Column: Tased UF student raises important issues
Published Sept. 21, 2007
I'd like to begin my column this week by noting that if you're into fetishistic electrical stimulation, commonly known in the Bondage, Domination, Sado-masochism community as "electrotism," there are a few distinguished police officers at the University of Florida who will provide that service to you for free.
I refer, of course, to the recent incident videotaped and brought to the world by YouTube.com, in which a student, gesticulating wildly, but not in a threatening or obscene manner, asks Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a question about the 2004 election and is tackled, arrested and shocked with a Taser in front of a stunned audience.
The police argue that their actions were justified by the fact that the young man had gone over time, despite Kerry's claim that he would answer the student's question.
Whether the police were justified or not in their actions, and there are some conflicting anecdotal reports, this incident raises some pertinent issues relevant to freedom of speech and its suppression in this political climate.
I'd like to begin at the top, of course: If our nincompoop of a president is a convenient scapegoat for the violation of the First Amendment rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, it's because he's responsible for the actions of the executive branch to limit those freedoms. Perhaps the biggest difference between this administration and every other is how exceptionally insular it is.
People who meet the president are thoroughly screened, public appearances - usually on military bases or in front of very conservative crowds - are scripted, information that reaches him is thoroughly vetted and dissenting views are suppressed.
The result is a presidency that has from the beginning been fundamentally out of touch with not just its own conservative base, but also with the nation as a whole. This, I suppose, is to be expected when Dick Cheney and Karl Rove spoon-feed you so that you don't have to choke on the pretzel of an opposing view. And even when your advisers are both reliable, such as Michael Brown, former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and competent, such as Alberto Gonzales, it's still a bad idea to exclusively filter subordinates who fall into the same ideological compound.
Not only will information take on its own particular slant, but also the lag time between reception, processing and dissemination grows, and decisions that could have been competently made in a timely manner become ineptly made too late to cause real change. When you never know how much disagreement exists because the people who are most vehement about protesting are out of sight and out of mind, it's easy to believe that things are going well and that you're doing the right thing.
Because that's the thing about Bush: He honestly believes he's doing the right thing. And just because there are enough people who are willing to believe a man who is strong in his convictions — sorry, religious right — just because the man gave your church charities a massive slush fund doesn't mean that his policies are intellectually sound or competently executed. And really, it's nice to think that the person who's ultimately in charge of my well-being will "stay the course," let solutions "stand up as problems stand down," and refuse to "cut and run" at the slightest sign of trouble.
This administration failed not just because its policies are intellectually unsound and dishonest, but also because of a failure to listen. It's kind of like a submissive unable to say the safe word as it's getting electrocuted because it didn't listen during the bondage preparations.
Hint: It's "Don't Tase me, bro."