I did not address you issue 7), and the Nation article made an issue out of it different than the one I would have. I do have a problem with corporate funding of university research, particularly given the lack of checks, balances, and even proper disclosure (the FDA, for instance, does not keep tabs on who paid for various studies beyond the initial clinical trials).

It is well known and well documented that researchers often skew research findings to favor their patrons. Having the research take place through a university gives it an appearance of objectivity that isn’t there.

I have ideas that you would regard as sadly out of date, such as freedom of thought and expression. That is one of the aims of education, particularly higher education.

Campuses are either state-operated or privately operated. What business, pray tell, does the Federal government have engaging in surveillance of them, particularly groups that have no known history of violent action? This isn’t like they are going after the old SDS which had a nasty fondness for blowing up buildings. Is is all right with you if they start surveilling churches? AA meetings? Private businesses? In principle, it is absolutely no different.

Your attitude reminds me of the comments I saw on YouTube on the video of the UCLA student who was tasered. Yes, he was being obnoxious in carrying on while leaving the library. But the official report made clear that students were almost never asked to show ID. Five guards there and he was tasered while on his way out, handcuffed, then tasered repeatedly. That was simply sadistic and unnecessary. He was not a threat and was complying despite his noise level.

Despite the fact that the force used was unreasonable and excessive (and Tasers have now been designated implements of torture by the UN), plenty of people stood up for the cops. This is nuts. People have lost all sense of proportion for the role of force in our lives. And cynically, I wonder at the effects of shows like 24 which has apparently inspired torture by soldiers in Iraq, and the dramatic increase in torture scenes in movies. We are being desensitized. Doesn’t anybody notice?

In principle, (1) seems entirely logical. If the federal government is *wrong* that potentially radical dissidents participate in these organizations, then it’s too bad that they’re wasting their effort. If they’re right, then it’s an impressively efficient (though politically incorrect) use of federal funds and effort.

I’d like to think some people at Virginia Tech would be very upset about your characterization of (2). There are increasingly real threats on campus that must be met with deadly force. Enough said.

I suspect that there are plenty of rape or violent crime victims who would also find (3) an insulting misrepresentation of efforts to improve safety around campus.

(4) is admittedly strange, but apparently a college education is smack dab in the middle of the profile for violent dissidents (or simply supplies a better quality of information for focusing resources on true risks). This follows with the statements in (1) that reflects on the government’s attempt to identify likely violent felons in the places where they are most likely to be found. Logical, at minimum.

A shocker, (5) follows (4) in lockstep. I don’t know the exact statistics, but running the rough numbers recently… 15 internationals, 5 unknown on 9/11… 1 american shoe bomber. Spending the money on the places that present the highest statistical risk… shockingly rational actions by the typically wasteful federal government.

Topping the list of risks to life and limb, the government has decided to invest in the development of technologies that would protect the American people. Apparently, what’s good enough for research in the basic sciences and medicine is too good for national defense. Why bother (6) using well understood mechanisms to attract students and researchers to “defense” problems.

And we hit home by (7) complaining that the private sector is also investing in research through our universities, homes of some of the best educated researchers on the planet. Clearly freedom stops at the front door of a major corporation, who must get Yves’ authorization to pay researchers who happen to work for universities to do research (researchers doing research… who’d have thunk it).

I appreciate that there may be instances where the government exceeds reasonable power or infringes on reasonable privacy. However, you need to cite those *incidents* rather than painting largely logical (and often unrelataed) activities as a massive conspiracy to hunt down and persecute “peace activists”.

One of the best quotes from the West Wing TV show was regarding the important issues of the day: “In the twenties and thirties it was the role of Government. Fifties and Sixties it was civil rights. The next twenty years it will be about privacy. The internet. Cell phones. Health records. And who is gay and who is not. Besides in a country born on the will to be free what could be more fundamental than this?