Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Diomedes
Published Letters: 101 Editor's Choice: 4
I made the mistake of reading the comments before watching the video. I was expecting the Pinkertons. What I saw was a student persistently resisting arrest, with the Taser being used only after all other reasonable measures had been used to remove him.
Before I'm jumped on, I want to add that he should not have been Tasered. It's clear to me that that last step did not need to be taken by the police. With that many others, they could literally have picked him up and carried him out. It was reprehensible, but not surprising. Go to Youtube, type in "Taser" and watch video after video of cops Tasering suspects, some armed, some not. It's the non-lethal weapon of choice now.
But it is just downright misleading to say that the campus cops resorted to the Taser too quickly.
First they tried to talk him away from the mic. Then they tried to take the mic away. Then they grabbed him, tried to walk him away from the stage. Then they tried to handcuff him. Then they dropped him, tried to cuff him again. THEN, they tasered him.
With each escalating step, the gentleman in question grew louder and more uncooperative. He kept evading the officers, and it is clear from the video that when they tried to cuff him, they broke free of their grip and deflected the cuffs.
Like I said, they didn't need to Taser him. But if there were only two officers, let's say, instead of the four or five that were there, then it might have been appropriate.
This guy was NOT a passive protester, going limp in a cop's arms while being dragged away bodily to the paddy wagon. He was disruptive and rude, and I do understand why people were clapping when he was being walked away. (No one was clapping when he got zapped.)
Diomedes
Cynical much?
Let me get this straight: you've never actually FINISHED a marathon, and you're ragging on people who have?
First of all, instead of assuming you'll be faster than these folks, why don't you actually finish the whole 26 mile length before you lecture us.
Second of all, your article's premise, muddled though it is, is flawed. The elite American runners are not hampered in any way by the amateur marathoners (of which you are not even one). At no point do those few top American runners, blessed by genetics and honed by hard work, look back from their scrum at the front of the race and say "Damn, all those fatties back there depress me. They treat this race like a fun run and therefore I am emasculated and will slow down..." They're too busy trying to win, and frankly, are probably well-aware that all those flabbies out back admire them and are the closest thing to a fan club they will ever have.
And sir, I am not a competitive marathoner, but I ran varsity cross-country in high school, have done my share of 5Ks since then, and am very much looking forward to crossing the marathon off my life list this time next year.
So you can kiss my amateur butt. As for the rest of you, good luck and finish strong!
1) His positions are earnestly left-wing, and we are a Nation At War. That means we don't have time to play peacenik when the Evil Islamofascists are coming to get us. Unfortunately, the right has painted us into that box and we seem happy to remain there.
2) He is short and skinny and meek-voiced, and doesn't look "Presidential."
The election of a President is more of an emotional bit of theatrics than we all want to believe. We say we care about issues, but we vote based on emotions.
Anyone who disagrees with me should remember that the MSM has spent time actually asking whether Giuliani's baldness would hinder his campaign. Thompson, He Who Cannot Keep Supporters Awake, got and instant credibility surge from voters because he's six foot five. It only fizzled when folks realized he's sleepwalking through this thing.
Romney looks like Ken and we all love his hair so maybe his Mormonism won't be as big a factor?...
Ah, we deserve the leaders we vote in.
Why bother with this argument at all?
It's going to be between Rudy and Hillary next year and we all know it.
All these debates, ostensibly between divergent political cultures, are taking place on Salon.com, so nobody here should think for a second that any of us, pro or anti-Paul, represent the average voter.
And the average voter isn't going to vote for this dude.
So enjoy the debate, I admit it's made for some interesting reading.
But Ron Paul doomed his candidacy to failure when he refused to launch an independent bid and stated his intention to stick with the GOP.
And the GOP is a top-down organization, and they have made it plain and clear they're not interested in this guy.
If Paul launched a third-party bid, he could use his internet coffers to ensure that his message survives beyond the primaries.
As it stands now, that's not going to happen.
And nobody please label me anti-Ron Paul. To say that I feel ambivalent about the upcoming election is an understatement. But I'm not betting on that horse, sir.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
