Student tased at Kerry meeting

Did the police help or make the situation worse?

Police arrested University of Florida student Andrew Meyer at a public forum featuring Senator John Kerry. Police subsequently subdued Meyer with a taser after he refused to leave the event peacefully.

By Shannon Cocci

What was the point of trying to arrest, then taser Andrew Meyer? Was it because he used up his microphone time? Because his questions were obnoxious? Because he insulted the U.S. President?

No, none of these things are crimes or grounds for tasering someone. Had the police just let him finish, people at the University of Florida would have talked about what Andrew said for a few days and then forgotten about it when something more interesting happened. By putting him under arrest and then tasering him when he pleaded to be let go, the police made sure that no one was likely to forget this event.

Kerry didn’t seem to mind answering Meyer’s questions. He even told the police to stop so he could answer them. Clearly, Kerry did not feel very threatened by a 21-year-old college student asking him questions about his relationship with George Bush.

Meyer was not doing anything threatening. He did not have any weapons and he was not doing anything to harm anyone else. The only thing that Meyer is guilty of is asking questions for too long (there was a time limit) and perhaps acting a little obnoxious in his questioning. Had the police just let him finish talking, nothing bad would have happened.

There have been some comments online in which people have said that Meyer was only doing what he did for attention. If that’s true, then the police just played into what Meyer wanted. No one will forget this incident in a hurry.

The police are the ones at fault for this incident. They should have just let Meyer ask his questions. He would have had to stop eventually; Kerry had to leave at some point. Had the police just left Meyer alone, everyone would have forgotten the whole affair within the matter of a few weeks. The people outside the forum would never have heard them. Now, people all over the country, and probably the world, know what happened that day.

Perhaps Meyer was being loud and obnoxious in his questioning, but as I stated above, that is not a crime. Asking a politician a question about his relationship to another politician is not a crime either. Suggesting the impeachment of President Bush is also not a crime (otherwise half of us would be in jail right now, too). The only reason for trying to arrest and taser Meyer that I can fathom is that they were trying to silence him. Well, if that was their goal, what they achieved was exactly the opposite. Anyone who owns a TV or a computer will know exactly what Meyer had to say.

INKLINGS

Taking a lesson from the book of Monty Python

By Allison Reitz

When I first saw the video footage of Andrew Meyer, the insolent and obnoxious University of Florida student, being Tasered, I was instantly reminded of the third scene from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.”

If you’ve seen the film, you know which scene I’m talking about.

The annoying peasant Dennis (Michael Palin), collecting filth in a field with his anarcho-syndicalist buddies, verbally harasses King Arthur (Graham Chapman) about the political order in England. After listening to this inane whining for about a minute, King Arthur orders Dennis to be quiet and, when his demands are ignored, roughs him up.

Dennis takes full advantage of the situation by calling out to his fellow filth-wallowers, “Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!” King Arthur gives up and walks away while Dennis continues on, “Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?”

Sure — King Arthur didn’t have to sucker punch Dennis. As a leader, it was probably done in poor taste. But repression...?

Dennis had already said everything he wanted to say; everything else was just provocation to prove his point. And he got what he was looking for: a couple of bruises and a story to make him famous.

Now, back to Mr. Congeniality, Andrew Meyer.

Was whipping out a Taser the best way to resolve the situation? No. Did Meyer pass the point of free speech into the murky territory of provocation? Yes. Did he fight back when the police tried to escort him away? Yes. Did he then resist arrest? Yes.

So why are we, like Dennis, so ready to point and yell, “Come and see the violence inherent in the system!”?

Are we upset because this happened in America? Are we eager to find flaws in our system (because this is the time we’re actually going to do something about it)? Are we trying to find a champion whose video we can also laugh at on YouTube? Or do we just really like complaining about how rough we have it?

Yes, it is sad that police at an American university used force against an unarmed student. It shouldn’t happen anywhere, much less in a public forum. But don’t make Meyer your poster child for police brutality. There are so many more pressing issues of freedom in the world today; to give Meyer more than his 15 minutes of fame would be a disgrace.

Do you want to see real violence and oppression of speech? Turn on the evening news and educate yourself about the situation in Myanmar. There, civilians protest against the military junta that has ruled their country since the late ‘80s, the State Peace and Development Council (formerly the State Law and Order Restoration Council). The SPDC has gained a reputation for its restrictions against humanitarian groups in the country.

Watch the footage of peaceful protestors — many of whom are Buddhist monks —marching against the country’s military regime only to be beaten and herded into military trucks. One such video, reported by the Associated Press, shows the body of a bruised monk floating face-down in a river. Also in the report, Myanmar’s main prison is so overcrowded that universities and other educational facilities have been converted into holding cells.

Hear the accounts of all the individuals in that country who have been arrested or gone missing since the protests, some for doing as little as supplying protesting monks with food and water. (Myanmarian comedian Zarganar was detained for this “offense” and released a day later.)

I’m not saying you can’t feel badly for Meyer. Just put a wider scope on your perspective and learn what real repression and oppression are like before you start tossing those terms around. And if you want a rallying cry against the repression of free speech, you would do better to take a page from a book of Buddhist prayer than utter Meyer’s cheeky “Don’t Tase me, bro!”

Allison is the editor-in-chief of The Torch. Share your reactions to her weekly column by contacting her at u_areitz@umassd.edu.

SOUL SIGHTINGS

‘Everyone is doing it’

How may times has each of us used this expression as an excuse for doing what we want to do? At this point an exasperated parent or other adult usually says, “So if your friends decide to jump off a bridge with the possibility of being killed, it’s all right because everyone is doing it?” Sound familiar? It should, since most of us have been in a similar situation. There seems to be several issues here. First is the issue of how to tell right from wrong. Second is the matter of our living as people of integrity. Third is — what does it mean to be free?

Most of us have a notion of what is appropriate and what is not. Frequently, cartoonists use images of an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other shoulder each whispering into our ear. The angel is saying, “You know what you are about to do is wrong,” while on the other shoulder the devil is saying, “Go for it. No one is around; you won’t get caught.” The angel is frequently called the voice of our conscience while the little devil is used as an excuse for doing what appears to be fun. Most of us know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. However, along the way, because of repeated choices to do what was perceived as fun, the voice of conscience has become weaker. So weak in fact that it is hardly ever heard and the ability to tell right from wrong is, for all practical purposes, lost.

In contrast, individuals of integrity listen to their conscience. They are people who do not just talk about doing or saying what is right to appear “good.” They actually live what they talk about. In other words they “walk the walk, not just talk the talk.” These are individuals of integrity who are the same on the inside and the outside. So they don’t cheat on exams, “borrow” books and materials from the bookstore, throw garbage out of the car window or trash their home or dormitory. This list could go on and on. People of integrity value and respect themselves and are thus able to value and respect others. They have no need to demean others in order to “prove” they are better than anyone else.

Finally, there is freedom. We all have our own definition of what being free means. Much of the time that definition carries the feel of being able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want; the only “sin” is getting caught. While this may sound like freedom, it is in actual fact a form of slavery since our whims, fantasies and desires are in control of our actions. We are not free to say no, I am not going to do this or that. It is as if we are on automatic pilot believing we must fulfill every desire regardless of the consequences, driven by the desire for more and more — all of which is never enough. True freedom is found in being able to walk away from the party or refuse the beer that crosses the line between sobriety and inebriation. True freedom does not need to demean another in any way in order to feel good about one’s self. This kind of freedom is not easy to develop. We need to practice by making choices offered by our conscience. We all know when our conscience speaks. However, being mature enough to “walk the walk” may oftentimes feel too difficult.

Sr. Madeleine Tacy, OP
Catholic Campus Ministry

Bringing the enemy to America

By Jeff Trull

This past week Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the United States. As the story usually goes, Ahmadinejad created the typical frenzy.

Yes, he once again denied the occurrence of the Holocaust. No, he was not allowed to visit the World Trade Center site. And yes, he did speak at Columbia University, amid a huge controversy.

Ahmadinejad came to the U.S. to speak in front of the United Nations. While on this trip, he requested to visit the World Trade Center site in New York City. Ahmadinejad’s request to visit the site was appropriately denied for multiple reasons. His idea to visit the World Trade Center site was simply as ridiculous as his ideals. Had it been a different world leader, the proposal to lay a wreath at the site where nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives would be an honorable gesture.

But for Ahmadinejad, the proposal was none other than an attempt at creating another media spectacle for the anti-American leader to parade around in. To allow another terrorist onto the grounds of the infamous attack that took place six years ago would have been a tragedy in itself.

Even though Ahmadinejad was not allowed at the WTC site, he did pay a visit to Columbia University. Still, Ahmadinejad was by no means greeted with open arms there, either. Despite harsh criticism from various Jewish organizations and others, Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger invited Ahmadinejad for a question and answer session. But before being asked any questions, Ahmadinejad faced an unfriendly and unwelcoming introduction by Bollinger, who called Ahmadinejad a “petty and cruel dictator.”

The intro by Bollinger was satisfying, given the circumstances surrounding the event. With all the controversy and anger directed at the Columbia University President for inviting Ahmadinejad, Bollinger had to do something to appease those who even went as far as calling for his resignation.

The insults hurled at Ahmadinejad were fitting and correct as to the type of person he truly is. While the type of introduction given by Bollinger would be inappropriate for most visitors, Ahmadinejad is certainly an exception to typical standards.

When challenged to answer the questions, Ahmadinejad’s responses duplicated the similar illogical tone of the past. When asked about homosexuality, his response that “in Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” was received by laughter from the audience, followed by boos.

When asked about whether or not he seeks the destruction of Israel, he issued a verbose response that led a request by the moderator that he “answer the question with a simple yes or no.” Ahmadinejad, of course, still refused to do that. Instead, he questioned the accuracy and truth behind the Holocaust, as if the deaths of millions of Jews are debatable rather than a concrete fact.

The idea that Ahmadinejad, a seemingly well-educated leader of a country, truly believes this is startling.

While the decision to bring Ahmadinejad to Columbia was highly disputed, much of what Ahmadinejad said simply confirmed what we already knew about him. However, something about the outcome of the experience is almost gratifying.

If he wants to come to the United States, the country he so clearly hates, and he accepts an invitation to this type of event, why not take a few shots at him? And indeed, he looked nervous and uncomfortable at times as he answered the questions in front of the crowd at Columbia University. Outside his native soil, Ahmadinejad was not the same brave leader that he appears as back in the Middle East.

While Ahmadinejad is not (and never will be!) a U.S. citizen, the United States believes in freedom of speech. Although Ahmadinejad may not believe in true free speech in his own country, he was granted the freedom to say whatever he chose in response to the questions asked.

On top of this, the appearance was meant as an educational experience for students at Columbia. He was given the chance to defend himself by dispelling some of the negative beliefs against him. But he did not end up doing any of this. He gave few answers to the questions asked, and the responses he did give made him appear silly at times.

In the end, Ahmadinejad did not say anything to ease the nerves of the American public. He is no different than we thought.

POLITICAL CARTOON