Even the Democrats Don't Get It.

There is a reason why my voter registration card lists me as an 'independent' and not a 'Democrat'. Most of the time, I would associate myself with the Democrats, I would consider myself socially progressive, I would say that I'm a liberal, but... there are times when I listen to the Democrats and I wonder how they just don't get the issue at hand.

I'm watching the CNN debate and they were discussing what the future President of the United States should do about trade with China given that there has been an uproar about unsafe products coming out of China. Everyone is talking about enforcing the WTO law and shut off trade with China, they are talking about how bad China is this, and how bad China is that, is that the real heart of the issue? I think they are missing it.

At my workplace, we make consumer electronics. No they aren't immediately threatening products like a medical device, but they still need to be safe. The products need to be lead-free, they need to not explode in your hand, in short, we test them extensively to make sure they don't hurt people. At the same time, we manufacture things in China, like everyone knows, manufacturing at places like Foxconn just makes financial sense, they do it fast and they do it well. If something went wrong, the attention I think is on us, not on China. It is our responsibility to make sure that everything is defined to a T. This includes giving them materials so that we know the resistors and capacitors are in fact Pb Free/RoHS compliant, that the paint we use has no lead in it, it is our job to make sure that things are so explicitly defined that no shortcuts can be taken. It is ridiculous in my opinion to not do these things and then turn around and plead ignorance when something bad happens.

There were very few people on the debate stage that identified the problem, that we should be checking what China exports to us. But they are going about this incorrectly, they want to set up a foreign FDA/watchdog type arm of the US government to inspect exports. Why? This is a complete waste of money. This is one of those things that is very Republican in a way (although I haven't heard any of the Republican candidates even bring this up), we live in a capitalist system, we keep preaching how market forces drive things; market forces should drive safety.

It should be up to each individual company to define everything that goes into the product, to test a sample of the products before they are exported and sold into the American marketplace. I find myself in disbelief when we are blaming China for what happened. Even Mattel apologized to the Chinese government and Chinese people about the lead in the paint ordeal. It's not for the most part, China's fault. If Mattel didn't define what goes in the paint, if they aren't testing the products for lead, if they aren't the first line of defense, they should be held criminally liable. We don't need a government organization to check this kind of stuff, there is no way that a government organization can have the expertise to know exactly what safety concerns they should be looking for. It needs to be up to the experts, it needs to be up to the corporation designing the goods. What's so hard about this? We need to stop being so afraid of holding American corporations liable and scapegoating China. We manufacture in China because it's cheap, and we should understand that you get what you pay for. If you as a company find that it is no longer financially beneficial to build in China because of all the safeguards you need to implement, don't build there!

Let's stop blaming China for things that we should be responsible for. Now alternatively, if we do everything we can to be explicit about how they are to manufacture things, how to be safe, and things still go wrong, then and only then should we be making a public issue about it. Then and only then should we be going after Chinese manufacturing. We need to start being really on the ball about this issue, it is inevitable in my opinion that as profits begin to grow in China, Chinese business owners are going to start realizing that cutting corners can mean more money in the pocket. That's what we need to be watching out for, but first and foremost we should be doing our due diligence and making sure we take all the precautions necessary. As you can read in the news, due diligence is what has been lacking in almost every one of these public scandals.

FUCK!

Some dickhead used my name, ss#, and address to buy stuff from Sears. Imagine my surprise when I received a Sears Mastercard bill today, he/she even got a $15 discount for opening the account! C'MON!!

There will be hell to pay.

consult your lawyers

Hilarious. Mitt Romney says we should consult with our lawyers to see if we can declare war on Iran, wtf? There is a reason we have a Constitution, Congress, and even a somewhat fuzzy War Powers Act... Mitt, what are you talking about man?

At least Ron Paul was there to set you straight. Fast forward to about 03:40 on the video.

I think my favorite part in this segment is when Rudy Giuliani chimes in, "Hey, September 11th!, September 11th? September 11th". Talk about a one tricky pony.

"history will prove me right"

Awesome article. Simply maintaining that history will prove you right, as adamantly as possible, doesn't have any impact on what actually does happen. 14 years later, it's pretty obvious George W. Bush was wrong about the MLB's new wild-card system. Where will we be on Iraq in 14 years?

------------------------------------------------------------

I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right." -- Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush after voting against realignment and a new wild-card system during a Major League Baseball owners meeting in September 1993. Bush was the lone dissenter in a 27-1 vote. "Time will tell. We believe in our research and that the positives far outweigh the negatives." -- Milwaukee Brewers president and acting commissioner Bud Selig after owners approved the new system 14 years ago.

---------------------------------- Judging from their track records on this one, maybe Selig should take a crack at sorting out that nettlesome Iraq situation and the president should forget about baseball and events in Baghdad and turn his attention to health care. You didn't have to stay up late Monday night to watch Colorado's 9-8 victory over San Diego for confirmation that baseball's wild-card system makes for compelling entertainment. It's apparent from the euphoria in Denver, an NFL hotbed where baseball suddenly is monopolizing the front of the sports pages.

You can see it in Major League Baseball's record 79.5 million attendance this season. That includes a combined increase of about 1.25 million fans in Philadelphia, Denver, San Diego and Milwaukee, cities where teams were playing meaningful games right down to the jubilant and/or bitter end. And you can tell by baseball's spiraling revenue, which has increased from $1.2 billion to $5.8 billion since owners had the temerity to mess with tradition and introduce realignment, followed by revenue sharing and a luxury tax on big spenders. Selig, who spent last week watching games at Miller Park and channel-switching at home, called his old pal, former Boston Red Sox CEO John Harrington, and they marveled at the direction the game has taken. "John said, 'Commissioner, did you ever think when we were designing all this that it could be this good?'" Selig said. "The answer is no. I thought it would be great, and so did John. But are you kidding me?" Baseball's playoff system is so popular, even Bob Costas is no longer on a soapbox on behalf of purists everywhere. The only people with reason to complain, it seems, are those unfortunate division champions who keep getting sent home prematurely by upstart wild-card clubs. If recent history is any indication, this year's wild cards, the Yankees and Rockies, might be sticking around a while. Since 2002, six of the 10 World Series participants have been wild cards. Three of the six -- the 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins and 2004 Red Sox -- went all the way. When the Yankees win the wild card with their massive YES network revenue, a lineup featuring Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter and a $195 million payroll, it's officially time to dispense with the notion of wild-card teams as Little Engines that Could. On the contrary; lots of people in baseball think wild cards have an inherent advantage because they're grinding for victories until the final days of the season out of sheer necessity. Since the current system first came into effect, wild cards are 14-10 in the Division Series, 8-6 in the League Championship Series, and 4-4 in the World Series. "You're talking about guys playing their best, most inspired baseball of the entire season during the time they're rushing to make the cut," said Phillies assistant GM Ruben Amaro Jr. "Oftentimes it seems like there's a carryover there." That's not a hard and fast rule, of course. The 1997 wild-card Florida Marlins went 12-15 in September and won the World Series. The 2000 Mets (15-14) and 2006 Detroit Tigers (12-16) were also underwhelming in the final month. But since the rule's inception, wild-card teams have posted a staggering .631 winning percentage (461-270) in the final month of the regular season. The Angels, Giants, Marlins, Red Sox and Astros -- the five wild cards that made the World Series from 2002 through 2005 -- had an aggregate record of 94-47 in September. Does late-season momentum outweigh the advantage that a division title winner derives from clinching early, setting up its rotation and having an opportunity to rest injured regulars? The 2006 Yankees, who won the AL East by 10 games and got bounced by Detroit in the Division Series, might beg to differ. Still, the enduring success of wild cards in the postseason has prompted some baseball insiders to wonder whether it's time to erect a roadblock or two. In an effort to gauge that sentiment, ESPN.com surveyed general managers, assistant GMs and other front office personnel from all 30 big league clubs on the state of the wild-card system. We gave them five alternatives and asked the following question: If you had a choice of these scenarios, which wild-card setup would you prefer? Here's how it turned out:

Option No. 1: Keep the current system exactly as is (seven votes)

"Certain things are adages and clichés for a reason," said Dan Jennings, Florida Marlins assistant GM. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the wild card is the greatest thing that's happened to our game in the last 40-50 years." Right off the top, let's dispense with the notion that wild-card teams somehow slip in the back door. Discounting the strike-shortened 1995 season (the first of the wild-card era), there have been 22 wild-card winners. Only three (the 1996 Orioles, 2005 Astros and 2006 Dodgers) failed to win 90 games. And no wild card has ever won fewer than 88. If there's reason for debate regarding wild cards, it relates primarily to the fairness or lack thereof in the schedule. In 2001, Major League Baseball went from a balanced to an unbalanced schedule that requires teams to play 17-19 games within their division every year. The Phillies, for example, have to play well against the Braves, Mets, Nationals and Marlins if they want to lay claim to the NL East title, rather than clobbering the other two divisions and simply holding their own in intra-divisional games.

I don't think they should look at the wild card as, 'Well, you didn't win your division.' You just might have been in a division that was better than the other divisions. Why should you be penalized after that?

--Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd

But the system also raises questions about the equity of the wild-card race, because teams are chasing the same goal based on the same criteria -- winning percentage -- while playing vastly different schedules. The distinctions are even broader now that interleague play is part of the equation. And who's to say the wild-card Rockies, who won 90 games in a very competitive NL West, are inferior to the Cubs, who won 85 games while competing against Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Houston in the sorry NL Central? That's why a lot of executives think there's no call for a wild-card team to confront additional barriers in October. There were enough obstacles in place from April through September. "I don't think they should look at the wild card as, 'Well, you didn't win your division,'" said Colorado GM Dan O'Dowd. "You just might have been in a division that was better than the other divisions. Why should you be penalized after that?"

Option No. 2: Expand the first round of the playoffs from five to seven games (13 votes)

Oakland general manager Billy Beane spoke for many when he referred to the postseason as a "crapshoot." A bad call by an umpire here or a chalk-line double there can mean the difference between advancing or going home early. So doesn't it stand to reason that a longer first-round series will negate the possibility of a fluke or a hot -- yet inferior -- team springing a surprise? "The integrity of the playoffs would be better served with no five-game series where too many coincidences can impact the outcome," Cleveland GM Mark Shapiro said. Detroit's David Dombrowski concurred that a longer first-round makes for a fairer test without favoring one club or another. "We need to remember that sometimes the wild-card team is the second-best team in the league and has the second-best record," Dombrowksi said. "Handicapping them too much, in some cases, can be extreme." Beane actually favors the opposite approach. He proposes extending the first round to seven games and giving the wild card home-field advantage if it has the second-best record in the league. The biggest problem with a longer first round is the calendar. If this year's World Series goes the distance, Game 7 will take place Nov. 1. The new spaced-out schedule, which is dictated by television concerns, provides for more off days and potentially more wiggle room. But after last year's October weather debacle, the people in the commissioner's office would rather not be squeezed in the event of rainouts. Selig said a seven-game Division Series has been discussed ad nauseam in recent years. Everybody loves the idea until confronted with the possibility of lopping games off the regular season schedule and losing revenue as a result. "I understand the argument when a team says, 'Look, I played all year and went through all this hell for 162 games, and it's going to be over in five games,'" Selig said. "On the other hand, there's more drama because it's only five games. That's something to think about. "I've always believed that we should go back to 154 games anyway. But that's a real hit, particularly for the big-market clubs. We went through this two or three years ago and I asked the clubs, 'Are you guys willing to cut two or four games from the schedule?' And the answer was always no."

Option No. 3: Add a second wild-card club (seven votes)

Some executives favored a one-game playoff, while others liked a best-2-of-3 series. But this option was particularly popular with executives of clubs that compete against opponents with superior resources. O'Dowd, Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi and Milwaukee assistant GM Gord Ash were among the respondents who favor expanding the field by one team in each league. Ricciardi admits he's biased, but it's hard to blame him. Despite being crushed by injuries, the Blue Jays just posted consecutive winning seasons for the first time since 2000. Their reward: They finished 13 games out of first place in the AL East despite going a respectable 17-19 against Boston and New York. Toronto is accustomed to having a payroll that's considerably smaller than New York's or Boston's. Now the new, more enlightened Red Sox and Yankees are pumping more cash and resources into the amateur draft and international operations, so they're starting to look invulnerable on all fronts."I think you have to look at the dichotomy of the American League from our standpoint," Ricciardi said. "Those teams aren't going away. There's no cyclical change in their payroll or their ability to go out and get people. "It's not that we're not up for the challenge of competing with them. All we're asking for is a little more of a shot. This gives the Kansas Citys, the Tampa Bays and all those teams a chance to say, 'Hey, maybe we can get in at 88 wins.'" Atlanta assistant GM Frank Wren likes the concept of a best-of-three playoff because it would tax the depth of a wild-card team that might have qualified thanks to a hot streak at the end. If that team has to burn its two best pitchers in a "play-in" round, it will be at a disadvantage starting the next round. One obvious objection to the "play-in" concept: With 10 teams and four rounds, the baseball playoffs would start looking more like the marathon odysseys in the NHL and NBA. "Too many games," said Gary Hughes, special assistant to Cubs general manager Jim Hendry. "We might be watching Game 7 of the Fall Classic with our Thanksgiving turkey."

Option No. 4: Require the wild-card team to play four of five games on the road in the first round (three votes)

"We've talked about that a lot," Selig said. "But if you're going to make it almost impossible for the wild card to win, then why do you have the wild card?" In truth, home field advantage isn't as much of a factor as you might think. Since the advent of the wild-card era, home teams are 155-138 in the postseason. But it was pretty much dead even until 2004. In the three years since, home teams have gone 42-27 in the playoffs and World Series. The concept of wild-card teams-as-road warriors appeals to executives who want to tweak the system, but dislike the idea of dragging out the postseason with an additional tier or an expanded Division Series. "I think the wild card should be disadvantaged, and this seems like the best way to me," said Gerry Hunsicker, senior vice president of baseball operations in Tampa Bay. "I still think when you play 162 games, winning your division should mean something, until the industry decides we're not going to do that."

Option No. 5: The old Japanese League system (No votes)

For years, under the Japanese system, a team that finished first by five games or more during the regular season was required to win only two games in a best-of-five series, while its lower-seeded opponent had to win three. That rule is now off the books. While a few of our respondents were intrigued by the concept, no one embraced it as a realistic option. "I think it's an extremely cool idea, but it's just too radical and would never happen.," said a National League front office man. "Un-American," said another. Selig, similarly, has no interest in a wrinkle that seems too gimmicky and contrived for the national pastime. For all the talk about tweaking the wild-card system, fans love it, the money is pouring in, and there's a healthy mix of new faces and old guard teams this October. "You now have a system that's producing record attendance because people like it and believe in it," Selig said. "We're doing things we never thought possible. Why would you change that?" Jerry Crasnick covers baseball for ESPN.com. His book "License To Deal" was published by Rodale.

letter to an alumni

Dear xxxxx,

Although I think the decision to invite Ahmadinejad was wrong, I think Caroline Glick's article is fundamentally flawed. I think it is clear that Columbia itself is not anti-Semitic, Bollinger is not, and providing a platform for Ahmadinejad to speak does not constitute a legitimization of holocaust denial. It bothers me that Columbia is presented as synonymous with a terrorist and a dictator, merely by extension of an invitation; it may have been selfish, hurtful, and ill-timed that Bollinger wanted to confront one of the more prominent dictators face to face, but I fail to see how Columbia now represents "depravity by renouncing the intrinsic sanctity of human life".

Glick's article was written as if she did not know what the content of the speech was, as if it was still weeks ago, transcripts unavailable, videos of the speech not at her fingertips. Whether or not the University should have invited Ahmadinejad is a separate issue, but Bollinger took the President to task, directly criticizing the Iranian president's claims that the Holocaust was a fabrication, that Israel should be wiped off the map, etc. In light of the controversy, Columbia, its president, and its students intellectually mauled the speaker, co-workers have been approaching me all week saying "Wow. Your school's president wiped the floor with Ahmadinejad". Bollinger was absolutely correct that Ahmadinejad looked absolutely foolish, in every question posed to him at the end of the speech the answer was nothing short of ridiculous, the logic nothing short of profoundly flawed. I think Iranians will be hard pressed to re-elect a man whose government already failed to be re-elected, and who shows such intellectual contempt. We heard Ahmadinejad claim that the Holocaust is like medieval scientific belief, that more research needs to be done, what was true then may not be true now; to anyone even remotely intelligent, this makes no sense and he was rightfully chided for such a poor answer, he should have been challenged to say "your election victory is history, does it need to be re-examined for historical accuracy, could you perhaps NOT be the President of Iran?, what is true then is not true now?". We heard him claim that homosexuals do not exist in Iran, another ridiculous claim that those in Iran will also know to be a lie, it wasn't too long ago that two homosexuals were put to death; homosexual relationships are explicitly enumerated in Iranian law to be punishable by death (these laws don't exist if they don't ever happen).

I agree with you, he should have never come to the University, but I strongly disagree that his being allowed to speak is even remotely an acknowledgment of his fanatical beliefs. Glick says that Columbia's forum made genocide a legitimate subject of debate, again, during the speech, Bollinger, the head of SIPA, and student questions made it explicitly clear that even the mere question of the historical accuracy of the Holocaust was dubious. An invitation is not an endorsement or a legitimizing factor. Was the invitation putting Jewish lives on the table and under debate, I don't think so, but not being Jewish perhaps I lack the capacity to see that that is not the case. Saying that the school believes that genocide is a reasonable subject for debate seems to me to be a spurious claim that is not even a logical conclusion one could make.

Glick's main criticisms of the University lie not in the shortcomings of the University, but in the same enumerated list that you and I have stated in our own emails to Bollinger, the shortcomings and idiocy of the Iranian president. Glick's article in turn reads like your average FOX News broadcast, that Columbia actively teaches a far-left political worldview and is actively engaged in stifling conservative ideology and Zionist beliefs. As a Columbia graduate who attended the school during a lot of major media firestorms, I can only help but feel that Glick is out of touch from the University, that her call to dissociate from the University are based on a selective representation of events on campus, a flawed belief that Columbia now represents anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

In my time at Columbia, we have seen speakers ranging from John McCain, David Horowitz (who I would say is rather far to the right), John Ashcroft, Alan Dershowitz, Benjamin Netanyahu, Norman Finkelstein, and Hilary Clinton. The reality is that Columbia is not anti-Semitic, it has a vibrant Jewish community and Hillel, and is if anything vocally Zionist and slowly becoming increasingly conservative. To be honest, while trying to recall speakers that had come to Columbia during the time I was there, there are few prominent/controversial "liberals" other than Finkelstein that immediately come to mind. The majority of speakers are great men and women who have been positive catalysts for change in their field, be they progressive heads of historically repressed states, Nobel Prize winners, or great artists. The claim that Columbia somehow is closed off to conservative speakers, at least in my opinion, is ridiculous. It was only a few months ago that Tamar Jacoby spoke to the journalism school. Ideas like that are perpetuated by those on the outside of the school; because Columbia has not invited a Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter, is not an indication of an aversion to conservative voices.

The media's negative portrayal of Columbia is largely a product of... the media. I can't even describe the overwhelming number of students, professors, alumni who scratched their heads when Columbia was deemed to be rampantly anti-Semitic based on a documentary created by a pro-Israel corporation, largely hearsay and unsubstantiated accusations against professors, and anti-Zionist lecture material and academic publications by a few MEALAC professors. The MEALAC controversy was fueled by papers like the NY Sun, the poor grievance policy and subsequent composition of the investigative committee, poor decision making on the Professor's part and Zionist campus sentiment. What was not heavily publicized was the sentiment expressed by a large number of... for ex. Professor Massad's Israeli and Jewish American students that they found him to be an extremely engaging, thought provoking, and excellent professor. Nor were Massad's reactions, clarifications, and the opinions of other Columbia professors like J-School Dean, Ari Goldman presented with the same fervor. It should be clear that anti-Semitism is not the same as anti-Zionism, one is pure racism, the other is cultural and historical disagreement. The same goes for Ahmadinejad's invitation; an invitation is not the same as an acknowledgment or agreement of beliefs. Was the invitation unnecessary, not sound judgment in exercising free speech, and largely insensitive to military veterans and the Jewish population? Sure, there is very little disagreement. I have to strongly disagree with the Columbia name being further tarred and feathered and being made synonymous with the name of a dictator.

Regards,
Stephen

Tasers and Bill O'Reilly

Andrew Meyer of the University of Florida was tasered by the police while he was resisting arrest. Meyer was screaming and writhing in pain, it was difficult to listen to. Although I think Meyer deserved to be tasered, after continually resisting arrest, it is another thing completely for someone like Bill O'Reilly to listen to his screams and state:

"I've been tasered for a story, and all I can say is: He is the biggest wimp in the United States of America." O'Reilly added: "And I don't say that with any kind of bravado, but the overreaction to being tasered -- it's not -- it's an electrical shock is what it is."

The biggest wimp in the United States? Give me a break. I'd like to see the video of Bill O'Reilly getting tasered for a story, actually, I'll even call bullshit on that one. That's right, bullshit. Watch the below video of an army soldier getting tasered, he screams out in pain to, I don't think that even comes close to making him a wimp. I challenge O'Reilly to prove he can take a taser shot without screaming in pain, $10 says he pees his pants.

Tasers and Free Speech

A few months ago I saw a very shocking video of a UCLA student being tasered by the police in a library. He screamed for help repeatedly, continued to be tased, and was tased some more when he tried to get on his feet. It was truly sick and was uncomfortable to watch.

Yesterday, Andrew Meyer, a UF student, was tased by campus police while he was asking questions of Senator Kerry at a forum. While the UCLA spectacle oozed of police brutality and over reaching, the only thing I could think of when I watched the video of Meyer was, "this kid is an idiot". Meyer getting tased came up at work today; some were defending his freedom of speech and based on a sampling of youtube comments a lot of people are concerned about his freedom of speech.

What about his freedom of speech? Meyer walked from the back of the line to the front, walked up to the mic and began asking Kerry why he did not contest the 2004 election and if he was a member of Skull and Bones. (What is the relevance of the fraternity question? Kerry gave up the job of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES because he was in competition with his secret society frat brother? That's beyond reasonable. ) The moderator made the signal to cut his mic and asked the police to escort him out. The interesting question is why they chose to haul him away at that moment, why didn't they do it when he first skipped to the front of the line? There were better ways of handling the situation than asking him to be removed. When you ask tough/stupid questions, do you forfeit your free speech? Are you entering the bounds of the riot act and disturbing the peace? Although I sympathize with Meyer's politics, I don't think he actually wanted to ask Kerry a question, it was more a rhetorical statement that Kerry was a douche, in question form, like on Jeopardy. Still. He should have been heard and Kerry should have been allowed to respond, sans the screaming and Conspiracy Theory paranoia.

The other independent event is Meyer's getting tased. In this case, I think the officers were well within their bounds to tase him. His mic was cut, they thought he was a threat/disturbance, AND he was resisting arrest. While officers had him in custody, he was still flailing around trying to escape. Even after they had him on the floor in an attempt to handcuff him he was still squirming around. Guilty or innocent, that can be proven later, why wouldn't you just let the police calmly take you away. You can't scream out, "why are you arresting me, help me help me, don't tase me bro", while trying to escape from police officers, pushing them, and flailing around.

Meyers' story gets even crazier when he is brought down the stairs and the officers try to calm him down and have him take deep breaths. He asks those witnesses to ask about his whereabouts as it is his belief that "they're giving me to the government... they are going to try and kill me". Give me a break. Of course you're going to get tasered.

What angered me the most was the reaction of John Kerry. His actions, or inaction, was the root of Meyer's question and the root cause of why he lost the 2004 election; the man has no spine. When people wrote books and went on the news to openly question his Vietnam service and purple hearts, why didn't he just squash those right then and there? When Andrew Meyer was being hauled off and then shocked with a taser, all Kerry did was sit back and stumble on his words. Kerry said, "hey officers can we... hey folks... I think if everyone just calms down... I'll answer his question and it's an important one". This is ALL while Meyers is on the ground being taken away by the police. Why didn't Kerry just ask them to stop, firmly? Why didn't Kerry do something? Instead he carried on answering Meyer's question and joking that he wished Meyer was there swearing him in as President, and lamented that it was unfortunate that he was incapacitated. WTF. Where is his backbone, shame.

Eyewitness account from teh internets:

“As much as I concur that this was excessive force, let me remind you what led to this:

Andrew spoke up after the Dean of International Affairs had stated final question. The final question was being asked about Israel, and then Andrew got on the mic on the other side of the room (noting he was next on the mic), and then proceeded to tell Kerry that its not fair not to be able to ask more questions after listening to him for an hour, and the Dean exclusively asking Kerry questions for another 45 minutes, leaving students 25 minutes to ask questions. At that point, the officers try to subdue him, but Kerry sternly told the police officers to back down. Kerry then asked Meyer if he can finish the other question and then proceed to his. Meyer consented. After the last question was answered, Kerry asked Meyer, what is your question. Then you enter the video that has been circulating around, where he asks his question, not before Accent Speaker’s Bureau president, Stephen Blank (in some videos, front row left side of right aisle), signals the AV guys to cut Meyer off. Meyer then was confused what happened, and then was dragged up the auditorium. Meyer kept screaming why is he being arrested. The other videos do not show that Meyer was handcuffed, before he was tasered. I sat in the back row, with this occuring less than 5 feet from me.”

What have we become?

Have you ever read something so disturbing, so troubling, that it made you sick? As I neared the end of Sean Flynn of GQ's article about Army Major Tom Fleener and Lt. Commander William Kuebler, my arms and legs still aching from a debilitating workout the day before, my stomach started to turn over on itself.

Flynn was writing about Guantanamo. The focus was not torture, terrorists, or abuses; it was about the circumvention of law and the policy changes that have molded the current day United States into the antithesis of what the country was founded upon. I know, lofty.

President Bush and his proponents have always been right, 9/11 changed our world; it was not however, towers collapsing that changed things, it was the direction our nation was steered towards as a response. Our world is changed. Instead of a country based on principles of freedom, freedom that we are trying to export to the rest of the world, we are a country guided by Machiavellian/Bill Parcels accountability. It's not how you do it, it's simply that you do it and you get the results you wanted. This should come as a surprise; as a nation we are socially at odds with that concept. I want to re-iterate, by "as a nation", as I am referring to a nation of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. perhaps it should resonate even deeper with those that consider themselves Republicans. How you do it is always a fundamental concern; the practices of Enron were largely criticized as it ruined thousands of people at the expense of the few, the lip synching of Milli Vanilli signaled their fall from grace, we extol the virtues during every presidential election of the self-made man who climbed the social ranks out of poverty, and you better be ready to defend yourself if you get caught with a sleeve full of cards at a poker table. In short, we hate cheaters. In the opinions of Major Fleener and Lt. Commander Kuebler, that's just what the government and military have transformed us into, cheaters. We are not upholding the spirit or the principles upon which our laws were created and that they exist to defend. There should be a real debate over what is more important, a hypothetical protection of ethics and morals or an at-any-cost defense of our soil against any perceived threat, real, unsubstantiated, or fictitious. I think while pragmatics would steer you towards the latter if there actually was a real immediate threat, but if the former is not what we are embracing, our war on terror/expansion of freedom is a nothing more than a sham. Without principles, what exactly are we defending?

In the interest of fighting a "war on terror", the rule of law has been thrown out the window. You can argue to no end that those in Guantanamo are real live terrorists and hundreds of crisis was averted by their detention. The reality of the situation is that we have subverted the presumption of innocence, denied habeas corpus, and made no attempt to uphold the "prevention of ex post facto application of criminal laws". Flynn points to the updating of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006, "It was an astonishingly radical law. For one, it gave the president the authority to declare anyone, captured anywhere, an enemy combatant who can be jailed indefinitely and without charge, precisely the sort of power against which the colonists fought the revolution." Precisely what the colonists fought against, that should mean something to all of us that wave the American flag and put a yellow ribbon on the back of our cars, it really should. What makes and has made our nation great is not our symbolism, but protection of the basic tenets of our democracy. Fear and fear mongering has changed the meaning of 'protection' from building on principles laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to a very real policy of detain, torture, or kill anyone who supposedly threatens our nation. That alone should give us pause.

We should think hard, if it were an American that was suspected of terrorism by a foreign entity and jailed indefinitely without due process, habeas corpus, knowledge of the evidence being presented against him, the presumption of innocence, and all other aspects of the American justice system, would we find that acceptable?

Someone Finally Gets It Right

Right on everything. Good environmental policy is good economic policy. We are focusing on Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith and not real issues. Someone give him a medal, we need more people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

the free market

Everyone learns in middle school that communism, while its heart was in the right place, does not work in the real world. There is always going to be your hard worker who gets dicked over by the lazy man. In the same vein, we should have learned by now that the free market is just as idealistic; there is always going to be that dick that tries to ruin it for everyone. Can you imagine the riot that may have ensued if this woman was allowed by buy out all of the iPhones in the AT&T store? Hilarity ensues. The free market, a figment of your imagination.