m a citizen.”
Mayor Bloomberg is a citizen. President Bush is a citizen. All these people in so-called power are citizens of the United States and are under the same laws as we are. So, why are they keeping us hidden from this decision-making process? Why can’t these people talk to us like human-beings, on the same level? These people in power are in their big Congress buildings in their fancy chairs, and not listening to us because they’re not trying to.
What I’d love to see is some ordinary guy off the street be able to go into Congress and speak his mind and actually have it mean something.
Mayor Bloomberg has the right idea; he’s a citizen and knows that the dialogue process is flawed. I don’t know about you, but… Bloomberg ’08!
Debate Questions
Last week I merely pointed out that the debates of the 21st century do not have nearly as much influence and prestige as the Lincoln- Douglas debates. This week I would like to discuss how the current debate format is a disgrace to America.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates took place in 1858, the main issue being whether or not slavery was to continue in the United States. This era was a monumental point in the history of the United States; the secession of half of the country, a Civil War, the destruction of the former Southern way of life, and the reconstruction. These are the type of topics included in curriculums all over the United States from elementary education through high school.
However, the issues we face today are also vast. It was just six years ago our country was attacked by terrorists on Sepetember 11th and we still have armed forces overseas fighting the War on Terror. Social issues such as abortion, health care, and illegal immigration also prevail. We are now in an era that will be frequently studied and analyzed in the future. The current debate format is an insult to the vast issues the United States faces today. Presidential candidates should have more time to talk about their plans for America’s future, not be constrained to a minute or so. They should be allowed to address these issues (I mentioned the ones I think most Americans want to hear about, though I know it’s particular to each person) and not be forced to answer meaningless questions that focus on the past rather than the future.
I am including the link from the September 30, 2004 debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry if you would like to scan some of the questions and answers from last year, since my rant spurred from reading some of it. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Presidential_Debate_-_September_30#Question_10
Voting History
The websites of the presidential candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are loaded to the gills with flowery descriptions and passionate videos of the men and women championing their beliefs and promising change of all shapes and sizes. What those websites don’t have however, is the candidates voting history.
Hillary Clinton’s site, http://www.hillaryclinton.com/, is quick to boast of her lifelong commitment to “strong advocacy for children,” but says little in all the flowery prose of what she’s actually done. Some description is provided, but there is little in the way of substantive information, and almost nothing of what Clinton has and has not voted for during her time in the United States Senate.
The same appears to be true of every other candidate’s site. Fred Thompson’s site, http://fredfile.fred08.com/, posts a number of video blogs by the former Senator. One such video is his address of the problems and decaying state of medicare, for which he speaks of the need for reform, but seems uninterested in giving any explanation of how or what kind. The closest it got to his voting record was that, had he been in the Senate in 2003, he would have voted against the medicare bill.
A lot of useful information appears on the candidates sites, it’s true. Also true is the fact that a candidate’s voting record is easily accessible. But the public deserves more than canned answers and vague descriptions of how the candidates feel.
Those who’ve served in the Congress, which is the bulk of candidates, should have their voting histories and an explanation for why the voted how they did on each and every bill should be readily available on every website. Instead, we get half truths and vague promises on sites like that of Mike Huckabee, http://www.mikehuckabee.com/, and John Edwards http://johnedwards.com/. We should also have readily available a full list of what bills governors and former governors running for the presidency have vetoed and made other actions on. The candidates should have nothing to hide, instead they should embrace their voting history, give their justifications, it is essential to the public’s understanding of how the candidates feel.
Who Will Save You Now?
“How dare you make such unpatriotic comments,” was a comment made about my last blog post. If you do not remember, I argued that Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani needs to stop mentioning 9/11 every chance he gets and talk more about the change he is going to bring. And apparently I was not the only thinking about this. Amanda Ripley wrote an article in Time Magazine, “Behind Giuliani’s Tough Talk,” which seemed to be in direct response to my blog post. Amanda explained that because Giuliani has decided to focus on terrorism, 9/11, and his first hand experience dealing with both he “has raised an interesting question. What does it actually mean to understand terrorism?”
There is no question that the Iraqi War and terrorism will be two of the most debated issues on the campaign trail in 2008. The American people want to feel safe, and I don’t know if they will be safer with Rudy Giuliani as their President as they are with President Bush. So who is going to make them safer? Two candidates, who do not even stand chance, stick out in my mind. John McCain is the first. As the article said McCain was a Navy pilot for more than 20 years and is the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. McCain has one problem; he has already had his chance. He is the, been there done that candidate. The second choice is Senator Joseph Biden. He is so over looked. Since 1973 Mr. Biden has served this country in the Senate, and he is currently the Chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, a committee in which is has been in for over ten years and has gained tremendous respect in foreign relations and national security knowledge. If you are looking for real safety forget Clinton, Obama, and Giuliani. Biden has already proved himself.
Why Are We so Different?
At twenty-one, our drinking age is higher then that of any other western country. For some reason in this country we have come to the idea that kids should exist in a relative drug free bubble until the age of twenty-one, expecting that the over protected youth will then be able to somehow cope with the outside world.
However by the time we turn twelve in many states one is able to obtain a hunting license. On our sixteenth birthday we are able to drive a car. Once eighteen is reached we are able to marry, vote, have an abortion, purchase/perform in pornography, serve on a jury, be executed, and serve in the military. I’ve always wondered why I am allowed to own an M-16, but not to drink a beer. To me one sounds far more dangerous then the other.
Don’t get me wrong I do believe there should be a drinking age, just not twenty-one. Most of the statistics cited by groups such as MADD largely pertain to those who start drinking before the age of fifteen. In this case of course it becomes absurd that a middle school student fresh into puberty should not be allowed to freely drink.
I am firmly in the camp that believes responsible drinking comes from parental guidance. From personal experience I can tell you that the people who were transported freshman year were not the ones who had tolerated alcohol. They were always the ones who, once escaping parental supervision, had gotten a hold of alcohol for the first time and had been unknowing in how to handle it. Any like minded individuals should check out this website for rational reasons against the current drinking age.
Technorati
M. Appeal (Mass Appeal) 