Sure. We can be buds and disagree most of the time, no?

Tlaloc,

Our problem here is not that we misunderstand each other. I am fundamentally opposed to what you consider to be "the right thing".

Cho and /or the terrorists may do things to get attention, and we may all wish that they do not get this wish, or any of their wishes. But when that bumps up against our right to know, as opposed to being spoon-fed packaged information, then its just too bad. The terrorists will get their attention, sad to say.

People living in totalitarian regimes are "protected" against all manner of information, and this probably lessens the payoff to terrorists working against those regimes. This is consistent for the totalitarian regime, because they have no concept of the necessity nor the desirablity of an informed citizenry. Its not a tradeoff that I consider worthwhile.

Oh, they put it in terms of not giving the evil ones the attention that they want, or some other self-righteous drivel, but what it comes down to is that they (or some authority figure) gets to package the information and present us with a version that they think we can handle.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying someone should have stepped in and put a stop to it. I'm saying we collectively should have known better and never done it in the first place.

But we don't and we didn't. And that's about the best proof there is that we're going to lose ultimately. We're just not smart enough again collectively to do the right thing.

Now are we best buds?

Personally, I'd rather we all agreed to never mention the bastard's name again to rob him of the notoriety he craved and to help prevent any copycat crazies.

(Typos corrected, sorry.)

Personally, I'd rather we all agreed to never mention the bastards name again to rob him of the notariety he craved and to help prevent any copycat crazies.

I find this discussion fascinating - for it shows how little respect there is in our society for what real freedom means. So many people here, if given a little power - as gatekeepers - would love to exercise that power to decide what the rest of us get to know about the world.

Oh, they put it in terms of not giving the evil ones the attention that they want, or some other self-righteous drivel, but what it comes down to is that they (or some authority figure) gets to package the information and present us with a version that they think we can handle.

I say no. We are free people, and not only entitled to unfettered access to information, but I think we have at least some moral responsibility to seek out as much information as possible if we are to play our full role as citizens in a democracy.

This is a good way to start a comment. It gives fair warning that what you are about to read is a list of generalizations that make the writer feel good.

There isn't a news organization in existence that would have witheld the videos from the crazy sucker: and, man, was he crazy.

Actually, American media is a little more restrained than some others. They haven't shown things like the beheading of Nick Berg or all the dead bodies lying around after a bombing in Iraq. And I don't mean that as an anti-war comment, just that the media has been fairly restrained in showing the carnage.

To avoid the glorification of a murderer like Cho, maybe we should switch immediately from his posturing for the camera to the results of it. His post-suicide picture showing him so mangled that he was unidentifiable. That makes the whole 'going out in a blaze of glory' thing a lot less appetizing. These kids who grow up on the sanitized violence of movies and video games don't realize how grisly life really is.

The WTC was a planned media event, it wasn't a physical attack so much as an attempt to create a psychological effect. So what'd we do? We took that emotionally powerful image and fed into the world's largets media machine to make sure it was in everyone's face.

Brilliant.

Imagine how much it would have cost for someone we don't hate to buy that kind of advertising coverage? Al Qaeda got it for the price of a couple box cutters and nail clippers. Why? Cause we decided to give it to them.

No wonder we're losing. Darwinism in action.

("Seriously crazy" would seem to be the answer, not surprisingly.)