Andrew Meyer

Andrew Meyer may have cut in line, gone over his time limit, asked obnoxious questions, or even planned the whole thing(which I doubt) but did he deserve to be arrested and tazered by the police? Did the police have any right to even ask him to stop talking?
After looking at as many perspectives as possible and reading the police report I would have to say: No, the police acted inappropriately.
It really doesn't matter if he cut in line or went over his "time limit" because as far as I know neither of those offenses warrant police intervention or arrest. If that were the case then every politician who I have watched during a Political Debate should have been arrested and tazered and Every "crowder" at Magic Mountain should be behind bars.
Lets take a look at the accusation that he when over his alloted time. First I have heard that questioners where given either 1 minute or 1 minute and 30 seconds. I am not sure if either is true so I will go with the shorter of the two times. Meyer spoke at the mic for exactly 1 minute and 31 seconds. So, I think it would be save to say that he didn't exactly hog the mic. However, If his time limit was 1 minute he did indeed go over his alloted time. Then why did the officer ask him to move on and give up the mic at almost exactly 30 seconds? If you watch one of the videos that shows his entire question(s) you see that the officer interrupts Meyer after he has been at the mic for only 30 seconds. This interruption caused Meyer to tell the officer he wasn't done and wanted to finish and only expected a couple of minutes. If you subtract this interruption from Meyer's mic time you see that he was actually only at the mic for just over a minute. While at the mic he even thanked Kerry for taking the time to speak to the students. So what does this all mean? The Police or who ever was directing the police didn't want Meyer asking questions.
Now to the cutting in line accusation. It's really not very clear if this is true or not. Sources are very sketchy regarding this accusation. However, I will entertain the notion that this is true. If he did indeed cut in line why did the Police wait until he was done talking to remove him? You can see that he was waiting at the mic while Kerry was finishing answering another students question. Then Kerry asks Meyer what what his question is. The total time Meyer is standing silent in front of the mic waiting is 10 to 15 seconds. The police should have done something then if that was the reason this "trouble maker" was singled out. Meyers decision to ask Kerry questions was not a spur of the moment thing. Thus I think that it would be more logical to assume that Meyer was ready to get in line to ask Kerry questions.
Now regarding the Reaction of the Police. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I've heard many justifications for why to police did what they did but to me none of them really stick. At no time does Meyer ever make a threatening gesture or comment. The reaction of the police clearly indicates that he was to be treated as a threat from the very get go. After the cut his mic two officers grab him by the arm and forcefully remove him from the mic. This is interesting because Meyer had already turned to step away. The officers had either made up their minds to make an example of this fellow or had already been directed to do so. Meyer asked several times "What did I do?" only to be hauled away by a team of 6 or more officers. His reaction in my mind is very logical. His actions clearly didn't warrant the reaction by the police. He had just asked some questions and wanted to be around to hear the answers. Kerry had even said that it was OK and that he would answer his questions.
The rest is to obvious to analyze. He was subdued and then tazered after asking.... pleading with officers not to. He even offered to leave voluntarily to avoid being tazered.

Newt Gingrich's "Phony War"

I've been hearing a little bit of buzz regarding a speech Newt Gingrich gave this past week in which he said, "We are engaged in a phony war". When this quote is put into context it makes a little bit more sense so I have posted a link where you can view some of his speech for yourself.
I have a couple of questions that I would like to throw out there regarding this comment made by Gingrich. First, was his choice of words potentially damaging to the Republicans stance on the War. It seems to me that individuals from the more liberal side of the political spectrum will have a field day with this.
My second question is whether or not this could possibly be the basis or thought that republicans could use to move away from full support of the war and how it's been waged to rejection of the status quo and the adoption of a plan that would be more "popular".

Newt's Speech http://familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1197988

Thanks

The Roads We Travel

The recent news regarding the tragedy on the Mississippi could help bring an important issue back to forefront in the debate amongst the candidates vying for their party's nomination. During almost every political debate you are guaranteed to hear questions addressing issues about foreign policy, Iraq, renewable energy, global warming, gay rights, religion, etc, etc. The topic you probably wont hear addressed but is very important to all Americans, especially those who traveled over that bridge on that fateful afternoon, has to do with our nation's infrastructure. It may sound silly but "the roads" is a very important topic to most Americans. It may not be as exciting to talk about as Iran or Sudan but it's what affects us on a day to day basis.
I recognize that the condition of our roads and bridges is in most cases an issue dealt with on the State and Local levels. However, with welfare states relying more and more on the Federal Government to solve their problems it seems only appropriate that the individuals who are campaigning to lead this country incorporate into their platform something that addresses their plan or thoughts regarding our nations infrastructure.
I'd be interested to know what you think about the role Government (State, Local, or Federal) should do to address the most basic needs of the American tax payer. I would also be curious to know if you think that there are any other fundamental issues that are overlooked during this or other election cycles. Thanks. Also, if you don't feel like leaving a comment please feel free to vote in the poll that in on the right hand side of my blog. Thanks

The Answer D

What is the answer D? And what would it do to the U.S. election process? It's actually quit simple. Any American who has gone to school and been subjected to a multiple choice test is more than familiar with the "Answer D". What answer D does is indicate to your teacher that you don't think answers A, B, and C are the correct answer thus you choose D... none of the above.
How many times have you listened to a Political debate or read about the candidates in the newspaper and thought "I don't really like any of these people"but then shown up to the polls on election day and voted for the "lesser of two evils". I must admit that there have been times when I have voted for someone not because I support them but because I don't want the other guy to win. And then, if my candidate does win, i only experience little bit of satisfaction because I didn't really like the guy or gal in the first place.
I was talking to one of my coworkers the other day and learned that he hadn't been to the polls in years. This surprised me because I consider this individual to be quite patriotic. I asked him why he hadn't voted and he told me, "Because there hasn't been anyone worth voting for".
This little conversation caused me to reflect upon how many people might consider their "no show" on election day as a vote. While I personally believe that it is important to vote on election day, I can see how someone might feel quite comfortable with choosing to not vote. I show up on election day to vote for someone, whether I like them or not, because I believe it give legitimacy to my Government and ultimately the Constitution. However, when there are lower turnouts on election day some legitimacy is lost. These "no voters" have ultimately cast a vote that has been felt.
I asked my coworker if he would vote if he knew that there would be a "none of the above" option on the ballot? He thought about it for a second and then said "ya, I would".

Now, I want to make it clear that I am not advocating such an option to be put on the Ballot. I think it is quite clear that would present several problems that might make our election system over complicated. I do think that there is some merit in this thought or concept that could be useful in discussion surrounding voter turnout. I also think it's.... well... fun to talk about it. I would love to hear any opinions or thoughts you might have regarding the subject.

APPROVAL RATINGS FOR CAPITAL HILL

President Bush may not be the most popular guy these days but it looks as thought the cynical outlook on what’s going on around capital hill is spreading. The new Democrat controlled congress has seen its job approval rating drop 5 points from 44 percent last April to 39 percent in the most recent polls. Over the same period of time congressional democrats have experienced an even more drastic drop in approval rating. Last April they were at around 54 percent but have dropped ten points and are now treading water at 44 percent.

What are the main contributing factors to such an overall drop in approval from the American public? And how will this affect the 08 elections?