GROUND
ZERO PLUS 1086 DAYS--New York, NY, Monday,
August 30, 2004--It
was hard for me to discriminate between the peaceful, positive
protestors in yesterday's largest rally in this city's political
history and the terror it instilled through depicting the
current leadership as a group of hateful, violent liars, murders
and criminals who seek to destroy the youth of America for
selfish gain.
 |
Democracy
cannot
exit
without
dissent
|
Personally,
I
love
dissent.
Without
it,
democracy
doesn't
exist.
To
deny
the
right
of
protesters
to
express
their
views
is
to
manacle
the
Principles
of
Democracy
and
Freedom.
But
like
anything
that
is
fragile--and
certainly
democracy
is--there
is
a
fine
line
that
separates
the
Vigilance
side
from
the
Terrorism
extreme.
As
I
milled
among
the
tens
of
thousands
who
were
preparing
to
march
in
the
event,
I
noted
the
domination
of
signs
and
symbols
that
attacked
not
the
right
of
dissent,
but
the
hatred
and
vehemence
of
George
W.
Bush
and
the
Republican
Party.
Dissent's
purpose
is
to
be
evolutionary.
Its
underpinnings
are
based
on
the
removing
of
one
system
for
the
construction
of
a
better
one.
Those
who
understand
the
formation
of
dissent
know
that
in
1776,
what
is
commonly
called
the
American
Revolution
was
in
fact
the
American
Evolution.
The
intent
of
the
people
was
not
to
destroy
"monarchy"
but
to
give
birth
to
"democracy."
Democracy
was
the
ovum
growing
in
the
womb
of
Liberty.
Its
purpose
was
to
create
Children
of
Democracy--a
people
who
understood
that
"destruction"
was
not
as
important
as
"construction."
 |
There
were
those
who
were
promoting
change
in
a
peaceful,
constructive
manner
|
Thomas
Paine,
often
quoted
regarding
the
"right
to
dissent,"
stated
that
dissent's
purpose
was
not
to
destroy
what
existed
unless
there
was
something
better
to
replace
it.
Destruction
of
existing
systems,
without
a
better
one
to
set
into
place,
was
counter
productive,
he
stated
in
The
Rights
of
Man.
That's
where
I
found
myself
in
a
state
of
conflict
yesterday.
There
were
those
among
the
crowd
who
were
promoting
change
in
a
peaceful,
constructive
manner.
Then,
there
was
the
majority
who
were
singling
out
one
person
to
destroy,
singling
their
vehemence
against
an
individual
rather
than
the
"system"
and
seeking
to
"destroy"
that
individual
and
those
around
him
with
the
venom
of
hatred,
spite,
anger
and
ugliness.
The
singular
theme
that
rose
above
the
crowd
was
"Beat
Bush!"
It
was
a
one-sided
see-saw.
The
vast
majority
of
the
protest
weight
was
leveled
at
the
mastication
of
the
President
of
the
United
States
as
a
greedy,
self-serving
liar,
thief
and
murderer
of
innocent
American
troops
and
children
in
Iraq
and
other
parts
of
the
world.
I
felt
Thomas
Paine
wrenching
in
his
grave.
Not
that
Paine
was
any
pussycat
when
it
came
to
protest,
but
his
protest
was
about
the
power
of
self-government,
the
rising
above
the
battlefields
of
individuality
for
individuality's
sake,
and
the
preservation
and
perpetuation
of
a
state
of
unified
responsibility
for
our
own
actions.
Blaming
others
was
not
his
style.
Blaming
ourselves
for
our
own
Complacency
was.
Therein
was
my
consternation
regarding
the
protest
march.
 |
I
saw children exposed to signs and effigies of hatred
|
I
saw
children
exposed
to
signs
and
effigies
of
hatred
against
a
single
person,
as
though
that
person
were
the
Beast
of
Terror
himself.
Some
signs
depicted
President
Bush
as
Osama
bin
Laden,
and
the
clear
intent
of
the
posters
was
to
isolate
and
obliterate
Bush
as
the
cause
of
America's
suffering.
Eliminate
him,
the
theme
barked,
and
the
world
would
be
a
safer,
happier,
more
joyous
place
to
live.
Nothing
was
shouting
about
replacing
the
"evil
of
politics,"
whether
they
be
Democratic
or
Republican.
Nothing
might
be
too
harsh
a
word,
for
there
were
some
who
offered
solutions.
One
shirt
stated:
"End
Racism!
Kill
Everybody!"
Some
families
with
children
carried
signs
about
Peace
Not
War,
a
neutral
and
positive
protest.
Other
children
carried
balloons
with
"Kids
For
Peace"
on
them,
and
that
was
laudable.
But
the
parents
of
those
children
could
not
blind
the
children's
eyes
from
the
hatred
and
demonic
portrayals
of
their
nation's
leaders
depicted
as
murderers,
liars,
greedy
men
who
would
"eat
their
own
children"
for
a
buck
or
a
vote.
I
wondered
what
the
children
thought
when
they
saw
those
signs
and
their
parents
and
friends
supporting
them.
Would
the
children
see
dissent
as
a
means
of
degrading
other
human
beings?
A
child
sees
things
in
simple
terms.
Lessons
are
fairly
prima
facia.
To
see
the
picture
of
the
President
of
the
United
States
with
a
knife
in
his
hands
stabbing
innocent
children
in
Iraq
leaves
an
image
most
parents
would
normally
consider
far
too
violent
and
offensive
for
a
child.
Yet
tens
of
thousands
of
those
images
flashed
about,
filling
the
children's
minds
with
the
idea
that
to
remove
someone
from
a
position
of
authority
one
has
to
attack
them
with
cruel
indifference.
 |
There
was
no
offering
of
the
Balance
of
Scales
that
a
child
might
use
as
a
guide
|
I
wondered
heavily
about
whether
a
Parent
of
Vigilance
might
by
default
become
a
Parent
of
Terrorism
by
exposing
a
child
to
such
imagery
of
hatred
and
vehemence.
Or,
could
a
Parent
of
Vigilance
sit
with
a
child
and
explain
in
detail
to
the
child
that
those
signs
and
chants
by
adults
about
the
ugly,
criminal
nature
of
the
nation's
leaders
were
only
"opinions"
and
that
the
protesters
were
shouting
out
the
worst
of
their
opinions,
and
that
perhaps
the
President
and
his
Republican
compatriots
weren't
as
"ugly"
or
as
"vile"
or
as
"corrupt"
or
as
much
of
the
"murderers"
and
"liars"
and
"thieves"
that
so
many
portrayed
them
to
be.
But
I
doubted
such
balanced
conversations
took
place
prior,
during
or
after
the
protest
rally.
I
doubted
that
the
adults
who
exposed
their
children
to
"X-Rated"
political
Terrorism
considered
their
acts
equal
to
"Child
Abuse,"
for
if
someone
where
to
bring
into
their
house
placards,
chants
and
jeers
illustrating
their
political
candidate
as
a
"murderer,"
a
"liar,"
a
"killer
of
American
troops,"
a
"war
monger,"
"a
terrorist,"
what
would
the
parents
do?
Would
they
consider
such
an
intrusion
a
matter
of
abuse
of
their
children's
minds,
a
warping
and
degradation
of
their
beliefs?
Children
are
not
their
parents.
 |
Children
have political rights that should be monitored by their
parents and loved ones |
While
the
influence
of
a
parent
has
a
lot
to
do
with
a
child's
outlook,
it
does
not
determine
it.
A
child
can
grow
up
in
an
environment
of
extreme
liberalism
and
become
a
conservative,
just
as
the
opposite
is
true.
Children
have
political
rights
that
should
be
monitored
by
their
parents
and
loved
ones.
One
of
those
rights
is
to
see
the
world
not
through
the
lens
of
hatred
and
disgust,
as
was
the
case
of
children
participating
in
the
demonstration
yesterday.
I
find
it
difficult
to
accept
that
any
parent
has
a
"right"
to
expose
a
child
to
protests
that
are
hate-based.
The
"Beat
Bush"
theme
promoted
by
the
protesters
was
about
that--the
hatred
toward
what
George
Bush
represents.
 |
The
children
left
the
parade
learning
how
to
hate
and
debase
the
office
of
the
Presidency
|
There
was
no
offering
of
a
solution,
no
evolution
of
a
"better
way"
being
promulgated
by
the
crowd.
There
was
no
measurement
of
the
good
things
versus
the
bad
things
Bush
has
done,
no
offering
of
the
Balance
of
Scales
that
a
child
might
use
as
a
guide
for
his
or
her
ability
to
protest.
There
was
only
ugliness
offered.
The
President
was
a
Terrorist.
A
murderer.
A
liar.
A
thief.
A
dummy.
A
greedy
Republican
who
would
eat
children
to
make
a
buck.
While
many
thump
their
chests
and
consider
the
rally
yesterday
a
resounding
success
and
a
statement
against
the
President's
chances
for
reelection,
it
was
also
a
scene
of
carnage.
The
rights
of
the
Children
were
stomped
on,
ripped,
shredded
and
thrown
into
meat
grinders.
The
children
left
the
parade
with
a
vile
poison
in
their
systems.
They
learned
how
to
hate.
ON
THE
LIGHTER
SIDE
OF
PROTEST
|
Enjoy
The
Lighter
Side
Of
Protesting
|
.jpg)
