John Kerry is a Coward
John Kerry is a coward ...Posted by b on September 18, 2007 at 15:54 UTC | Permalink
John Kerry should be requested to return his medals.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 18 2007 16:21 utc | 2
This is what it feels like to be a 'citizen'.
Excuse me while I vomit.
Posted by: 'citizen' | Sep 18 2007 16:33 utc | 3
In the early 1930s, Japanese right wingers attacked influential academics and others who advocated a rule of law and the constitution. They won, and turned the clock back to an absolute rule of the emperor and anyone who could control his aegis. We are seeing the same with attacks on Norman Finkelstein and Chemerinsky, as discussed here.
In Japan, these moves were essentially the last step in removing powers that blocked the deadly virus of the militarists who profited from heedless war. If they win in the U.S. again today - and Mukasey's nomination is one more step in that victory - we are well and truly screwed.
Kerry, that smug son of a bitch: "Unfortunately he's not available to respond..." No rule of law with senators like that... The video says it all.
Good night, and good luck.
Posted by: 'citizen' | Sep 18 2007 16:45 utc | 4
we are as jack henry abbot so indelicately put it becoming ghosts of the civil dead
the young man is clearly unbalanced & the very last thing that is required is force. on the contrary - in this situation - & i am confronted often enough with these sorts of circumstances in my work - great gentleness is required
i was taught from the womb almost that tenderness was a force & if used properly & wisely - it can transform many many volatile situations
i speak a lot here of crudeness & vulgarity & perhaps empires & power were always so - but inour time there seems to be something so solidly sordid - you want to wash yourself down in watching information or reveiwing the facts
& what happened to this poor lad was that instead of someone knowingly offering their hand - they offered instead the go! go!go! psychopathology that is serving blackwater so well in iraq
& they it is essential not to be melodramatic - episode like this always have the character of good german/good taste hanging over it
it is not an accident that three figures of great force & potence were in essence men of great gentleness, proved gentleness - ernesto che guevara, uncle ho chi minh & nelson mandela. che really listen to people & all the historical evidence shows that, uncle ho was concerned about the smallest things & in his poetry we witness what is a possible humanity & the courageous & caring mandela washing the shit of his coprisoners
power exercised as it is in this video constitutes the cultural aberration & death fixation of the u s empire
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 18 2007 16:45 utc | 5
& it is interesting to note how much 'good taste' those at dailykos have expressod over this incident
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 18 2007 16:54 utc | 6
If they win in the U.S. again today - and Mukasey's nomination is one more step in that victory - we are well and truly screwed.
What makes you think they have not already won?
Posted by: Bea | Sep 18 2007 17:08 utc | 7
NYTimes Science today picks up report from Annals of Emergency Medicine of the "case of officer in North Carolina who volunteered to be shocked at a training class [for tasers]. The officer ended up in the emergency room with two spinal fractures.
The fractures were caused by intense muscle contractions, the report said.Nine weeks later, the officer reported considerable continuing pain and told doctors that he had been able to return to work just part-time and at a desk job.
Tasers are used by more than 11,000 law-enforcement agencies in the United States, and they are widely considered safer than other tools used by police officers, like pepper spray and nightsticks, the authors said.
“However,” they wrote, “conducted energy weapons are weapons and, like other weapons, are clearly capable of causing injuries.”
Posted by: small coke | Sep 18 2007 17:21 utc | 9
NYTimes Science today picks up report from Annals of Emergency Medicine of the "case of officer in North Carolina who volunteered to be shocked at a training class [for tasers]. The officer ended up in the emergency room with two spinal fractures.
The fractures were caused by intense muscle contractions, the report said.Nine weeks later, the officer reported considerable continuing pain and told doctors that he had been able to return to work just part-time and at a desk job.
Tasers are used by more than 11,000 law-enforcement agencies in the United States, and they are widely considered safer than other tools used by police officers, like pepper spray and nightsticks, the authors said.
“However,” they wrote, “conducted energy weapons are weapons and, like other weapons, are clearly capable of causing injuries.”
Posted by: small coke | Sep 18 2007 17:24 utc | 10
Another video of the incident by MSNBC. Kerry answering questions while the guy in the back gets tasered. Why didn't he intervene ... asshole
when a culture descends into what it can live with - that is, that it is not happening to them directly - then it has descended to barbarism
malooga often points out to the 'lord of the flies' character of the empire - & in incidents such as this we are watching it - in situ
how many 'incidents' in iraq - & i would say the overwhelming number of 'incidents' where people are murdered - in their cars, at barriers etc etc are as much an expression of the cultural aberration that lies at the heart of the empire as much as it is an expression of overwhelming force
even the notion of overwhelming force has at is heart - stupidy, short term thinking, it is the expression of bullies
that is why it was charming & i use the word advisedly when hugo chavez 'played' the bully against the real bullies in his united nations speech. there was great seriousness but there was always an extremely human reproach against the empire that had very liitle to do with ideology but had a great deal to do with humanity
& there seems to precious little of that inside the belly of the beast - tho we know that the great majority of americans are oppossed to this illegal & immoral war, the great majority understand the brutal lies that hold up this shiftless administration but they do nothing, as this audience does nothing
not one hand held out - just the baton & the taser
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 18 2007 18:06 utc | 12
the young man is clearly unbalanced & the very last thing that is required is force.
Passionate and outspoken, yes -- I thought those were desirable traits. But "unbalanced"? He only went ballistic once he was assaulted by the police without being informed of what he had done wrong.
@Bea
As long as I do not say, I have lost, then they have not won.
I realize I may be evading my terms from above. You are right, in the terms that I spoke of above, TPB may already have won. However, I believe their main problem is the general one that haunts elites - that another faction might defeat them. Bloody Hillary! That is all we have, the ability to use their force and their competition with each other fo rour own preservation.
But the key is to never let them win in my mind. Why seek any battleground other than my own? What is chilling, as you noted on the OT thread I see, is that all the others in the room were already knuckled under to the inevitability of police as the the law.
Of ocurse, Orwell wrote to remind us that although our own interior may be our place of strength, it is not likely indomitable. But enough darkness for one day.
Posted by: 'citizen' | Sep 18 2007 18:26 utc | 15
They're used to this in Florida. Apparently they have used stun guns on a child as young as six. There is no possible excuse for this. There is no possible way that a society that condones this can call itself civilized.
Apparently tasers can break your back. There's been a lot of talk about breaking the back of resistance lately, and that, it appears, is what they are doing to our children: manufacturing a spineless society. I am shaking with anger.
Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 18 2007 18:27 utc | 16
Unfortunately, this is the kind of police behavior that sends some of us in the crowd ballistic, as well. Then we get arrested.... How DARE they stand up to the POLICE?!!!!
Posted by: Jake | Sep 18 2007 18:28 utc | 17
Looks like the Milgram experiment in real life. The conformity and complicity of the audience is appalling, especially considering its a "liberal" one. Such displays of state violence have become expected to the extent that the audience is amused (and even cheering) as things begin to unfold, as if its a reality show - but then when the real violence comes on they laps into a catatonic stupor of inaction - like they are watching Rodney King at home on television. They don't call us sheeple for nothing.
I'm sure kerry has a very reasoned and legalese answer for his behavior, and would be willing to expound at great length about it.
Posted by: anna missed | Sep 18 2007 18:31 utc | 18
and what about all the other cowards in the room. this turns my stomach
Posted by: annie | Sep 18 2007 18:35 utc | 19
The Huffingtonpost has an article posted in which Kerry responds to the actions of the police.
Posted by: Iron Butterfly | Sep 18 2007 18:37 utc | 20
The conformity and complicity of the audience is appalling
my point exactly, i was reading the thread, watching #11, didn't see the last couple comments. john kerry? so what. its the whole damn room that is wrong w/america
Posted by: annie | Sep 18 2007 18:39 utc | 21
Kerry: I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building.
The fellow was screaming "Don't taser me!" at the top of his lungs, and yet Kerry remained droned on, unaware.
And that is truly symptomatic of what we are in for: people screaming for help while we remain unaware.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 18 2007 18:47 utc | 22
i am offended by the brutality
i am also shocked that a people, any people could live - with the reality & its expression in film - of the victims of katrina
of bloated black bodies floating on the water was for me completely insupportable. the brutality that permits a people to live with that & not create an insurrection - is completely beyond me
we know as a fact that minorities & the marginalised in america are tasered every day . we know that
that the state & its servants use force against the poor as a matter of course
it has a long history. soldiers walked on washington after world war 1 to demand the housing they were promised. they were murdered & battered. the people lived with that
it is a truth that when you have lived with brutality so long you become brutal
joseph conrad's jungle was in fact, western civilisation
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 18 2007 18:57 utc | 23
rememberinggiap is right, andrew meyer was unbalanced. The question is whether or not being unbalanced was the most sane response for a human being. I think he is sane.
In this video, which tracks him out of the room and was obviously taken by someone concerned for the young man's safety, it's clear that he is afraid that he will be disappeared, and killed. Do you know why he has that fear? Because it is in the air.
Posted by: 'citizen' | Sep 18 2007 19:04 utc | 24
Sorry SmallCoke, didn't see that you'd already linked to the NYT.
@22, The people in the room aren't unaware. They have decided to ignore the fact that someone is being deprived of his rights and tortured in front of their eyes. I was going to say that they also rejected the notion that the audience significantly outnumbered the cops and so could have done something about it, but that sort of thing doesn't happen any more, does it?
Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 18 2007 19:15 utc | 25
btw, the police answered his questions finally and told him he was being arrested for inciting a riot.
False arrest. I listened to every word he said, and neither words nor actions incited riot. If third hand reports can be trusted, he was subdued and arrested for NOT allowing police to prevent him from entering the room, for cutting in line, and for saying "blowjob" in the state of Florida.
Nancy Pelosi's police force just broke Rev. Yearwood's leg for the same reason, to keep him from entering a room and possibly questioning authorities.
The student left his ID at home because he was afraid of being ID'ed and arrested. In short, he (probably like most other people in the room) already expected someone like himself would be arrested for the crime of... questioning authority's moral status.
Why are we afraid? You may note on the video that one of the police has a laser site on Meyer's gut, which happens to be head height for many people in the room. They were definitely NOT protecting the people in the audience.
Posted by: 'citizen' | Sep 18 2007 19:15 utc | 26
Why was Andrew Meyer afraid?
a sample of what happens to justice here
Reaction to the killing of Taylor was much more widespread because his hands were handcuffed behind his back when a policeman fired 11 shots into his vital organs. People previously silent spoke out. By March 1, there had been 25 downtown demonstrations. Weekly Sunday vigils sometimes drew 200 people, large for Louisville. Most participants were young African American, but a growing number of whites also came. The Alliance was catalyst for a new white ministers group calling for basic change. The recognized coalition of African American ministers, many conservative, took a stand.Anger intensified February 24, 2003, when a grand jury-following the prosecutor's recommendation-declined to indict Taylor's killer. Jurors apparently believed the policeman's story that he feared for his life because Taylor, although handcuffed, still held a box-cutter in one hand.
He knows we're selling each other out here.
2+2=5
Posted by: 'citizen' | Sep 18 2007 19:38 utc | 27
And let's not forget the Jena 6, although I doubt any of you have.
Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 18 2007 19:48 utc | 28
John Kerry is a coward. Like the movie The Dead Zone.... the politician holds up the baby to protect himself from the assasin. Kerry could have had a shining moment by telling the security to allow this student to speak freely. Instead he let it happen. He did not care. Nor did the cowards in the rest of the room. Is this what America is coming too? Are we all sheep unwilling to speak our minds about a government out of control?
Posted by: lincoln | Sep 18 2007 19:48 utc | 29
& 'citizen' is correct; to be unbalanced in our epoch is to struggle for sanity in a slaughterhouse. i never meant that term perjoratively as i hope my posts make clear - but that in a general sense - you would hope professionals & caring persons could have aided him
but what we witnessed is two sides of the empire's psychopathological coin - on the one side, force disproportionate force & on the other complicity
humanity, caring or common sense were completely absent
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 18 2007 20:53 utc | 30
He is perhaps "unbalanced" in the sense of being emotional and somewhat overwrought, but not in the sense of being mentally awry or less than sane. His unbalance is due, no doubt, to his sense that the police are monitoring his every breath, just waiting to move in and make their move. Why they did that, I have no idea.
Has anyone seen any information about what prompted the police to behave so atrociously? What did they think they were "protecting"? Or were they merely making an example of a readily available, easily exploitable victim -- to send a broad message out to Student America to "cease and desist or else?" Honestly, a few videos like this spread like wildfire over the internet and you certainly could shut down a lot of kids from speaking up. Is this kid suing?
Posted by: Bea | Sep 18 2007 21:08 utc | 31
A similar incident occured at the march in d.c. on Saturday, though certainly with no violent outcome.
An unscheduled speaker took over the microphone and it soon was apparent that he didn't have the same sentiments as the gathering. The crowd booed (me too) and the mic was cut off but very soon there were many calls to let him speak. Yes. That is correct. It has to work both ways.
[Hi maxcrat]
Posted by: beq | Sep 18 2007 22:15 utc | 32
Apparently Andrew Meyer i salso a journalist, and the police followed him because they already knew the sorts of questions he would ask.
Darker and darker.
'citizen'
(formerly citizen)
Posted by: 'citizen' | Sep 18 2007 22:26 utc | 33
Honestly, a few videos like this spread like wildfire over the internet and you certainly could shut down a lot of kids from speaking up.
Or set off an outcry and protests.
Which will it be?
Is this kid suing?
Probably depends on his parents and their means. Most students can't afford to sue. Like most of the poor who are abused by power. Unless the ACLU steps up.
Posted by: small coke | Sep 18 2007 22:33 utc | 34
There seems to be at least on woman in the audience who is screaming and protesting, "What are you doing!" In video posted by citizen, a woman attempts to break through the police and is pushed back. No one joins her, it appears.
Small comfort, better than none. Not enough to save Soddom and Gomorrah.
Posted by: small coke | Sep 18 2007 23:16 utc | 36
@#29- This never would have happened if JK had some balls. He could have controlled the moment, and didn't. What else is new?
Posted by: ben | Sep 19 2007 0:16 utc | 38
After looking at the vids and feeling the same outrage as everyone else I wondered "what is here that is new or surprising?"
As I'm sure many other MoA habitues can attest getting bashed batoned, tasered or shot at when engaged in public political discourse is no new thing, it pretty much goes with the territory. So that isn't new but when I have received the order of the long baton (scroll down @75%) or cattle prod it has usually occurred away from the public eye.
Not always - there have been notable exceptions but never in a situation where a politician could be embarassed. And not where there is a possibility that solidarity might rear up and inspire resistance or even payback. So that's new tho hardly surprising. As the cultural impetus for citizens to become sociopathic in their regard to other citizens takes hold, we can't be surprised that the oppression arm of the political elite would choose to express their increased power publicly. Just as we cannot be surprised that apart from one person, most present chose to either ignore the scene or regard it with the same aspect coliseum vistors adopted a couple of thousand years back.
What about John Kerry? Was there anything new or surprising in his actions? Well there was - tho not what you'd think.
Kerry's behaviour answered the student's questions far more directly and elequently than people have come to expect from a Tweedle St politician. No he didn't query the 2000 or 2004 result and yes he belongs to Skull and Bones. That's because he isn't one of us. Kerry sees himself as a member of amerika's ruling elite, well above any petty concerns of the hoi polloi. This wasn't cowardice, although I'm sure the man probably is a coward, it was indifference. If there was any emotion at all about John Kerry, it would have been the petulance of unrequited ambition. Almost "there's one of the bastards who made my dream confront reality."
That said, and acknowledging the suffering that the bloke has beeen put through, we should see this horror as a 'plus'. Each incident like this makes it harder for those who still choose to support the left hand side of Tweedle St, to justify their blind tribal loyalty. Sure they applauded when the guy was initially carted off - but scenes like that are bad. The diehard partisans know that deep down and eventually being the follow the leader types they are, they will follow everyone else out of the demopublican party.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 19 2007 0:40 utc | 39
Pretty much just "ditto" what everyone has already said. I wonder about the people in that room - I have not read anything about the setting, but infer that Kerry was speaking to students at a university in Florida. In general I would just expect students at state universities who are interested enough in current affairs to go hear someone like Kerry speak to be a lot more active and to have expressed concern about the guy's civil rights and the overkill response. Especially since it could be any one of them on the receiving end next time. Unless they never plan to think for themselves or question authority, but then, why were they there in the first place? Just seems strange to me.
(Hi Beq!)
Posted by: Maxcrat | Sep 19 2007 1:16 utc | 41
even if we did not have a constituition, Andrew Meyer should not need any further protection to conduct himself as he seemed to peacefully intend. Inalienable rights are not created by the constition. They precede it.
and the way he was treated was barbaric.
we can only hope this was an an episode of cultural-temporary-insanity. If we are lucky,
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 19 2007 1:57 utc | 42
A white person came up to the bus stop asking for bus fare, complaining that they had all their ID's stolen, yada, yada.
Seemed like an average person, down on their luck, everyone
pitched in. Hey, it's a free country, freedom to speak and
loiter on public property. Why can't we all just get along.
Bus came, the white person got a cell phone call, and the entire bus sat and waited at rush hour while this person spat out the most bizarrely soto voce howling, saying it
wasn't their fault that X ended up in jail, f--k off, etc.
The bus driver politely asked the person to move it along,
to which the white person kicked the door, shouted f--k
you, I'll take another bus where they treat people better!
Everyone still waiting started staring hard at the ground.
As soon as the bus left, the white person went through a
second complete change of personality, shrieking where's
my bus, and demanding of everyone to know what time it was.
Yeah, hold the taser, let's use chocolates and rose petals.
Everyone knows that works best on insane megalomaniacs.
If you didn't live through post-Viet Nam on the streets,
then you have no idea the 's--t's about to go down, man'.
Don't trust no smackhead and don't trust no crackhead.
Most of all, don't trust no proselytizing crackerhead.
Yo' mama.
Posted by: Yo Mama | Sep 19 2007 3:40 utc | 43
And by the way, that yellow book Andrew Meyer is waving around is not the bible but a copy of http://www.gregpalast.com/>Greg Plast's Armed Madhouse.
Posted by: anna missed | Sep 19 2007 5:31 utc | 45
Question - is this worse than student being arrested for freedom of speech, or just more of the same? I Just heard on ABC radio news. A 70-something yr. old Grandmother was arrested & carted off to jail in handcuffs for --- are you ready --- for not watering her lawn. No Joke, as a topflight attorney, Gloria Allred has stepped in to take the case...
While we're discussing stuff like this, our other fave Naomi, Naomi Wolf has a new book out, something along the lines of Read it & Weep. Horrifyingly Excellent stuff. She discusses the well researched methods of shutting down a democracy. We are so far along...she discusses things in terms of us being in transition to Fascism. There are 10 Essential Steps - Listen to her Interview: from 1:04 - 1:30
(She also mentions that a friend told her that Blackwater is now guarding the Domestic Predators as well as the ones in Iraq - ie. Wall St.)
Posted by: jj | Sep 19 2007 6:16 utc | 46
Been thinking about this for a day now and am well and truly disgusted by all sides.
To begin, the guy at the mike was obviously trying to make a scene and was hoping to get arrested to make his point. Mission accomplished.
Secondly, the overzealous polizei were obviously more than happy to be manipulated into showing their authoritarian colors... and you can bet that they were also aware that the cameras were rolling which is why they limited themselves to some rough manhandling and some spiffy tazering action. Mission also accomplished.
John Kerry stood stammering impotently, clearly demonstrating that he has no leadership skills in his body. In 2004, against my better judgement, I was persuaded to vote for Kerry after being lectured that ANYONE was better than Bush and voting for a third party would be tantamount to voting Republican. It won't happen again. My only question for Senator Drone (after waiting my turn to ask it) would be: "After watching your disregard for this citizen's welfare, why should other citizens care about your future answers to anything?" Mission crawling away snivelling.
The crowd were mostly docile and didn't escalate this into a Kent State by assaulting the police... instead, they kept the cameras rolling and posted it posthaste on YouTube and the local networks for the world to see. Mission very, very much accomplished.
The Freepers needed to change their underwear after they spontaneously ejaculated into their shorts from watching the first fresh bit of fascist porn since Abu Ghraib. The left, conversely, get to engage in extremely well-rehearsed outrage and wear the phrase "police state" into the ground. No mission, no accomplishment.
This whole thing is an embarrassing sideshow. There was nothing spontaneous about any of it.
Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 19 2007 6:45 utc | 47
Kerry & the Blackwater incident remind us that there is something inherently wrong about the equation: more police/security guards = more security.
At some point, you start to reach a point of diminishing returns. Granting persons the power to enforce government authority also requires training them to understand its nature, to excercise it reasonably, humanely, and above all, legally. That all takes a great deal of time, as well as a lot of money and resources.
When you just start hiring people off the street and arming them with the right to detain and arrest citizens, as well as with truncheons, tasers and semiautomatic weapons, you are not necessarily acting in the public interest.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 19 2007 8:29 utc | 48
Monolykus . To begin, the guy at the mike was obviously trying to make a scene and was hoping to get arrested to make his point. Mission accomplished.
I don't see that he wanted to get arrested.
Making a scene? Well - anybody who has taught at a university or other big classes knows such unavoidable folks and how to handle them. There are two easy ways to counter them. First: answer their questions, point them to sources, let them know they still have to learn, Second: make them the laughing stock of the people present, mock them.
I have three big issues here.
Why is security present at all? Police/security on campus is wrong in may ways. Within ten years of university teaching I have seen it twice. Once in an attempt to stop a student strike - ended in a desaster for the police and the ouster of the university chancler. The second time in arresting a thief. All other scenes, even quite livid once, were handled by staff and group pressure.
Why didn't Kerry interfere? He was ready to answer the questions and he asked the police to stay off. When the police didn't, he just answered the questions even though the questioneer was arrested. He should have gotton off the stage and tell the police to stand off. As a senator he has the cloud to do so. He didn't even try.
The police action is totally unprofessional. One police should have talked to the guy, quietly and ask him for calm. If not followed, one police person should have directed the others. There was clearly no lead here. Six or more police jump on the guy without much result. There are easy ways for one trained person to overwhelm and arrest such a guy. But why do so at all. If he offended, wait outside and arrest him when he comes out.
They've released the police incident report, and wouldn't you know it...
GAINESVILLE - Police have released the incident report detailing the Tasering of a University of Florida student during a campus forum with Sen. John Kerry Monday, and the officer who actually Tasered Andrew Meyer wrote in the report that Meyer later told police, "You didn't do anything wrong."In the 12-page report, which gives accounts of the incident from the perspective of eight different officers who were present Monday afternoon, Officer Nicole Mallo writes that Meyer would only resist officers when cameras were present.
"As (Meyer) was escorted down stairs (at the University Auditorium) with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again," Mallo wrote.
Mallo was one of two officers who actually rode in the vehicle as Meyer was escorted to the Alachua County jail, and she said said he told them during the ride: "I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job," according to Mallo's account.
Mallo also wrote in her report that he asked, at one point, if cameras would be present at the jail.
Judging from some of the content on his website, I'd say that Meyer is into a sort of media activism that would instigate a scene like this -- something like Michael Moore without the comedic release -- and he may very well have planned to make a spectacle of himself.
Does this excuse the police reaction?
Absolutely not. Meyer -- if, indeed, the cops are telling the truth here -- succeeded brilliantly in provoking a scene that perfectly depicts the barbarity that has arisen in America.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | Sep 19 2007 13:24 utc | 50
@b (#49)
There might be some projection on my part which is based on years of experience in getting the other guy to throw the first punch in front of a witness. Unfortunately, Andrew Meyer also seems to have some experience in manipulation. He was far too ready with the "What did I do?" and other talking points, and his compadres were far too quick in posting (or selling) the footage they were taking. There is no doubt in my mind that this incident was at least partially planned. Hey, I've always advocated smarter, higher profile activism, so I'm not really complaining on that score.
I'm sure that they assumed the presence of the cameras and many witnesses would prevent Meyer from ending up on the receiving end of some of the more egregious acts of police brutality. They appear to have gambled correctly as the equally media-conscious campus rent-a-cops kept the taser discreetly out of sight of the cameras and quietly drive stunned him rather than pulling a full-blown Rodney King episode. It's one thing to volunteer to be a martyr to get people talking about an issue, but most folk would like to leave that scene with as many teeth as they walked in with. Hence, the massive video coverage and over-the-top hysterics to draw attention.
But, as for your specific questions:
"Why is security present at all?"
Because Americans are hyper-paranoid and find boogiemen under their beds as a matter of course? They would have rent-a-cops at a basketball game. That the cops surrounded this single guy and were ready to pounce is also a no-brainer. Bush isn't the only one who screens the guest lists for his soirees. That doesn't surprise me in the least. What surprises me is the fact that this function featured a US Senator, which means that the US Secret Service was undoubtedly present. Where were they during all of this? The fact that Meyer got as far as a microphone without a swarm of blue suits and sunglasses detaining him raises red flags in my mind that this story isn't even as legitimate as I'm suggesting. Is there something going on in the world right now for which even O.J. Simpson wouldn't pose a significant distraction?
"Why didn't Kerry interfere?"
Nutless or complicit... the perpetual question when dealing with representatives of the Democrat Party.
"If he offended, wait outside and arrest him when he comes out."
You're preaching to the choir. Either the authoritarian impulse took over and they had to make a show of being "in control" with "overwhelming force" (and don't underestimate how well that plays to the closet fascists... they eat that shit up), or we're back to this being one big damned distraction again and everything went exactly the way it was planned to go.
Nutless or complicit? Fuck-uppery or intentional media event? Twitchiness or prestidigitation? These are ALWAYS the questions we're left with once the outrage subsides. Are they REALLY that stupid or is this just the public face of crafty manipulators?
I've got no answers for your questions. I've barely even got any shocked outrage left in me. You want disgust, anger or crippling depression, we can talk. I've got those in spades.
Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 19 2007 13:50 utc | 51
#51
What surprises me is the fact that this function featured a US Senator, which means that the US Secret Service was undoubtedly present. Where were they during all of this?
I've been looking for a link and so far have not found it... but somewhere yesterday I read (or heard) that Kerry's campaign Secret Service detail has been withdrawn, and that he does not bring any sort of security to his speaking events.
I'll keep looking....
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | Sep 19 2007 14:05 utc | 52
You beat me to the post twice now, Mssr. Hawkins. Nice to meet and all that.
As far as I am aware, voluntary withdrawal of Secret Service protection is not an option. I'll also look around to see if I can verify that.
Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 19 2007 14:08 utc | 54
I'll be damned. I assumed US Senators automatically gained Secret Service protection. Apparently not.*
*This vague answer riddled with typos was the most info I could find in what might very well have been the most distasteful websearch I have ever performed.
Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 19 2007 14:32 utc | 55
Good catch, Monolycus.
I believe I read similiar information in an early Yahoo report on the tasering, but none of the current versions seems to contain that info. I wonder if they scrubbed it for "security" reasons (i.e., can't let the Rabble know that a politician does not have S.S. protection...).
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | Sep 19 2007 14:51 utc | 56
b,
Six or more police jump on the guy without much result...
So much for the theory: more police = more security...
Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 19 2007 14:54 utc | 57
Excellent synopsis wrt #51 Monolycus.
hmmm, 'intentional activism', managed performance protest? Makes sense to me. Reminds me of something akin to a twisted or high stakes Surveillance Camera Players. Likened to something the The Yes Men could pull off, only higher stakes? Question is, do we really want to erase that boundary? Even if it helps progressives? You then have the problem of where one begins and the other end. Perhaps the Dems are running a play out of the republican play book? Ahhh, the implications of that..
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 19 2007 15:04 utc | 58
from the #51 'some experience link..An officer, however, said in the police report that Meyer's "demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and that he was "laughing" and "lighthearted" on the way to jail.
not to poo poo on your theory but the supporting evidence seems rather weak. even it is was a prank i find it hard to believe after being tasered meyer could be so friendly.
there is a difference between posting practical jokes online, being a prankster to provocate w/anticipating this result or even aiming for it. it is also beside the point.
a Web site featuring several homemade videos. In one, he stands in a street with a sign that says "Harry Dies"
huh? this and licking a womans face. ok, maybe he did want to confront kerry. hell, i would like to blast him many times for rolling over like a dead dog after 04. nonetheless i can't see how raising a stir and asking him these questions even in a disruptive manner could raise to the level of police hostility. maybe you anticipate this at a university Q&A but i sure don't. this wasn't some big rally, it didn't look like more than 150 students in the room. i think he got waaaay more than he bargained for. the pushback for the justification seems very weak, indeed.
either way it served a public service to wake people up. if this is what we have to look forward to let's have it out! why live in trepidation and wondering? are people going to accept this as normal in america as more and more police carry these things? what if the guy just thought he could raise a stink? who anticipates tasers? this is sick.
Posted by: annie | Sep 19 2007 17:31 utc | 59
response to the #59
"Poo poo" away. Could be that this guy just knows Florida rent-a-cops better than you. You say "i can't see how raising a stir and asking him these questions even in a disruptive manner could raise to the level of police hostility", but that's exactly what did happen, isn't it?
Meh.
Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 19 2007 18:02 utc | 60
@ Monolycus - Kerry pointed to the man and said "sir" before he asked his question. Then security grabbed him as soon as he asked about skull and bones upon which Kerry said "that's alright let me answer his question". Clearly Kerry didn't see a big deal here. That was the end of Kerry's interference and he actually joked about the arrest.
What was wrong with the question is what I want to know
We are talking about a 21-year-old student here, not an experienced political activist:
Hey, I've always advocated smarter, higher profile activism, so I'm not really complaining on that score.
Could have fooled me.
Posted by: Sam | Sep 20 2007 0:41 utc | 61
Could be that this guy just knows Florida rent-a-cops better than you.
well, you have a point. it still seems like a stretch to me.
but that's exactly what did happen, isn't it?
yes, it did. but i don't think it would have gotten so much attention unless most people found it as shocking as i did. maybe i am just out of the loop, maybe he did plan on this kind of response. if that is the case, hire the guy! perhaps this isn't his only 15 minutes of fame..
"i can't see how raising a stir and asking him these questions even in a disruptive manner could raise to the level of police hostility"
should have read 'raise to a level of justifiable police hostility'.
Posted by: annie | Sep 20 2007 1:03 utc | 62
More video clips at this link and a LOT of interesting commentary by many folks... interesting to see everyone's impressions of how/what happened.
Posted by: Bea | Sep 20 2007 1:16 utc | 63
sam, thanks for that video. i hadn't heard the beginning of the speech. i think he asked what millions of people have wanted to ask him. we have a right to be angry. he conceded before i woke up in the morning, it was disgusting. there was almost some air about it as if he was blackmialed or xomething. totally spineless. i have never understood it. what i want to know is how anyone could NOT ask him these things (well, not necessarily the scull and bones)
why can't we ask =him this at a public forum. i hope to hell this question follows him around for the rest of his life. would we still be in iraq? probably, i don't know. did we deserve more? hell yes. dean handed him hopeful activists on a platter. he owed us something. at least to stick it out. it took the friggin green party to calll for a revote and we never got one. never. ohio was a total rip off.
he had a right to answer the question. one persons prank is anothers balls. ou ask me? i think the guy had the kind of balls it took 4 years to ask him????? why didn't msm ask him? letterman? leno? stewart? SNL? why did it take some kid at a university forumn? sure, he probably talked about it w/his classmates. tell me he was the only one who wanted to know those answers?
we have a right to know! if they knew he was going to ask, and they filmed him.. i applaud them all. i am ashamed in a country this size no one has put him to the task of explaining to us why he laid over and played dead to hand our country over to cheney.. again. he didn't 'win', the anti bush vote won, and he was representing us. he should have ask us how we felt about it. he should have demanded a recount. obviously. he owes us an explanation.
the entire country knows the question has been asked. will he ever answer truthfully?
Posted by: annie | Sep 20 2007 1:18 utc | 64
I'm with Monolycus: my perception was that the kid was intent on causing a scene, and maybe even getting arrested. Getting tasered may not have been part of his strategy, however.
I'm afraid I don't see anything particularly exceptional about this, nothing that speaks to our Descent Into Fascism (which I believe is real). If you violently resist police, you invite an ass-kicking, and you forfeit any high ground upon which you might have stood. This is nothing new.
What sort of intervention are we asking for here? That the other students should have attacked the police?
Someone questioned why police were present. I would think that after Virginia Tech, it's SOP.
I think the police response was over the top, but I'm taken aback by the outrage that's been ginned up over this.
annie - I have always assumed that someone got to Kerry in some way. Had the impression that his initial impulse was to challenge. But he gave in for the same reason that his response was so phlegmatic in FL police censorship.
The most likely explanation for no challenge is that Dems play similar ballot box games, though evidently not as effectively. Rpubs made it clear early to DNC that any Dem challenge would be met by multiple Rpub challenges.
Possible effects of cross-party electoral challenges:
1) Extended legal battles. Eat up time. Another Constitutional crisis?
2) Confuse the public more. This is part of current Rpub tactics in everything: make it so apparently complex, too twisted and time-consuming to unwind the truth, that it gives most people a headache, and they give up.
3) Discourage voters. Further undermine public faith in voting at all. So fewer voters turn out in subsequent elections. Keeping in mind that Dems almost always benefit when more people vote, Rpubs when fewer vote.
Some hidden Kerry personal history or foibles could have been proffered on top of this. "Or you can take the loss, and return to the Senate, while all this is kept out of the records." Powerful forces give vague assurances that steps were being taken to rein in the WH junta for ensuing 4 yrs. And Dems live to fight a stronger fight in 4 years.
At least, that is how I imagined the approximate calculus of concession. Because the best of public answers are only anagrams now. It's all Kremlinology. What do you think?
Posted by: small coke | Sep 20 2007 2:19 utc | 66
montysano:
I'm with Monolycus: my perception was that the kid was intent on causing a scene, and maybe even getting arrested.
For asking a question that millions of Americans want to hear the answer?
Posted by: Sam | Sep 20 2007 2:34 utc | 67
Sam:
For asking a question that millions of Americans want to hear the answer?
Of course not.
Our social contract, for good or ill, goes like this: if a cop says "Move along", you move along. If you refuse, you've crossed a certain line. If you begin thrashing about, you've now crossed another line. If the cop did something illegal/unconstitutional, there's a process to redress that grievance.
This is why Gandhi insisted not just on non-violence, but on passivity. Once physical resistance comes into play, the dynamic of the situation changes radically.
I will agree, however, with Bernhard's title for the post. A real leader would have finessed the situation. Jesus, what a bumbling tool.
Posted by: montysano | Sep 20 2007 2:58 utc | 69
montysano:
Our social contract, for good or ill, goes like this: if a cop says "Move along", you move along. If you refuse, you've crossed a certain line. If you begin thrashing about, you've now crossed another line. If the cop did something illegal/unconstitutional, there's a process to redress that grievance.
This thread isn't about "Move along" it's about using a taser on a 21-year-old student.
This is why Gandhi insisted not just on non-violence, but on passivity. Once physical resistance comes into play, the dynamic of the situation changes radically.
I've seen obnoxious drunks get loaded into paddy wagons without the use of a taser let alone 6 cops having to use a taser. Lets keep this in perspective shall we.
Posted by: Sam | Sep 20 2007 3:02 utc | 70
#65
...... but I'm taken aback by the outrage that's been ginned up over this.
I think we should be heartened by the outrage, although the outrage itself could be more of a secondary by-product of the larger narrative played out in the whole incident. Riddled as the event is by apparent irony, posturing, and ulterior motives. All of which preform in microcosm our plight in the alice in wonderland world we seem to be living in. And so we have this small event where the larger truth is brought to bear in a crush of confusion, and nobody present - the speaker, the questioner, the audience, or the police have an idea in hell what to do. So instead of a simple or imaginative response initiated all the actors presume their given rolls: the protagonist throws a tantrum, the politician drones on, the audience remains an audience, and the police fulfill their authority mandate and call it what you may, proceed to torture the protagonist in full public disclosure to the audience who have dutifully assumed the cowed posture of sheep. Its what we have become, that makes it interesting if not outrageous.
Posted by: anna missed | Sep 20 2007 3:26 utc | 71
I wrote a research paper back in 96/97 Entitled:'Geometry Of A Police State: The Elite War on the poor.' While I certainly wont bore you with the paper, I quoted heavily from the research and work of Sociologist's Peter Kraska and Victor Kappeler's, Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units From Social Problems 44:1 (Febuary 1997):1-17.
In it I explain the close ideological and operational alliance these two entities have in handling domestic (civilian) social problems. Where a significant feature of this trend is the movement not just toward the police-ization of military but also toward the militarization of civilian law enforcement in the form of police military units, otherwise called PPU's. (Police Paramilitary Units). We saw a dramatic increase in the eighties by the enterprising rhetoric of the infamous war on drugs. The escalating and normalizing of PPU's have exploded since then and much of my data is out of date, but what fuels it is often asset confiscation that the state and local police departments get to keep. These PPU's see themselves as elite. "The elite self perception and status granted these police units stems from the high status military special operations groups have in military culture". (Gibson 1994; Kraska 1996).
During the late 1980's drug war , the Bush Administration established several Departments of Defence "Joint Task Forces" responsible for coordinating drug interdiction operations at the borders , abroad and domestically. This arrangement required substantial overlap and cooperation between military and civilian police forces to the point of having the armed forces elite special operations teams cross-train with U.S. civilian police forces.
Emerging Trends in Formal Social Control
Our research found a sharp rise in the number of PPU's , a rapid expantion in their activities, the normalization og PPU's into mainstream police work, and close ideological and material connection and U.S. armed forces. These findings provide compelling evidence of a national trend toward in turn , the militarization of corresponding social problems handled by police. The data also reveal a continuing upward trend in proactive paramilitary policing activities. Before attempting to make sense of these phenomena in a broader context, it is important to review some policy-specific dangers associated with the rise and normalization.First, the militarization inherent in PPU's escalates to the new heights the new cynical view that the most expedient route to solving social problems is through military style force, weaponry and technology.
Second, the heightened ethos of militarism in these "elite" police units is potentially infectious for police institutions; many police departments have created specialized PPU's for patrol, narcotics, and gang "suppression". Acording to some commanders PPU's are also testing ground for incorporating tactical equipment, such as percussion grenades, into mainstream policing.
Third, despite the belief among tactical officers that PPU's enhance officer and citizen safety, numerous incidents and common sense raise questions about the dangerousness of these units to oficers and citizens. Contemporary PPU's do not just react to pre-existing emergencies that might require highly train teams of police officers. Instead, most PPU's proactively seek out and even manufacture highly dangerous situations. Finally, paramilitary policing is not just urban "inner city" phenomenon. These units target what the police define as high crime or disorderly areas, which most often are poor neighborhoods. Whatever the city or state.
Needless to say, that was years ago.
Also see, New York Times: "The Guard take on gangs" (July 13th 1994 :A14, where PPU's stormed up to fifty housing projects in Puerto Rico.
Police Evict NYC Squatters in Heavily Armored Raid 1995
link.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 20 2007 3:35 utc | 72
@Sam #61 (since you addressed me directly)
Kerry pointed to the man and said "sir" before he asked his question. Then security grabbed him as soon as he asked about skull and bones upon which Kerry said "that's alright let me answer his question".
Actually, the police pounced the second the microphone was cut after a small false start earlier (You will see Meyer say "Thank you very much" to a female cop who had started to usher him away and was waved back). The decision to usher him out was made before the Skull & Bones remark. That remark simply happened to be the last thing that was said before the microphone was cut. Let's not make this situation even more cryptic.
Meyer did not want Kerry to answer him... the Senator started to, but Meyer couldn't or wouldn't drop the Dane Cook routine and cut him off with "No, I'm going to preface this. This man just spoke for two hours, I can't have two minutes? I'm going to inform these people, then I'm going to ask the question. I have two more questions."
The cops didn't want Kerry to answer the question... they dutifully ignored him when he said "That's all right, let me answer his question."
The crowd apparently didn't want Kerry to answer his question because I have seen no reports of subsequent guests asking "Yeah, you know, I'm curious about what that guy asked."
So, my question to you (and don't taze me using up so much time here), is "Who, precisely, are these 'millions of Americans' who want to hear the answer to this question?" This incident sparked debate about police policy and brutality, but small coke at #66 above is the only treatment of the question-in-question (which, for the sake of clarity, I will re-iterate: "Why did John Kerry concede so readily in 2004?" NOT "Something, something, Skull & Bones?")
Clearly Kerry didn't see a big deal here. That was the end of Kerry's interference and he actually joked about the arrest.
Yeah, he did. What he said, precisely was "Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine.". Or, translated into English: "I don't know. I don't want to know. Trust the police. Somebody else's problem."
And this is why he is not the President of the United States.
Could have fooled me.
Yeah, well, tell me when I do something difficult.
Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 20 2007 4:21 utc | 73
If the question is why Kerry didn't intervene, I ask, why didn't the other students intervene?
Posted by: mimi | Sep 20 2007 5:01 utc | 74
If the question is why Kerry didn't intervene, I ask, why didn't the other students intervene?
Posted by: mimi | Sep 20 2007 5:02 utc | 75
Monolycus:
So, my question to you (and don't taze me using up so much time here), is "Who, precisely, are these 'millions of Americans' who want to hear the answer to this question?" This incident sparked debate about police policy and brutality, but small coke at #66 above is the only treatment of the question-in-question (which, for the sake of clarity, I will re-iterate: "Why did John Kerry concede so readily in 2004?" NOT "Something, something, Skull & Bones?")
Having read about this incident in several blogs I assumed the election 2004 issue was the question people want answered. Hop over to any one of the several threads on KOS about this incident and you will see the question in several comments. It is why small coke mentioned it. If I gave the impression that I care about a Frat House tradition I'm sorry. I just thought it didn't need explaining.
You say @ 51 "There might be some projection on my part". You describe an elaborate plot by an experienced manipulator. I see a 21-year-old kid looking for attention. By the way Kery's joke was:
Unfortunately he's not available to swear me in as President.
mimi:
If the question is why Kerry didn't intervene, I ask, why didn't the other students intervene?
I suspect those tasers they carry are no secret. Judging by what happened to him can you blame them?
Posted by: Sam | Sep 20 2007 8:50 utc | 76
My tuppenceworth:
1) Watching the video Sam posted at 61 (thanks Sam), I heard an audible (to me) intake of breath when those around heard the taser fire, so I think no one actually expected the guy to get tasered--they thought it was a "get that guy out of here" bouncer scene until then
2) The question isn't, I don't think, "Was this guy obnoxious?" It is: Is that acceptable police practice in the situation? Where acceptable means: "Yes, I think they were well within their rights to taser him, given the situation," and unacceptable means, "If you don't accept it, what could/should be done to make sure it doesn't happen again?"
I'm wary of the impugning of the guy's motives. If he was a self-obsessed idiot, does that make it okay to taser him? Is tasering okay/not okay based on the cause of a non-violent disruption?
One more point: The police officer loudly warns the guy on the floor that he will be tasered unless--and at that point the guy says words to the effect of "If you'll just get off me I'll walk out of here."
And montysanto:
If you violently resist police, you invite an ass-kicking, and you forfeit any high ground upon which you might have stood. This is nothing new.
In your next post "violently resist" (I can see no violent resistance in any of the videos) becomes "thrashing about" (I didn't see any thrashing about--he just didn't want to be grabbed, and then I presume he was trying to avoid being cuffed) I think it is important to state clearly what happened (the difference between "violently resist" and "thrashing about" may, in law, be between a six month and a six year prison term?)
But...if one (a la the civil rights movement and Ghandi) is part of a programmed form of civil disobedience, then one doesn't resist arrest as arrest is taken for granted. I'm not a U.S. resident (or citizen) so I don't know how things are seen over there, but I have the sense (maybe wrong?) that once you're arrested, small differences (e.g. from "thrashing about" to "violently resist") can be blown up in court--and without access to good (=expensive?) lawyers, "arrest" = "punishment" of some kind, almost regardless of what actually happened.
Posted by: Argh | Sep 20 2007 10:56 utc | 77
"Don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters." (Which works as a summary of Coolhand Luke. "Ignore blips, watch chips" might be advice for this decade.)
As Monolycus, "citizen", small coke say, sure looks deliberate.
Guy is not nut, does seem ambitious and callous. His part in a psy-op, to cause and guage reactions but also to tease the caged, should work out well for him in as much time as he has left if he stays in Florida (or any coast area elswhere.)
Iraq, the Media and Shannon's Dad
by Andrew Meyer Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:47
We hear it on the news almost everyday.
"At least 18 people were killed when two car bombs exploded in a busy market…”
It happens so frequently at this point that we have become desensitized to the message.
“Eleven more died when a minibus blew up in the Karrada district, while a suicide attack…”
Iraq is thousands of miles away from the United States. When a suicide bomber strikes in the middle of a crowded Baghdad street, leaving mayhem and carnage in his wake, America is largely unaffected. The only thing we hear in the States is the same tired story. Yeah, yeah, suicide bomber, 20-something dead, we’ve heard this one before. But in Baghdad, no one is “over” these attacks. Every new bombing is a deadly and frightening jolt, a senseless thunderbolt of destruction bringing the city to its knees and death to its inhabitants. Yet we in America are so far removed from Iraq, so jaded to the tales of violence in its streets, perhaps the only time we truly feel the human cost of the War in Iraq is when it hits close to home.
Shannon Timmann is a friend of mine. On January 7, 2006, her father was killed outside of Mosul, the biggest city in northern Iraq. He was in one of two Black Hawk helicopters that lost contact with base. “Human error in a storm,” they called it. They don’t know what happened. The helicopters just went down. They just crashed.
In exchange for the life of her husband, Shannon’s mom received this letter from the government:
“Dear Mrs. Timmann:
I extend my heartfelt condolences on the death of your husband. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. I am grateful for Robert’s service to our nation and to the Department of State. His dedication and bravery should serve as an example to us all.
Sincerely,
Condoleeza Rice.”
Nice words from our Secretary of State. But that is all they are. Words. Nothing can bring back Shannon’s father, nor the 3,566 other Americans who have died in Iraq to date.
I asked Shannon what she thought of the letter sent from our government. She said it was nice, but, “I mean ….but how many of those do they send a week? It’s just copy.”
Shannon had another letter, sent to her from the Iraqi chief of police. It was heartfelt, and genuinely saddened for the loss that Shannon and the world would feel from Bob’s death.
I watched a video that Bob Timmann filmed in Iraq before he died. He was a good man, and he believed that America was doing good work in Iraq. But what exactly are we accomplishing over there? America invaded Iraq on false pretenses, bogus intelligence that Saddam had WMDs and links to al-Qaeda.
When Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, it was like a knee to the stomach of Americans across the country. It was the only story on the news for days, and everyone felt affected, whether they had family or friends at Virginia Tech or not.
If 32 Americans died in a bombing in Iraq today, would the media give the story the full-court press that Virginia Tech got? Would every kid on facebook change his or her picture to a ribbon with the message “We support our troops”?
The story would get lumped in with every other Iraq story, mentioned for a day, and then swept under the rug and forgotten.
Virginia Tech was a tragedy, but you can see that death toll almost everyday in Iraq. And for what? For democracy in Iraq? As if anyone in the U.S. government really cares about the Iraqi people? We are there to make money for Vice President Cheney’s corporation, Halliburton. We are there for oil. When insurgents or terrorists or whatever you want to call them blow something up in Iraq, and kill Americans, its not big news – for a reason. The powers that be do not want a true audit of the War in Iraq, and the cowed American media is more than happy to accommodate them. More than anything, the mainstream media is part of the problem. Now here’s a real tragedy - what it takes to get play in the mainstream media. Billions of dollars are missing from the department of defense, eight U.S. attorney generals were fired in an unprecedented political coup, and the biggest news stories of the year are Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith.
It’s enough to make you think about what the real goal of the news is. Is it to keep the populace as educated and up-to-date on America and world affairs as possible, or is the news like any other business, with the chief goal to make money. The news is designed to keep viewers watching and sedated and not thinking bad thoughts about America, because that would be bad for the economy. Stories about a severely unbalanced budget are out, train wrecks like Paris and Anna are in. A train wreck may be senseless and pointless, but Americans sure do love to watch.
Is it “news” when a toddler accidentally drowns in Lake Michigan? It’s a tragedy, to be sure, but does it affect the world as much as, say, the decisions of the U.S. Federal Reserve, which drastically affects the value of money? The news is a crock of spit, mostly of the bull variety. People need to stop assaulting their brains with garbage, and start educating themselves with books.
If you truly want knowledge on the world around you, try picking up a book. The great thing about books? They have authors who have to do months of research, and actually know exactly what they are talking about. (Unless the author is Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity, in which case they can say whatever they want because their audience is a bunch of self-deluded ignoramuses who want to be told what they think they already know.)
Do you care about what’s going on in Iraq? Do you want to know the truth? Start reading. Just now, I typed “Iraq Book” into google and found this: Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You. Without even reading this book, I can all but guarantee you that this book has more information than every news story NBC, ABC, and CBS did in 2003, when invading Iraq was still up for debate.
“Deftly separating truth from propaganda, Target Iraq is a hard-hitting expose of the harsh realities and consequences of the pending war and the media's failure to present the full spectrum of issues to the public.”
Why wasn’t this stuff on the news? It isn’t necessarily corporate malfeasance hiding facts. Maybe they just think critical reasoning and big words and knowledge will drive away viewers. Whatever the case, the war in Iraq is still going on, and most of America still doesn’t know why we went there in the first place, or what we’re doing now to get out.
Americans might not care, like when they hear about “just another bombing” in Baghdad, but I’ll bet you a Prius that if Iraq was negatively affecting the price of gas, people would start to give a damn. Maybe they’ll care next time around, when Bush starts talking about “consequences” for Iran. You know, one of two “Axis of Evil” countries that actually has nukes? The one that’s secretly funding the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip? Maybe Iran should start getting some attention. If only they were run by a millionaire debutante famous for nipple slips and a sex tape. Then they might even be news-worthy.
Related Link: http://www.theandrewmeyer.com
Posted by: drunk as a rule | Sep 20 2007 13:06 utc | 79
"In this video, which tracks him out of the room and was obviously taken by someone concerned for the young man's safety, it's clear that he is afraid that he will be disappeared, and killed. Do you know why he has that fear? Because it is in the air." 'citizen' #24 (sorry misspelled earlier)
It is in the air, and he's an air freshener, ingredients proprietary, like no paper trail software code.
The questions are good, the medium of the message includes reasons not to ask good questions.
A national population that put up with 10 minutes of any legislature even considering putting in non-verifiable voting machines at huge cost from businessmen that overprice and don't want to sell the printers that tell you who the machine works for, businessmen whose other products are cash registers and atms whose printers are cheaper and work fine, will put up with a lot that's down low.
http://www.furrylogick.com/page_2>see bottom vignette
http://www.furrylogick.com/kenny_rogers_sheep_buffys_bohemian>encourages
It is unbelievable that 4 police were incapable of handcuffing one student, leading me to believe that they used the taser because it was easier. I'm told by police friends in my area, most campus police are security people and cop wannabes who failed to make grade. Putting it frankly, they were rejected for various reasons. Many times the reason is they verbalized a gung-ho attitude and indicated in some way they wanted to throw their weight around. Heck, doesn't that description fit the video pretty good? However, I'm curious about the man in plain clothes (off to the student's right) standing with the police when the student began to speak at the mike. He seemed to be directing the campus police and motions toward the back of the auditorium to cut the student's mike. When the police began walking toward the student, this guy appeared to call them back, then (covering his mouth)seemed to give the command to apprehend the student. Is this guy the security director? Seems the media should be questioning him, asking if he gave the cops the order to grab the student.
Posted by: Crusader | Sep 21 2007 14:14 utc | 81
It actually isn't that simple.
I was walking down the boardwalk the other day and turned to watch some righteous babes playing beach volleyball. I'd passed some homeless dudes laughing and talking amongst themselves and kept walking a bit further because cranked-up homeless dudes are pretty unpredictable. As I watched the babes bounding across the sands, suddenly I heard somebody cursing, "filthy thief! filth thief!" and someone going "oof!". I looked one way, and saw a guy who'd similarly been watching the babes look the other way. I looked the other way, and saw one cranked-up looking homeless dude cursing and kicking and throwing punches at another one who was mostly just covering up trying to avoid being hurt.
For about fifteen seconds I stood there looking at them, wondering what was happening. Had one of them tried to steal something from another? Should I intervene, given that I lacked knowledge as to who was in the right? Was anybody getting hurt to the point where intervention other than calling the cops was necessary? But there were no weapons evident, and the guy doing the kicking and hitting was just getting blubber because the other guy was fat and covering himself up well. Finally a couple of the other homeless dudes who presumably had more information than I had told the kicker/hitter "okay, enough. I think he got the point," and walked him away, and the other dude scuttled away in the other direction as two more homeless dudes escorted him the other direction.
The point is, neither Kerry nor the others in the audience had much information and spent time wondering "should I intervene? What happened? Who's in the right?" If you watch the video, you'll see three cops dealing with the kid and two cops standing back watching the audience. You'll also see members of the audience start drifting out of their seats and starting towards the altercation to see what was going on, at which point one of the cops standing up says something and a second or two later the taser comes out and the cops hussle the kid out of there. The point is that intervening is a serious act, and not one to be made with a rush to judgement akin to Dear Leader's attack upon to Iraq. It's one to be made only if you have clear indication that it is absolutely necessary to protect someone's life. If the kids had indeed rushed the cops, there would have been a lot more people hurt that evening, the riot squad would have been called in and started bashing heads, and maybe a kid would have even gotten killed in the panic or from an asthma attack from breathing in the tear gas that undoubtedly would have been used. By the time people started getting the idea that this was serious, that maybe something should be done, the cops had hussled the kid out of the auditorium and as far as most people were concerned it was all over.
So I'm not going to call anybody a coward here. I've been in that kind of situation, where something is going down but I'm not sure what and I'm not sure who's in the right, and unless someone is clearly in danger of his life, it's just hard to figure out whether you should act or not. Real life is not, alas, a comic book, where there is always clear right or clear wrong, and making the wrong choice based upon incomplete information can sometimes result in more harm than just sitting back and keeping a close eye on the goings-on.
Why Did Senator John Kerry Stand Idly By?
The question we should all ask is why did a United States Senator just stand there while Gestapo goons violated the constitutional rights of a student participating in a public event, brutalized him in full view of everyone, and then took him off to jail on phony charges?Kerry’s meekness not only in the face of electoral fraud, not only in the face of Bush’s wars that are crimes under the Nuremberg standard, but also in the face of police goons trampling the constitutional rights of American citizens makes it completely clear that he was not fit to be president, and he is not fit to be a US senator.
Usually when police violate constitutional rights and commit acts of police brutality they do it when they believe no one is watching, not in front of a large audience. Clearly, the police have become more audacious in their abuse of rights and citizens. What explains the new fearlessness of police to violate rights and brutalize citizens without cause?
The answer is that police, most of whom have authoritarian personalities, have seen that constitutional rights are no longer protected. President Bush does not protect our constitutional rights. Neither does Vice President Cheney, nor the Attorney General, nor the US Congress. Just as Kerry allowed Meyer’s rights to be tasered out of him, Congress has enabled Bush to strip people, including American citizens, of constitutional protection and incarcerate them without presenting evidence.
How long before Kerry himself or some other senator will be dragged from his podium and tasered?
.....
The Bush Republicans with complicit Democrats have essentially brought government accountability to an end in the US.
Posted by: annie | Sep 21 2007 23:39 utc | 85
Twice, last night on late night TV (Kimmel,O'Brien)the subject of tasering came up in two comedy sketches - both of which made a mockery of the victims as being fools who deserved the punishment. One featured a contest among 3 separate taser incidents last week caught on film, including the Meyer event. All 3 incidents showed the police surrounding unarmed victims and tasering them - which the audience thought was hilarious. The winner was not Meyer but another victim who went through a more animated set of screams and contortions. Then they posed a person in the audience with the same red shirt as the victim acting stunned with smoke rising off his body.
Talk about insult to injury. I guess state sponsored torture has been elevated into a new form of comedy. Like G.I.'s posing body parts for amusment and photos in Iraq.
Posted by: anna missed | Sep 22 2007 0:56 utc | 86
That reminds me of an interpretation I read of the Roman gladiator games. It was (according to this interpretation) a way of scaring the enemies, by sending the message that Romans were the kind of people who killed for fun at applauded it.
Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Sep 22 2007 2:20 utc | 87
anna m, askod -
Oh, dear. For some time I've thought I noticed more humor of cruelty creeping into popular culture. Has any one else here noticed, or am I oversensitive? Pain humor has always existed (e.g. Three Stooges), but recently it is more of this "reality show" type described by anna m. What does it mean? askod's suggestion sends a chill.
Posted by: small coke | Sep 22 2007 2:36 utc | 88
small coke
For some time I've thought I noticed more humor of cruelty creeping into popular culture.
I quit watching television --nearly a decade ago now--, partly for that reason. For me it all started with the 'America's most wanted' and 'Cops'shows. And how they go out of their way to humiliate people on them. At the time I was dealing with my own personal issues of dehumanization, so these type 'reality show were major red flags for me. Point is, if I noticed it back then, I can't imagine what it must be like now.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 22 2007 12:38 utc | 89
OHIO COP TASERED HANDCUFFED FEMALE
Cop gets a paid vacation...
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 22 2007 14:56 utc | 90
cruelty as humor on tv goes back to at least candid camera...
Posted by: b real | Sep 22 2007 19:32 utc | 91
The taser incident during Kerry's talk prompted a 350 strong student protest demonstration. Despite this CNN reported that the students were actually divided between support for the cops and support for the student. Why does it have to be support for one or the other? Why can't the incident itself be protested on merit? Why is this violence even debatable?
Check out Uncle's link at 90 and tell me that wasn't absolute cruelty. There is a culture that seems to think punishment is the answer to problems. It is why men beat their wives. It is why people hit their children as a form of discipline. This is so alien to me as I could never even imagine hitting my child or grandchild now.
Those are signs of people that don't know how to handle everday living. They are trying to change their environment by force in a fit of self rightous outpuring demanding conformance.
I have 2 Filas (one of the 4 dogs on the Brit dangerous dog list) and they have never felt any kind of pain from my hand ever.
Posted by: Sam | Sep 23 2007 0:27 utc | 92
The comments to this entry are closed.
land of the free and home of the brave
Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 18 2007 16:16 utc | 1