Perhaps I didn't truly appreciate, when I was younger, now narrow the path he chose, and how broad the path of bitterness and hatred.
We also see the wisdom in King in that the non-violent, non-bitter way was so effective. One would think for that reason alone it would be more often applied.
Hard to take the news media seriously given the cartoonish, over-coverage on the trial. I assume it's designed to serve the anger needs of a public that likes to feel outraged. Certainly the threat of riots doesn't mean the media have to discard their judgement of what's proportionate coverage. Makes me appreciate the refuge of newspapers, which have devoted a relatively small fraction of their daily ink to the overblown trial.
I like Jim Geraghty's take on the needless polarizations:
In the past few months, we've witnessed news events where the media quickly turned the story into a binary choice between two options:
Do we want to support the Syrian rebels or the Assad regime? Is Snowden a hero or a traitor? Do we stand with Morsi or with the Egyptian military?Of course, in all of those examples, both antagonists are deeply flawed, perhaps too flawed to be worthy of official U.S. support, or even public-opinion support...Snowden may have done the public a service by exposing an invasive surveillance system that violated privacy rights and perhaps the Fourth Amendment, but he also broke his oath, the law, and is now playing footsie with some of the world's most repressive regimes.And now we have the George Zimmerman case. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that so many of our fellow citizens are choosing sides on Team Trayvon or Team Zimmerman, and insisting that the only form of "justice" would be the verdict that they prefer.Why must we pick a side? Why is there this compulsion to declare one side is the "good guy" here?...