If any of you have a free minute

[globalvillage]

will you please check out this thread and tell me your reaction? I'm awfully pissed. I was also considering copying THK on my letter, as this is her town, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4412571

[jillan]

1. pretty sick - huh?!!!! n/t

[Island Blue]

2. What country do I live in?

This is insane. Whatever happen to the right to assemble peacefully?

Besides the desecration of our rights, I am also growing concerned about the surge in the use of tasers by law enforcement. I have read too many stories lately where people have been hurt or killed by supposedly "safe" tasers. It reminds me of the situation in Northern Ireland in the 80's (primarily) when the police and army used rubber bullets on a regular basis claiming they were harmless. They weren't - a lot of people where badly injured or killed by them.

I agree GV, you should be pissed!

[beachmom]

3. Very disturbing how ugly politics has gotten

I thought your letter was polite and put together well. It certainly wouldn't hurt to copy THK. I also hadn't heard the Santorum/Barnes & Noble incident either (discussed in that thread), so I read that with interest, also. I admit I am trying to view all of this, not from the Left, but as a neutral observer. And it really is a shame that people from opposite ends of the political spectrum can no longer talk, and instead are resorting to violence or at least violent talk. They call the other side the "enemy", something which I do not understand at all. Almost all of my good friends here in Virginia are Republicans, most of them total supporters of the war effort in Iraq, but they would do anything for me if I needed their help, even though I'm from the "other side". I also am able to talk to them about the war, because I try to never speak in a confrontational tone, and try to focus on facts. Ugly talk and violence will get this country nowhere. I wish the nastiness would stop. We need to be better than our president and be willing to listen to views that may make us feel uncomfortable and try to UNDERSTAND where the other side is coming from. I realize that I am a minority at DU who feels this way, but as Obama has said before, there is no Blue America or Red America, there is only the United States of America. Why oh why didn't Bush just meet with Cindy Sheehan? He could have PRAYED with her, searched for the common ground, and if she went off on him, he could have said, "I understand that you are passionate in your views, but I don't agree. But I am HERE to try to understand your pain, and bring all Americans together instead of us tearing each other apart." It would have taken very little of his time and would have taken some of the air out of the anti-war movement (for which, I am sorry, there are many excessive elements to it). But no, he chose NOT to do the Christian thing, and as usual, to be a stubborn ass, and now this ugliness is only going to escalate. Divider, not a uniter, that's his legacy.

[karynnj]

6. I think this is a time of an enormous rift between the two sides.

The rift is as large as that in the 60s and 70s. Although there is a ridiculous amount of hate I think the amount of hate is exaggerated and distorted by the media. In real life, like you I have friends and relatives, who are Republican. As with you, some of them are among the people who I can count on (and they can count on me). I have talked about political issues with some of them very comfortably. Others, I've backed away quickly. The difference between the two groups, is that with the former, the discussion is issue based and is more about how different actions may work. Discussion is interesting and fun.

The others were more people oriented; there is no point in a discussion with someone you like that starts with one saying, something like,"I know you're liberal, but even you didn't really LIKE Kerry". (Only answer: Yes, I did more than anyone I've voted for in my lifetime. ) She was glad that in our times of trouble we had a strong leader. Now, I could have spent at least an hour listing all the positives of Kerry and then an hour listing why I hate Bush. Result: I would still hate Bush, she would still hate Kerry, but as importantly she doesn't hate me, or I her.

The country is really very divided and I agree with you that it is very disturbing how much hate there is on both sides. I had originally used "disliked" in the last sentence - but realized that I probably do hate Bush (good clue is the reaction when I see or hear him) and from the tone of voice, my friend does not simply think Kerry is boring. I think my opinion of Bush is fair and based on what he has done to the world. She takes Bush at face value and questions why the Democrats (esp Kerry) fight Bush each step of the way as he tries to keep the country safe and spread democracy to a hate filled world.

She looks at Bush and sees a religious, patriotic person. I see Kerry as a person guided by a moral compass who hates corruption and wants America to stay true to its own values and to not be an outlaw nation. She is one of the most intelligent people I know - though she's been in a Republican area of Florida too long. We are probably about equally involved on the opposite sites. The bonds between us are stronger than the political divide. I may hate Bush, but I don't hate (or even dislike) her. I think most people have similar situations. So, I don't think the 2 groups really hate each other - as much as they hate their perception of the leaders of the other.

The likelihood is that only the most extreme group on either side really hate each other. The internet and partisan radio and tv may actually exasperate the situation because people tend to talk primarily to those who agree with them to begin with. (This is fantastic for groups like this one, or ones for hobbies, interests, or support groups for illnesses.) But it does allow people on the loony left or right, to have a large group where they push each other to ever more extreme positions.

All news, tv or print, emphasizes the more dramatic over the normal mundane everyday life, which over emphasizes the hate. But in real life, people are eating meals, working, sleeping, going to theatres, playing baseball, ... living their lives. In my town, there are two busy roads that come together - one having the right of way. Every day, at rush hour, cars alternate, the people in cars with right of way waving those on the other road to go. I never thought about it till a local paper mentioned it in a description of my town. I think most people prefer life to be this kind of co-operative, peaceful smooth flowing situation to constant stress and confrontation. But it is the confrontation that makes the news.

Political protests look more benign from the inside - you know you're nice as are several of the people you talked too. It's hard to see why your friendly mob looks threatening to others. The shots of the 60s protests in Going Upriver were great - seeing them last year as an adult - I can see for the first time in my life, why we frightened the grown ups. Still the police should have good methods for controlling the crowd without resorting to violence.THe Pittsburg reports are disturbing. The B&N incident was more a continuation of Bush's not allowing a non-screened crowd. I think Santorum was an idiot to kick out the teens - they should have been pretty easy to deal with as Kerry easily did with heclers at his events.

[TayTay]

4. It will get worse

We are only at the beginning of a new phase of protesting this war. Most the protests have been peaceful and focused. It is in the interest of the RW to make the protesters look violent and look like a threat to middle-America. There will be more and more provocateurs in the crowds who will try and disrupt the proceedings and provoke violence. That is how it goes in America.

Did anyone in here see 'Going Upriver'? In that docu-movie about the Kerry and the VVAW protest in DC, the vets talked about the Nixon White House sending out provocateurs to stir up trouble. A lot of those vets who marched with the VVAW and with Kerry were emotionally upset and it would have been easy to have tipped them and possibly caused violence. It took a lot for that protest to remain peaceful and focused. (And KErry can take a great deal of the praise for that. He was, according to the movie, everywhere, calming people down and telling them that temporary retaliation was not worth it.)

Everything old is new again.

[Island Blue]

5. I agree, everything old is new again

I have a feeling though that the current administration* could send out provocateurs to stir up trouble that would make the ones sent by the Nixon Administration look like rank armatures. Also now, if said provocateurs are able to stir up trouble and turn a peaceful rally violent, it will get more TV air-time than it would have in the late '60's - early 70's, as there is more air-time to fill, and more RW media outlets looking for any chance to discredit anti-war protesters.

Watching "Going Upriver" I was amazed at the job that Kerry did to basically keep everyone's emotions in check and keep the DC protest from turning ugly. He's such a natural born leader!

[karynnj]

7. I agree with you on both

There were decent people in the Nixon administration in addition to the evil ones. Especially in the second term, Bush seems to quickly punish anyone not totally following his rules.

It really was amazing seeing Kerry go from group to group calming people down. His answers to the press in the midst of all that chaos were so thoughtful and so softly spoken. Seeing him do that at 27, it really did seem he would have been able to use the same skills to calm down a rattled, terrorized country as President. I think he would have been a huge surprize to many who didn't support him.