Does anyone get the point of this woman?

Some media coverage of a recent antiwar protest in Washington mistakenly reported that the marchers took a route past the White House. Actually, protesters were prevented from walking along Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, and were instead relegated to H Street, one block away.

I know because I was there.

Before I left for Washington, I talked to a 20-year-old Temple University student, Evan Hoffman, who is a member of the antiwar group Not in Our Name.

"I think it's really important to protest that this war was based on lies and that we want our troops to come home," he said. "People around the world should know that there are a lot of Americans against this war."

All the usual suspects were in attendance at the Washington Monument - the Free Mumia crowd, the Maoist Internationalist Movement, the Chicago Anti-Bashing Network, and the Falun Gong. Lots of groups like to piggyback their messages to a receptive multitude, and yet other groups feel it dilutes the effect that a mass movement solely united against the war would have.

OK, I thought this was a "these people are all complete idiots diatribe" but, what? She takes no side (I think) that is discernible. Is she for or against the war?

I say the more, the merrier. Heterophony rocks!

Now the Dictionary.Com website gives the following definitions of heterophony:

het·er·oph·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ht-rf-n)
n.
The simultaneous playing or singing of two or more versions of a melody

And:

heterophony

\Het`er*oph"o*ny\, n. [Hetero- + Gr. ? voice.] (Med.) An abnormal state of the voice. --Mayne.

I think she means the former, as in diverse groups such as defenders of cop-killers and followers of a communist leader whose legacy is the country that aborts the children of its future before they can even be born.

I believe the latter is the more correct description of these anti-war zealots. Their voice is definitely abnormal.

This article is horrid. I've written better letters to the editor published by the Inquirer which were written at 4:00 A.M. after attending a bachelor party. Why was this published? She gives no evidence of positions people took or offered any balance. She could have written the first paragraph and the last sentence and said the same thing. The Inquirer has got to be able to find better commentary.