Let's get our ideas of what a "hero" is in order, too. It ain't some war-enabling puppet like Petraeus. It is someone fearless and strong enough to stand up to violence. Without using violence. That is heroic.

That's what I'm talking about. Well said.

And how.

It is amazing these peaceful monks, these human beings, can be so brave in the face of such terror.

Now I hear the world is putting pressure on China to calm the situation in Burma.

I'm not terribly proud about it, but it was a Hollywood flick that first alerted me to the plight of the Burmese and their matriarch Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest there for years. But, if anyone hasn't seen it, I'd recommend "Beyond Rangoon."

P.S. All you Bloggers -- You continue to make a difference. I read at www.buzzle.com that Burmese bloggers have been keeping the world posted on this week's horrific events.

thanks kevin.

i have to admit, i'm not really always that kind of hero. jeje. but i do admire it. just like i admire the buddhist monks. but hey. thats what heroes are for...so i guess that's my point.

gracias hombre, i´ve been looking for some current and concrete example of peaceful resistance for el niño who is waaaay to focused on swords, bows and arrows, aggrssive conflict resolution, and killing off dragons.

tomorrow i will buy a paper, sometimes it takes me longer to see the obvious.

Heroic deaths against almost insurmountable odds.

Here in America do our anti-war/anti-racism protesters have to get shot in cold blood before anyone sees what is happening in America? And how many have to die before someone notices? And will the people who run this country notice at all, or will they sweep them under the rug with labels of anti-american and go back to the troughs?

Watching the father of a fallen military man get jumped and kicked by a few vicious little cunts- A gathering of "Eagles" - while a ten times their number of anti war protesters sat around being non-violent and doing nothing didn't make me think of heroes. They made me think of slaves.

In a world with a real democracy, with real journalistic integrity, and with real morals= maybe nonviolence will eventually Solve the brutal simple fucks that dared to attack a man whose son died protecting THEIR freedom. But it sure felt like cowardice...sitting around waiting for enough people to wake up in order to deal with the brutal bully that our government has become.

Watching those "eagles" chuckling and laughing and WALKING away didn't look like justice either. Is fighting back REALLY counterproductive- or is it a myth that keeps us milling about in circles while most of the nation pretends not to see?

I didn't always think like this. But day by day, month by month, YEAR AFTER YEAR- it looks like the only sane way to effect change. Do I want to be shot in the head, while kneeling down in a peaceful protest= or would I rather go down fighting? Is that wrong?

well, being non-violent as a philosophy is something you have to understand in your heart, or it makes no sense. i dont know that i'm there. and yeah, it feels a bit different when you put it the way you have: watching someone else get beat. but allowing someone else to suffer violence...is that really promoting nonviolence? perhaps they could have tried to intervene without being violent. just standing there? not even trying to stop it? well, i agree. that does sound like cowardice.

but philosophically, i guess the idea is that you are losing by giving in to a force you find destructive. probably a better example would involved not fighting back if someone is beating you down. you know, "turning the other cheeek' and all that?

but i understand your point. i dont think its wrong if you want to go down fighting. i'm a fighter, trust me. i dont know that i can do the monk thing.

but at the same time, i think i would feel that someone who was able to not give into violence even in the face of hate or aggression was somehow a bit more evolved than me. i can't help feeling that way, too. because you know, the more who act like that, well. the less violence there is in the world.

Well, some of the monks are anything but non-violent -- they know how to throw a punch as well -- and there's been some of that happening in Burma as well.

Fade, I hear what you are saying and agree. The folks standing around while that beating was going on were not practicing non-violence but rather were in a state of both fear and shock and unable to think straight enough to do anything. We have been so conditioned not to resist, truly resist what is going on in America today. Your question is a good one -- will it take being gunned down in cold blood before we wake up and realize no one is going to save us, that we will have to save ourselves?

Nezua has the right idea - the real non-violent response would have been to intervene, to get between the man being attacked and his attackers, to allow themselves to take the hits instead, without fighting back, but without cowering, either. That is a very difficult thing to do, and it takes training that most of us have not received. It is not something that comes naturally to the vast majority of us.

Wrote a poem inspired by the monks of Burma ... http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=851, entitled "Helpless." So much oppression in the world nowadays - whether you're poor or rich, don't matter. We're all struggling to awaken from this nightmare.

well said.