Let me describe to you the stupidest image I've ever seen: Two groups of people on the sidewalk of a busy main street. One half of them anti-war protestors, the other half pro-war. They were each armed, either with ironic and witty, or violently descriptive signs detailing what would happen if people didn't agree with them. They were competing with each other over the all-so-vital car horns of agreement from passing motorists. This is while being separated by the 5 foot wide driveway entrance to a Taco Bell. "Ooooo boy, I dare you to step across this drive-thru and come get me!"

There was no real dialogue between any of the people, but I suppose I should consider that a good thing because they didn't have any shouting matches. These episodes of shouting are basically the gist of the democratic process now--shout louder than the other guy, and the side with the most members wins. That kind of division can carry on across generations, with children being raised to learn a certain way. Most parents teach their kids to become like them, and to treat the opposition the same way they did; as simple-minded, misled people. "Don't worry about what other people tell you. You know who's right and wrong, honey. Just remember what your mommy and daddy told you and you'll be all right."

Peace protestors are looking to destroy America. Pro-war people are blood thirsty cave-men. Liberals are self-righteous. Conservatives are selfish. I could list more generalizations, but I'd rather not. The point is that both sides (of any topic) paint the opposition as repulsive as they can--both to smear their enemies and to more easily cast themselves in a positive light.

While I walked in and out of each group, I noticed that they actually had more in common than I would have believed. I found a population of both sides giving the clichéd responses, but I also found some on each side to be well-educated and articulate in giving me their points. I met an older man on the pro-war side who enjoyed the fact that the peace protestors showed up in the numbers they did, because it showed people were interested in their world, regardless of which side they were on. I met someone on the peace protestor's side who suggested peaceful means for everyone except Saddam Hussein, for which she wondered why the international community hadn't assassinated him yet (after which I explained to her that it was illegal, and luckily so, since America had at one time made plans to assassinate Gandhi as a favor for Britain).

When you portray someone as less than human, in any realm of life, you only do yourself a disservice. It makes you and your cause harder to swallow, and you only set about drawing finer lines between us, instead of making the canvas clean. We have more in common than we sometimes like to think, and that's what brings people and countries together, not shouting matches and shoddily drawn cardboard signs with bad jokes on them.

I often think about what makes me accepted by my friends as liberal. We usually agree on many things, but whenever I have doubts about something they believe in, I find it hard to voice my disapproving opinion. It makes no difference what group you're in, it's hard to say something if you fear it will be immediately looked down on.

I was staunchly against the American involvement in Iraq. I protested in an anti-war capacity, constantly tried to convince people our intrusion would back-fire for us in the long run. But, I came to an immediate halt when Saddam Hussein was captured. I began to wonder: With results like this, is international involvement of this American scale really a bad idea? We got who we were after, and I can't imagine a world where keeping Saddam Hussein in power would be a good idea. He's been wanted for at least 12 years, as long as I can remember. I wondered if I had my entire beliefs set wrong.

Then I remembered that the ends never justify the means, because whereas a world without Saddam is positive, a world where America chases down who they see fit could have even greater negative effects on the world at large.

But my friends know nothing about this entire personal struggle. As far as they have known, I've never wavered from them on the topic of the war. It doesn't matter that I've come back around and agreed with them again; the thing that bothered me was I felt insecure with sharing it with them in the first place.

I have a friend who I just recently called in February, after having last spoken to him 6 years ago. I found out that he was being shipped to Afghanistan, and I wanted to wish him luck. I told him I would call him again before he left on March 6th. By the time I did, he had already left.

This is a call to all persons involved, in both sides, of ANY argument. Don't stoop yourselves to insults and ignorance of each other. A soldier isn't a soldier, he's a person. A radical isn't a radical, she's a person. Both sides forget that too often.

"It (violence) is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible."--Martin Luther King Jr.

For James Letsos: "I Don Juan nuttin' to do wit ya."