Ah, but what short memories we have when motivated only by convenience. This seems pretty mild when viewed against the backdrop of the 1968 Democratic national convention in Chicago, inside the hall and out, for those who remember what rock-em-sock-em freedom of assembly looked like when the donkey was in the crosshairs. Can someone at the R-G explain what including the ethnicity of the punched protestor adds to the editorial beyond tapping into a deep vein of PC self-righteousness? (And there's no "u" in front.)