<When the government is wrong, as it is in this case, it is the right of the people to express their disapproval.


Wrong.



It is the duty of a citizen in a free society to speak out.

I'll take a protestor, even one who's wrong, than a passive member of the "Silent Majority" herd any day.

--Robert



Do you realize what you are saying?

"I'll take a protester even one who's wrong than a passive member of the "Silent Majority" herd any day."

So being wrong is okay if one's assertive? Assertiveness is better than passivity? If that is the case I don't see how you can have any problem with this war - it's assertive as hell and even if it is wrong, Bush, Rumsfeld & CO. certainly aren't silent members of a herd!

That is completely the wrong approach to addressing wrong and right. That approach means one lashes out like a piranha and is wrong half the time and one ends up hurting people - most likely oneself.

Assertiveness needs good judgment to support it or it is simply stupidity. The protester falling to his death was not a valiant act - it was a stupid one, costing him his life and making his family grieve.

It is far more important to make sure you are on the right side of an issue before you act. The lack of proper forethought to action creates rash action. Rash action is an invitation to disaster as its primary motivation is not logic or reason but emotion.

Protesters who go to rallys are emotional and emotion, despite what many think, is really a nasty thing when one wants to pursue intelligent action.

Emotion clouds judgment and is by definition imbalanced and lacking a certain perspective.

The silent majority are not emotional are not compelled to protest or if they do - do so in a very logical, unemotional manner. They do not chant, burn are spit epithets. They do not make masks or write long hate-filled letters. These are the signs of emotion and give away to all who see them that these people are imbalanced and by association, irrational.



A polite request receives far more positive attention than a shouted command. Banners and chants generally engender as much respect as Hare Krishna's chanting.

In downtown La Jolla, around Prospect, on more friday nights than I care to remember, there were a group of about 12-15 Hare Krishna's who would go around in their light orange robes and chant and march around the street causing an amusing spectacle. No one took them seriously (assuming naturally anyone who would do that was a bit crazy) although they took themselves very seriously. The war protesters are much the same. They take themselves very seriously - but by their rash and emotional actions they show they are exactly the sort of people one doesn't lend a lot of credibilty.

Invariably we see this antiwar movement was spawned almost singlehandedly by anticapitalist extremists.

Some here see this as no problem. I think the most rational folks who now the dangers of extremism - especially anti-American extremism is not what they want to see and immediately discount any valid message that may be intermeshed with the fanaticism.

I know many here will disagree. But as a member of the silent majority, I thought I would shed a little light on our views.

;-)

SDAI-Tech1