If I'm not mistaken, Walter Cronkite (quite an amorable man) wrote the introduction to 1984 the commemorative version...in which was quoted, by whoever wrote it (in this case I claim it to have been Walter Cronkite)

"Every freedom surrendered for WHATEVER the purpose, being security or saftey, is STILL a freedom lost"

Hmm that's more of a Paraphrase but that is the essense, 1984 should be taught in all government or english classes, and another good "documentary" would definately help Americans to understand JUST what freedom is.

It is called ANNA and was filmed in the soviet union from about 1975ish to 1991 which was the fall of the soviet union. It chronicles the growth of the filmer maker's daughter during the soviet union, it was illegal to make such video but he did anyways, it is VERY scary to see HOW much like George Orwell's Ingsoc that the Soviet Union really was. It was worse then Nazi Germany. And unlike nazis it was ALL caught on tape...from innocense of a child lost, to the brainwashing and eventual dependency of the system due to "lies" handed out by the government.

At one point he asks his daughter about 8 or so, what WANTS most and unlike in america where it is "doctor" or "actor/ress" kind of thing...she said flat out and near robotically, "To give good answers"



Sincerely,
no signature

Walter is also very much pro-gun control. Or does he not count that part of our individual liberties important.

That is an intersting point, but it is not uncommon for someone who is very much for political activism and public awareness and freedoms....to still be FOR gun control, that area is a hairy one much like religion and usually is based on fear more then facts, I bet if someone would do a survey they'd find most Anti-gun control people grew up with guns in the house or hunting, and pro-gun control people probably never had ANY experiences with guns, and like-wise there will always be exceptions.

Sincerely,
no signature

It's one of those odd things that media heroes don't travel well: Sullivan, Carson, Letterman, Cronkite, Rather tend to leave non-Americans cold (Rather the worst) and the same is indisputably true vice versa.
But it has to be said that Cronkite has a good record as a journalist and I'm not aware of any very great scandal with which he, as a man, was even tangentially connected.
He's played his career well (e.g. getting into anti-Vietnam topics at the right time); but why shouldn't he?

..is " control" - some people immediately make it synonymous with restrictions or banning.
Everyone, apart from fools or knaves, wants some sort of gun-control: America has ample gun control (simply ineffectually applied - it's well known that at the right gun fair you can just roll up and buy).
No one wants to see three-year olds with machine guns or the mentally incapacitated with rifles: I suspect that most people would accept that a name and an address would be essential.
Then, the anti-gun people have a way of starting with a few controls and suddenly claiming that the only control is banning.
The question after a shooting has always to be "what sort of control might have prevented this?"
Banning won't in every case - in Britain guns have effectively been banned for a century -people still get guns.
A car is another potential weapon of violent destruction: I'm for tough driving tests; but if you've passed the test why should you then be denied a car?
Effectively administered controls -yes. If the US's current controls were effectively administerd things would get better.
Control=banning: never. Look what happened in Prohibition, and I'd say the case of alcohol is a good analogy to the case of firearms.