The 6-minute video was not worth watching when you could have described the situation in a paragraph I could have read in 30 seconds. Guy describes contest, someone with camera follows her to the car. There were no outbursts, no real communication with the subject even. The video was too long, too dizzying, and not worth the time it took to watch it.

i'm just outraged. i sent an email to my senator (wimp feinstein...and don't get me started on boxer, who didn't vote!) asking how after all of the hearings that demonstrated how dishonest AG AG is and how they can't be trusted with the program they have now, that she could vote to give them MORE POWER.

ugh. disgusting.

...who asked where the hypocrisy argument beings and ends with the "Salonistas":

The hypocrisy begins where an elected official rails against, votes against, campaigns on, and gets elected for being against activities in public that he actually participates in when he is in private. To wit:

-Being gay/participating in homosexual conduct (Craig, Foley)

-Declaring all drug users of all stripes should go to jail for a long time (Rush)

-Having extramarital affairs (too many to list)

-Being against abortion when you’ve helped your daughter/ex-girlfriend 40 years ago get one (I don’t have any names here, but that would be cool)

-Prostitution (though I realize legalizing this one is touchy on both sides of the aisle)

If you don’t stake your career on being against these items, when you actually partake, it’s just not as shocking. If you put yourself up as one thing and turn out to be something very different, that’s just false advertising. People get angry when they’re misled. Plus, the Group of Perverts (love it) likes to point out they “stand for something” while the dems are “wimps.” So it’s amusing when it turns out they don’t even believe in what they say they stand for. Why is that so surprising?

I'm ashamed to say that I saw the whole segment, live (that's what flipping on a Friday night will get you).

First, 3 out of the 5 finalists were atrocious. How did they all make it presumably through many local and state competitions to the national one with such bad public speaking skills? Many used the word "like" over and over, did the valley-girl uptalk thing, and generally didn't make sense. There is such a thing as preparation, and they clearly didn't do it.

Second, if you don't hear the question the first time, you ask for it to be repeated. Standard interviewing strategy.

Third, as my roommate put it, she's only gotten away with being this dumb for so long because she's so pretty. Start putting a premium on smarts rather than beauty and she'll hit the books.

Fourth, it's too bad she lives in the Internet age. Pageant contestants have said dumb stuff for a long time. But presumably she knew she was going on national tv, and that the Internet exists, so whatever she says when she puts herself into the spotlight is fair game.

Rugh.

Here I thought you were going to say what was really wrong with the question: There is no context-appropriate answer.

Gee, let's think of some:

1. because the state of education in this country is crap

2. because teachers are underpaid and overworked

3. because teachers are underqualified

4. because the rich people send their children to private school, taking their time and resources away from the public ones

5. because we've abandoned poor districts, which will only be exacerbated by the recent supreme court decision regarding school diversity

6. because no child left behind sucks

7. because we're a culture that favors brawn and looks over brains, hailing beauty queens on prime time when we relegate the national spelling be to the look-at-the-freaky-kids late-night timeslot on the Ocho.

How would any have these have played well in a beauty contest? You can't speak truth to power when you're trying to get the power (and the network they broadcast on) to give you the crown.

I still think she was sloppy for not asking to have the question repeated if she didn't hear it the first time. But seriously, when you think about it, there was nothing she could say.

Here's the thing, Mr. he-asked-for-it types, where does the Taser fall on the spectrum of police violence for you?

It's not arresting. Sure, so it's an escalation.

Is it equal, better or worse than hitting the guy with a nightstick? If it's equal or worse, then you have to ask if it would have been ok for the police to have hit the student.

I don't think tasing is better than hitting/nighsticking.

The fact is, it's an act of violence by police on people. It seems nicer, because the cop doesn't ahve to expend any energy, so it doesn't look at mean as punching someone, or putting your foot on them. But from all account, it HURTS. It's an easy way out for the police. And if no form of physicaly violence would have been acceptable, then the electric kind is not either.

(y'all are starting to sound like the types who say battered wives and rape victims "asked for it" too).

Whenever I go to check out a room in an apartment, or to buy something from someone in a private home, I try to:

1. Take someone with me.

If that's not possible:

2. I call someone (usually my boyfriend) and tell them the address, and say that if he doesn't hear from me in half an hour, to start calling and/or come looking.

These obviously aren't perfect, and might not have helped this poor woman. But it's something.