I'm sure we've all seen the video by now. A FSU student at a John Kerry speech confronts Kerry on why he hasn't impeached President Bush and tosses a query regarding Kerry's membership in Yale's Skull and Bones club (of which Bush is also a member). Then proceeds to not allow the Senator to answer the questions. Apparently he sees the 15 seconds he's been given to pose his questions as a soapbox for the spewing of his own political agenda. Once he exceeds his time limit, the AV folks cut his mic. He becomes livid. Irate. After watching his erratic behavior for several moments, the campus police begin to attempt to escort him from the room. He resists. Finally, about seven officers have him pinned to the ground where he continues to resist. One of them gets out the taser. The student sees this and, while still resisting, admonishes the officer that tasing him is not necessary. The officer disagreed and we got the above headline.
So questions arise: What about free speech? Why didn't Kerry demand that the police unhand the poor boy? Did they use excessive force? I read one person refer to this incident as "the death of freedom in America."
Are you kidding me?! The death of freedom in America? Look, if you are going to ask a question, let the subject of your inquest answer it! If you are going to attend a function that has specific rules and regulations, follow them! If you are going to make an ass of yourself and the police think that you're behavior is too erratic for public safety, obey them!
Look, if the kid wanted to spout off he should have found some other way to do it. Stand outside with a megaphone. This way you aren't subjecting yourself to their rules. Get a column published in your school paper. There's no way you can be too left in a state university! Or do what some other intelligent people do: Blog it!
Kerry had no jurisdiction there, either. I've heard a few people talk about how weak he looked that he didn't say anything. He'd have looked even weaker (and foolish) if he were demanding that the police let him go and they were ignoring him. These weren't his secret service (not that he has any, and even if he did, they probably wouldn't listen to him either) they were campus police. Kerry made the right move by remaining silent during the incident.
Oh, and about those charges that have been levied against the boys in blue regarding "excessive force," they're ludicrous. I'd like to submit two questions for you:
1) What if the student were a Republican asking why Kerry thinks the government knows better how to spend our money? Or if he had been the descendant of a swift boat veteran, asking why Kerry choose to aggrandize his service record? What if someone with that type of worldview began acting in a similar manner? Would the tasing have been excessive? (I still say "no" by the way.)
2) What if (God forbid) the student went Virginia Tech on the audience? Would we not be saying, "Why didn't they stop him? Why did they allow him to go over his time limit? Couldn't they see he was losing control?" Aren't way too many people trying to blame VT's decisions of that day for the tragedy? Seems to me the police would be the favorite target if they didn't do anything as well. Sorry people who daily put their lives in jeopardy so that I can feel safe while I sip my $8.57 (not including tip) grande mocha latte complaining about the war in another country that I'm not really feeling the effects of while I offer zero solutions to solve it, you're wrong no matter what you do.
So, children, what can we learn from this? ("And so what we have learned applies to our lives today...") Read my lips: Never resist arrest! He wasn't tasered for his political opinions. He wasn't tasered because he went over his time limit. He wasn't tasered because he was disrespectful to an elected official. He wasn't even tasered because he started acting like an idiot. He was tasered because he resisted the authorities. Look, if you're right and their wrong, you'll look like even more of a martyr when the truth comes out and people see how compliant you were. This kid has some sore wrists and two red welts somewhere on his body right now. He could have avoided them, but he asked for them and he deserved them.
(And on a totally unrelated side note: If a "politicians" job is to make laws. Why don't we just refer to them as law makers? What's the difference between a "politician" and a "law maker?" Seriously, I want to hear the connotations that those words carry for you)
4 comments:
I'll just answer the law-maker v. politicians question.
Mathematicians play with math. Magicians play with magic. Politicians play with politics. Politicians in our country are lawmakers, but first they must play the game of politics to get the office of making laws. Then, in order to pass laws they also play political games to get their laws passed. So, in my mind the two terms are inseperable. Having the ability to make laws just means that you got elected. At least in our system. If this were a totalitarian system, our lawmaker would be called a dictator. But in that same way, a dictator must play some political game (whether that be war or whatever) to be elevated to that position. So, in order to be a lawmaker one must become a politician of some sort first, but never can separate the two. I can't think of a law maker that is not a politician in some way or another.
On second thought, there are politicians that are not lawmakers. A more appropriate term would be 'losers'...that is, those who lose elections.
The word politician has a negative connotation to it now days. So, if speaking of a political figure in a negative way it would be wise to refer to them as a politician in order to make the audience cringe.
"lawmaker" just sounds more noble. One who makes laws must be wise and honorable. So when we refer to people as lawmakers it paints them in a good light, dismissing any game playing they may be involved in.
It would be interesting to examine a bunch of news articles to see how they refer to certain politicians in various situations.
First of all, love your post. Particularly the point about how the police would have likewise been seen as bad guys had they done nothing and it had turned truly ugly. You can't win, sometimes. Freedom of speech in America has always worked best within the rules when possible.
In this case the student should have either followed the rules of discourse -- ask question, wait politely for an answer -- or at least followed the rules of civil protest -- never resist arrest, just go limp!
As for lawmakers vs. politicians. Personally, while I recognize there is no real difference, I tend to only use the term lawmakers when refering to members of congress. I guess I sort of think of them as the makers of the law in the sense that they establish the wording of the laws. Executive branch officers have for/against power and judges uphold the law, but I, personally, only call congressmen lawmakers.
bravo on the post, man.
Nice reference to Veggie Tales...now I've got that song in my head.
Post a Comment