A Minutemen co-founder’s speech at a well-respected university was disrupted by students engaged in illegal activity designed to shut down his talk. The tactic apparently worked.

Columbia? No — Georgetown.

This time they didn’t rush the stage and start a brawl. That would be wrong.

They pulled the fire alarm.

But at least they cared!

OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: The story is not yet confirmed.

[posted by Justin Levine – Not Patterico] 

Reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret John Kerry’s recent remarks. Others can reasonably disagree about how important a story it actually is.

But regardless of these issues, the inside story of how all of this became a national controversy is important reading to illustrate once again just how the news business has changed in the information age – and how each of you now have the potential to determine the news cycle.

“I quickly asked my producer Lisa Goich whether we were, in fact, taping Channel 4 and thankfully she told me we were. We then found the clip and realized that what I thought I heard Kerry say was exactly what he had really said. Everyone on my show, as well as Justin Levine a producer for Bill Handel’s morning show, agreed that this statement was outrageous and very news worthy.”

I suppose my very small part in it can be described (at best) as a “footnote of a footnote” – but whatever.

[posted by Justin Levine]

John Kerry was on Imus this morning. The transcript is here.

He said Bush didn’t send enough troops to Iraq:

These guys have failed America. The people who owe an apology are people like Donald Rumsfeld, who didn’t send enough troops, who didn’t listen to the generals, who has made every mistake in the book.

and also that Bush sent too many troops to Iraq:

John McCain says we ought to send another 100,000 troops over there. First of all, we don’t have another 100,000 troops. Secondly, if you send them over there, it’s going to do exactly what’s already happened, which is attract more terrorists and more jihadists. Our own generals are telling us that it’s the numbers of troops that are the problem.

Hoo-kay then.

The trouble with John Kerry is not that he deliberately insulted the troops — a claim I consider dubious in light of the entire video. Rather, his trouble is that he and his party have no alternative to Bush’s policies.

They have only one consistent message: Bush is wrong.

Without a coherent alternative, I don’t think that’s a winning message.

P.S. Although it doesn’t make much sense to me as an argument, I suppose he may have meant that we sent too few early on, and have too many there now. He is known for nuance, after all . . .

P.P.S. Allah noted this contradiction earlier.

UPDATE: I inserted the word “deliberately” above to make the point clearer, in response to an on-point comment from nk.

Hot Air has what appears to be the uncut video depicting the single most important issue facing America today: John Kerry’s remarks about President Bush or our troops.

Allah says it’s inconclusive. I think it looks like he’s making fun of Bush — not our troops.

The remark follows on the heels of a couple of lame jokes about Republicans and Bush. He’s arguably getting serious, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

P.S. Dafydd ab Hugh disagrees.

P.P.S. I should clarify: I think Allah is correct that it is not conclusive, exactly. But I think that the better interpretation is the innocent one. And it makes his reluctance to apologize understandable; if he didn’t mean to insult our troops, an apology makes him sound like he’s admitting that he did. Hence the “I’m sorry you misunderstood me” non-apology apology.

I do think it’s insulting for him to say that the White House “knew” he didn’t mean to insult the troops. His statement certainly was not crystal clear. The folks at the White House weren’t the ones who made an ambiguous and awkward statement. Kerry was.

P.P.P.S. The troops are not mollified — but they are funny.

P.P.P.P.S. Yes, I am indeed joking about this being the single most important issue facing America today.

Is it rape if a woman begins sex with a man, then says no — but the man continues?

In California, it is.

In Maryland, apparently, it’s not.

Maryland’s rule strikes me as bizarre. So a man can enter a woman, whisper in her ear that he considers her a dirty whore, and she can’t change her mind? That’s absurd. What if it’s painful for her, so she cries out for him to stop? He can just keep going? Ridiculous.

It’s not going to be rape if the man takes a couple of seconds to stop. But if a woman says no, even after sex begins, it’s no.

Feel free to rip me to shreds in the comments for my alleged political correctness.

UPDATE: I should note that I don’t actually consider my position to be rooted in political correctness. I consider it just common sense. My reference to “political correctness” was a tongue-in-cheek anticipation of the criticism I figured I would get from some quarters. I’m adding the word “alleged” to the sentence to make that more clear.

UPDATE x2: Typo fixed.