1) part of this discussion is a generational difference. I think back to the reaction of the WWII generation and their kids, the Flower Power, etc and massive anti-war (Vietnam) protests that included the Kent State debacle and bombings of university lab thought to be “colluding” with the defense department. (I will try to not let you know my age)
2) this, the Burmese, and so many others demonstrate the power, the necessity and the foresight of the American Founding Fathers. I rather think that placing the Right to Free Speech and the Separation of Church and state as first and foremost of the amendments, and, actually making it an amendment (actually more prominent this way) was brilliant. And so, it is imperative that we maintain the 4th Estate – whether as electronic or print media.
The Internet blogging, reporting does place another level on the 4th Estate. This is why we are all part and parcel of the 4th Estate in some way – to bear witness and report what we know, whether it be in an office, on the street, in a shop, …. (Yes, we know about the difficulty of “fact checking”, but all publications are not equal. The National Enquirer and People are also members of the 4th Estate, just as CNN, NYT and WSJ.)
But, this also shows the power of picture and esp video over words alone. The power of words is to evoke those pictures. (too bad about Kodachrome)
3) I wondered as I watched many of the YouTube videos that there were no arms with the demonstrators. I figured as much re: ban on firearms. (Again, a reason for the 2nd Amendment. The Founding Fathers were fearful that the fledgling republic might lose its way and require, well, what we saw in 1861.)
Gotta tell you, though. As I saw those silly Basij on their motor scooters, I was just itching for a good bullwhip, a la Indiana Jones style. (I am also well aware of the result of a good strong rope that suddenly pulled up (esp to neck height) would have done. I’m told that long ago, a relative was killed that way.)
4)for the mother, the problem was which of her beliefs was more inviolate. In this case, it was that a religious person could do not wrong. This trumped what she could see. The real question is if that would continue to be her reaction if she had been in the street with her, been physically present in her dying.
