I watched and listened to part of today's Congressional hearing with Peter Strzok on the veritable hot seat. I don't know that I can ever get that wasted hour or two back. Primed for political combat, members of the committee spent considerable time trashing each other in this installment of political theater.
Listen to the Republicans on the committee and you would think Mr. Strzok was a one-man coup band, or maybe a twosome with his FBI girlfriend. After all, he did say a lot of nasty things about Mr. Trump and assorted other political figures. Although the questioning focused on Trump, a perusal of his texts also find criticism of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Congress as an institution, and others. Strzok comes across in text as all purpose cynic who especially didn't like Trump.
Democrats spent much of their question time trying to pin a medal on the man. Republicans spent most of theirs trying to characterize him as Satan incarnate. This all comes down to a question of bias, as the I.G. Report and two congressional committees cannot point to a specific action Mr. Strzok took in the investigation that is out of line with traditional practices in the FBI. The texts however really look bad in the sense that he had antipathy toward Trump and did not wish to see him elected.
Neither did 60+ million other Americans, but none of us happened to find ourselves Forrest Gump-like at the center of the two most sensational investigation of political figures since Watergate. I half expected someone to pull out a picture of Strzok on the grassy knoll, or with a flashlight in his teeth breaking into the Watergate building. He was there and decisions were made. Shit happened!
Is it possible to hold a negative opinion about someone and investigate them fairly? For that matter, is it possible to hold a positive opinion about someone and do the same? I am sure there are some political agnostics running around the Hoover Building, but I doubt there are enough of them to run investigations like this. Can you turn the personal feelings off while in your official capacity? This is the heart of the matter.
The answer? Absent specific acts prejudicial to the person being investigated, it comes down to credibility and your own beliefs. If you asked most of us if we could do this we would say that of course we could. After all, that is what juries are asked to do in courtrooms every day. Set aside those prejudices and biases and focus on the evidence and the task at hand. It doesn't matter if you liked O.J. because you liked the way he ran through those airports or thought he was an overpaid has-been. Did the glove fit? How about those Bruno Magli shoes?
The truth is that only Mr. Strzok really knows. The guy rose to a high level in the FBI doing investigations that most agents could only dream of. This is the stuff they write books about, lecture at universities about, and add to the resume to support the next act. Did the man really leave the thoughts about Trump at the door?
The most convincing argument to the negative would be that the guy was having an affair at the height of being in the midst of two huge investigations, and seemed to be sowing the oats of someone who had "made it", reaching about as high as any agent could ever hope to reach. Could he really just "turn it off" when he opened the case file, interviewed a witness, or briefed the director of the F.B.I. on his progress. Did he possibly put a little finger on the scale in a way that is not readily apparent? Its possible and I'm sure that has happened before. Do you think every cop or every prosecutor sits Christ-like in the hallowed judicial chambers dispassionately making decisions that could ruin someone's life or save it? Decisions are made by police officers, prosecutors, and judges every day that could help someone's case or harm it. All of these people are human, and even if they make a good faith effort, that little subconscious we all have can be a tricky thing.
The biggest argument to the negative is what Strzok did not do. He didn't send an email to Rachel Maddow in October letting her know that the campaign of the Republican candidate for president was under an open counterintelligence investigation regarding possible collusion with Russia. He didn't meet a Washington Post reporter in a darkened garage to whisper about Mike Flynn or Paul Manafort. He didn't meet Maxine Waters at the French Hen to let her know about this threat to the election. He didn't and neither did anyone else at the FBI or DOJ.
Dozens of people had to know that this investigation was going on and none of them leaked it, in spite of the obvious conclusion that such an action would hurt Mr. Trump's candidacy. If this was a witch hunt then it was a damned quiet one. While Hillary's email investigation was reopened days before the election, the Russia investigation hummed along quietly beneath the surface. Mr. Trump got to talk about servers and lead his crowds in chants of "lock her up". A revelation that he had his own investigation going might have hampered that a bit. At least she could've said, "NYET!" to the chants or put out photo shopped pictures of Trump and Putin bare chested together while fishing.
So can you put it aside at the door? We may never know with certainty the answer to the question.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Monday, July 9, 2018
The Immigration Debate and Dehumanizing Immigrants
One of the things I keep coming back to when I discuss the presidency of Donald Trump is his reference to immigrants coming across the southern border with a broad swipe as rapists, drug dealers, and criminals (he does allow that "some, I'm sure are good people"). One might excuse this as campaign excess, but he keeps doubling down on it as president. He does this without ever referring to any valid evidence that a large number (or even a small one) of immigrants crossing the border are "rapists", "drug dealers", or other criminals. There are also references to infestation and to "animals". Infestation is commonly associated with rodents or insects....not people! These dubious claims and dehumanizing rhetoric are not only factually wrong, but serve to characterize these immigrants as something less than human.
There are valid reasons to limit the flow of immigrants into the country and to control our borders. Many have advocated better border security and yes, a wall in the recent past. Democrats, especially those aligned with the labor movement have pushed for border security under the theory that increased immigration depresses wages and forces citizens to compete with undocumented people for scarce jobs. As a matter of national security a country should control who crosses its borders and be able to keep track of immigrants once in the country. These are all valid reasons for improved border security and interior enforcement.
However, there are other forces at play here. Mexican citizens may not even be the largest group crossing our southern border as more people flee violence in Central America. Some of these are "economic immigrants" seeking a better life while others are "asylum seekers" fleeing violence and repressive governments. Either way thousands brave hardships that most of us would have nightmares about and risk crossing the border illegally or presenting themselves at legal entry points claiming asylum.
In any case these are for the most part ordinary people taking extraordinary risks to get here, many saving for years to pay someone to smuggle them across the border. Most are not criminals, rodents, insects, or animals. Most are not drug dealers or gang bangers. I have met thousands of such people in the last decade, and while some might fall in the "bad" category, the vast majority are hard working people seeking a better life. Many work physical jobs in roofing, carpentry, sheetrock, or concrete, or clean the offices in our gleaming high rise buildings at night. My anecdotal experience may not meet a definition of proof, but it is undeniable that millions of such immigrants are in the workforce now, many for decades.
One can make an argument that more needs to be done at the border to restrict illegal immigration or that the legal immigration system needs to be revised. At some point in the future a "grand bargain" needs to be made in a bipartisan way to address how to deal with the border, legal immigration, and the status of the millions of undocumented people living within our borders right now. Right now the political will is not there as both parties would rather have the issue rather than solve the problem. No one has clean hands on this issue.
It is not necessary to demonize or dehumanize hundreds of thousands of people in an effort to move public opinion, make people angry, or harvest cheers at rallies. The national interest can be addressed while recognizing the humanity of people who have crossed or attempted to cross our borders. A great nation can do both. A president should. Congress should. We should.
Where are the statesmen when we need them? Not in the White House. Not in Congress, at least not in the leadership. It would be easy to blame this entire problem on a coarse, vulgar president who likes to whip up the crowd, truth be damned. However, this was going on before Trump took office in 2017. President Obama had a Democratic Congress, including a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for awhile and failed to move legislation. The "Gang of Eight" valiantly tried, but the House refused to act. Our daily outrage machines (otherwise called cable news, talk radio, and various internet sites) ensured that this would die in its cradle.
This points to a problem that has festered in recent years as it appears that our parties have forgotten how to govern, how to make the trade-offs and compromises necessary to enact national policy that makes a good faith attempt to balance competing interests.
We need to secure our borders. We need to acknowledge the human rights' crises taking place south of us. We need to treat people with dignity and compassion even has not all of them will be allowed to migrate here. We need to address the fate of DACA young people along with the others who have made a home here...yes, illegally. We need a legal immigration system that meets the needs of the country now, not the country in 1965.
We can do all that without slandering entire groups, making up statistics, or denying their humanity.
In any case these are for the most part ordinary people taking extraordinary risks to get here, many saving for years to pay someone to smuggle them across the border. Most are not criminals, rodents, insects, or animals. Most are not drug dealers or gang bangers. I have met thousands of such people in the last decade, and while some might fall in the "bad" category, the vast majority are hard working people seeking a better life. Many work physical jobs in roofing, carpentry, sheetrock, or concrete, or clean the offices in our gleaming high rise buildings at night. My anecdotal experience may not meet a definition of proof, but it is undeniable that millions of such immigrants are in the workforce now, many for decades.
One can make an argument that more needs to be done at the border to restrict illegal immigration or that the legal immigration system needs to be revised. At some point in the future a "grand bargain" needs to be made in a bipartisan way to address how to deal with the border, legal immigration, and the status of the millions of undocumented people living within our borders right now. Right now the political will is not there as both parties would rather have the issue rather than solve the problem. No one has clean hands on this issue.
It is not necessary to demonize or dehumanize hundreds of thousands of people in an effort to move public opinion, make people angry, or harvest cheers at rallies. The national interest can be addressed while recognizing the humanity of people who have crossed or attempted to cross our borders. A great nation can do both. A president should. Congress should. We should.
Where are the statesmen when we need them? Not in the White House. Not in Congress, at least not in the leadership. It would be easy to blame this entire problem on a coarse, vulgar president who likes to whip up the crowd, truth be damned. However, this was going on before Trump took office in 2017. President Obama had a Democratic Congress, including a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for awhile and failed to move legislation. The "Gang of Eight" valiantly tried, but the House refused to act. Our daily outrage machines (otherwise called cable news, talk radio, and various internet sites) ensured that this would die in its cradle.
This points to a problem that has festered in recent years as it appears that our parties have forgotten how to govern, how to make the trade-offs and compromises necessary to enact national policy that makes a good faith attempt to balance competing interests.
We need to secure our borders. We need to acknowledge the human rights' crises taking place south of us. We need to treat people with dignity and compassion even has not all of them will be allowed to migrate here. We need to address the fate of DACA young people along with the others who have made a home here...yes, illegally. We need a legal immigration system that meets the needs of the country now, not the country in 1965.
We can do all that without slandering entire groups, making up statistics, or denying their humanity.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Where I Stand
I have already written several posts without really laying out where I come from. I should probably correct that. Perhaps this might explain my perspective on what is happening in our country right now. I am shaped by over forty years of reading, watching, and observing political life in our nation. I have been interested in politics and history since elementary school, and I have developed a set of values and beliefs based on this life of experiences.
Right now I feel challenged as never before. I came of age in the 1970's and cast my first presidential ballot for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I observed as a teen the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I remembered the nuclear war drills in elementary school. We were in the midst of an intractable Cold War, had fought a long war in Vietnam, and the country was reeling economically. Ronald Reagan promised to bring back our pride, restore the economy, and win the Cold War. That sounded good to me and I voted for him. I graduated with a degree in political science and began my teaching career.
Since those heady days of the early 80's I have been a mostly reliable Republican voter, especially for federal offices. Until 2016 I voted for every Republican candidate for president and the same in my local senate and congressional races. I did vote for Democrats on state and county ballots as those tend to be less ideological and more focused on a smaller set of issues. In those races I looked closely at the candidate's positions on education, an obviously important issue to me.
I watched William F. Buckley on Firing Lane as he jousted good-naturedly with Michael Kinsley. I read National Review, The New Republic and sometimes The Nation as I enjoyed reading well written articles from different viewpoints. I watched Pat Buchanan debate Tom Braden on CNN's "Crossfire". I read columnists as diverse as George Will and Anthony Lewis. I regarded myself all of these years as a right-of-center voter, persuadable on some issues, with a moralistic and libertarian bent. I generally steered clear of getting directly involved in politics but was a reliable voter. I was always avidly interested in the direction of our country.
From that basis I believe in:
Right now I feel challenged as never before. I came of age in the 1970's and cast my first presidential ballot for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I observed as a teen the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I remembered the nuclear war drills in elementary school. We were in the midst of an intractable Cold War, had fought a long war in Vietnam, and the country was reeling economically. Ronald Reagan promised to bring back our pride, restore the economy, and win the Cold War. That sounded good to me and I voted for him. I graduated with a degree in political science and began my teaching career.
Since those heady days of the early 80's I have been a mostly reliable Republican voter, especially for federal offices. Until 2016 I voted for every Republican candidate for president and the same in my local senate and congressional races. I did vote for Democrats on state and county ballots as those tend to be less ideological and more focused on a smaller set of issues. In those races I looked closely at the candidate's positions on education, an obviously important issue to me.
I watched William F. Buckley on Firing Lane as he jousted good-naturedly with Michael Kinsley. I read National Review, The New Republic and sometimes The Nation as I enjoyed reading well written articles from different viewpoints. I watched Pat Buchanan debate Tom Braden on CNN's "Crossfire". I read columnists as diverse as George Will and Anthony Lewis. I regarded myself all of these years as a right-of-center voter, persuadable on some issues, with a moralistic and libertarian bent. I generally steered clear of getting directly involved in politics but was a reliable voter. I was always avidly interested in the direction of our country.
From that basis I believe in:
- Small government in theory, if not always in practice. The federal, state, and local governments have defined roles and responsibilities.
- The 1st amendment where I am close to an absolutist. Free speech, free press,freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc.....to me this is the heart of the American experiment.
- Free trade and free markets as they offer the greatest path to prosperity for all. Protectionism has never yielded good results. Why would it be different now?
- A basic social safety net to take care of those of us who are in need. It should not be so generous as to create permanent dependency and should offer tools and services that enable people to escape from poverty. Not Sweden but not a laissez faire free-for-all either. For the grace of God go I.
- The equality of all people to pursue their dreams. The 200+ years of history is a slow, painful, sometimes unsteady and violent, but dogged march toward equality. As Martin Luther King said, "the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice".
- A civil society where ideas and policies are vigorously debated, democratically decided on, and adjudicated as necessary to protect the minority. A great nation nurtures these kinds of debates in our institutions and celebrates them.
- A foreign policy rooted in realism but with a strong bent of nurturing democracy and human rights however we can. A belief that the alliances and institutions created from the ashes of World War II have led western nations to the greatest prosperity mankind has ever known.
- The responsibility of the world's greatest power to partner with other nations to alleviate suffering. See Bono and George W. Bush for an example of people of different ideologies can work together to save countless lives.
- A belief that the United States plays a unique role in the world and that with that comes a special responsibility to lead by example.
- That character and values matter when it comes to our elected officials. In fact, they matter as much or more than ideology. You can always overturn bad legislation. It is much more difficult to wash the stench of venal leadership from the body fabric of a nation.
Now I find myself with a president of my own party who believes or embodies few of these things. He has a 50 year history in public life that demonstrates a fundamental lack of wisdom, generosity, kindness, or virtue. He continues that pattern unabated to this very day. While I might find myself agreeing with a policy here or there, what I see is an erratic, unprincipled, untruthful, arrogant, leader whose focus is on "winning", however that manifests itself in his mind. He is ferociously intolerant of criticism, responding to critiques of policy with personal attacks that resemble schoolyard taunts.
I watch and wait to see if the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Reagan becomes the party of Trump. If it does, I am out for good, as I want no part of a white nationalist, anti-free trade, nativist party that appeals to the worst in us instead of to the "better angels of our nature". The party formed to stop the spread of slavery and that fought a civil war to end it is now led by someone who demonizes immigrants as "rapists and murderers". I am stunned that so many of my party are willing to set aside their long-professed values to support someone so antithetical to those values.
Please spare me talk of "draining the swamp"(I guess by filling it with lobbyists and Wall Street appointees?), stopping the "globalists"(anyone that is not a globalist now is stuck in the 1800's), "fake news" or any of the other catch phrases that are trotted out. This is not a conservative administration. It may be an "anti liberal" administration but that is not the same thing. A conservative administration does not launch trade wars, hint darkly at the possibility of withdrawing from NATO or the World Trade Organization (both of which our nation helped found), make common cause with autocrats (see Putin, Duterte, Erdogan, etc.), while at the same time attacking our most reliable allies. It does not separate families just to send a message south of the border. It does not refuse to criticize the vile alt-right.
I am in a small minority of my party at this point. A recent poll showed close to 90% of Republicans approve of the president's job performance. Most members of Congress seem terrified of him, afraid that he will destroy their careers with a tweet. A few brave souls have shown leadership in reminding us what conservative values actually mean, but most are marching right along. Conservative "Never Trumpers" (I don't like the label but I guess that is what I am) are the outliers now. The funny thing is I am exactly where I have always been. I'm just not getting with the program!
All is not lost. Our country, its institutions, and the system of checks and balances, is strong enough to survive this administration. I can only hope that it doesn't permanently plant the seeds for the destruction of the conservative movement in the meantime.
Sunday, July 1, 2018
Whither Civility?
In the latest example of personalizing political differences, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a suburban restaurant because of the staff's discomfort in serving her. Not only is this ridiculous on its face, it is also bad business. Do we as a nation really want to walk down that path where service is contingent on agreeing politically with the owner of a business? The restaurant then received a deluge of negative reviews from Trump supporters on various platforms while progressives gave it five stars. Now the restaurant's web site has been hacked.
All of this is just part of a continual path into the gutter where debating and discussing political differences is replaced by personal attacks. Something important is lost when we cannot stand to even be in the same room as someone whose politics we disagree with. Of course I wouldn't want to break bread with a member of the Ku Klux Klan or a revolutionary minded communist, but we aren't talking about the crazies out there.
This latest incident takes place during a fierce and emotional debate regarding separating children from their parents who have crossed into the country illegally or who are petitioning for asylum. This is a result of a ramped up "zero tolerance" policy at the border, one that I disagree with. Zero tolerance is what gets an elementary student suspended for making a pop tart into the shape of a gun.
In any case, it is illogical and immoral to separate young children from their parents over a crime which is a misdemeanor. However, there are many ways to protest policies you disagree with. one of them should not be withholding service from someone on the other side. Not only is it not civil but it is also ineffective. I doubt that missing out on the frog legs would cause Mrs. Sanders to change her opinions.
Lack of civility is nothing new. Modern history abounds with examples from a congressman shouting "you lie" at President Obama at a State of the Union address to protesters waving bloody hands at Condoleeza Rice, to Ted Nugent inviting an American president to, "suck on my machine gun." We have so personalized our differences that anything seems to be on the table. I am astounded at how many on the left defend this latest incident even as people like Bernie Sanders decry it.
Nor does the current president innocent of blame in all of this. We have elected a president who lacks even the basic ability to engage those who disagree with him. His Twitter feed attacks groups or individuals on a daily basis, many in crude terms or derogatory nicknames. He must be the most thin-skinned person I have ever seen in national office. He has taken the bile already out there and turbocharged it. He's a big part of the problem, but even if he resigned tomorrow the issue would still remain.
As a people we have lost our way and it is only exacerbated in the current climate. Its not enough the Obama was wrong on health care. He hates America and wants to destroy it! Its not enough that Trump is wrong on immigration. The Holocaust has begun! Don't like Elizabeth Warren's policies? She's a communist Pocohontas!! Many think the other half of their friends, neighbors, and co-workers are the enemy.
You know what the great thing about it is? You can feed your rage daily. You rarely have to interact with ideas or opinions that you don't like. Think Trump is on God's mission to save America from those traitorous Dems? Watch Fox and read Breitbart. You think Republicans are Satan's spawn? Head right over to MSNBC and feast on the Huffington Post. There are decent people to be found across the spectrum, but many of us aren't ready to hear each other. Its so much easier to be a circular nation of victims and haters. Red Hen owner, Michael Moore, Steve King, Maxine Waters, and others are there for you to drink deeply from the cup of victimhood and paranoia, providing sustenance for attacking the "other".
Civility really boils down to the Golden Rule. It is is more important that we actually listen to what the other side is saying and attempt a reasoned debate and discussion. I read daily articles that I profoundly disagree with, but I still read them. I don't need to read a lot of things I do agree with. I already know what I think! I don't need it reinforced, even though that sometimes has value. I don't need to be told over and over how evil half of the country and the politicians that represent them are. Thats how I want to be treated. I don't want to be judged or demonized based on a letter after my name, a bumper sticker on my car, or a "like" on Facebook. Most of us are more complex than that, and often we are closer to the thinking of each other than we realize.
I believe that Donald Trump is a blight on the presidency, the conservative movement, and on the Republican Party. His brand of politics is the polar opposite of everything I believe in, and many of his policies are illogical, rooted in misunderstanding, and in some cases immoral. That being said I don't hate the man. He's the symptom of a greater disease of resentment, anger, bigotry, and yes, the failings of mainstream politics. He won a primary with a number of highly qualified candidates who did not possess his failings, but win it he did. He received 60 million of our votes. That needs to be understood fully. I love and respect some of his voters even as I disagree with them.
I don't own a restaurant, but if Mr. Trump walked in I would great him politely, and try to serve him the meal of his life. If given the opportunity I might try to engage him and express some of my thoughts. Would it do any good? Probably not...but civility has to start somewhere. If everyone waits for the other side to go first it will never happen.
As in so many facets of life, good things happen one person at a time.
All of this is just part of a continual path into the gutter where debating and discussing political differences is replaced by personal attacks. Something important is lost when we cannot stand to even be in the same room as someone whose politics we disagree with. Of course I wouldn't want to break bread with a member of the Ku Klux Klan or a revolutionary minded communist, but we aren't talking about the crazies out there.
This latest incident takes place during a fierce and emotional debate regarding separating children from their parents who have crossed into the country illegally or who are petitioning for asylum. This is a result of a ramped up "zero tolerance" policy at the border, one that I disagree with. Zero tolerance is what gets an elementary student suspended for making a pop tart into the shape of a gun.
In any case, it is illogical and immoral to separate young children from their parents over a crime which is a misdemeanor. However, there are many ways to protest policies you disagree with. one of them should not be withholding service from someone on the other side. Not only is it not civil but it is also ineffective. I doubt that missing out on the frog legs would cause Mrs. Sanders to change her opinions.
Lack of civility is nothing new. Modern history abounds with examples from a congressman shouting "you lie" at President Obama at a State of the Union address to protesters waving bloody hands at Condoleeza Rice, to Ted Nugent inviting an American president to, "suck on my machine gun." We have so personalized our differences that anything seems to be on the table. I am astounded at how many on the left defend this latest incident even as people like Bernie Sanders decry it.
Nor does the current president innocent of blame in all of this. We have elected a president who lacks even the basic ability to engage those who disagree with him. His Twitter feed attacks groups or individuals on a daily basis, many in crude terms or derogatory nicknames. He must be the most thin-skinned person I have ever seen in national office. He has taken the bile already out there and turbocharged it. He's a big part of the problem, but even if he resigned tomorrow the issue would still remain.
As a people we have lost our way and it is only exacerbated in the current climate. Its not enough the Obama was wrong on health care. He hates America and wants to destroy it! Its not enough that Trump is wrong on immigration. The Holocaust has begun! Don't like Elizabeth Warren's policies? She's a communist Pocohontas!! Many think the other half of their friends, neighbors, and co-workers are the enemy.
You know what the great thing about it is? You can feed your rage daily. You rarely have to interact with ideas or opinions that you don't like. Think Trump is on God's mission to save America from those traitorous Dems? Watch Fox and read Breitbart. You think Republicans are Satan's spawn? Head right over to MSNBC and feast on the Huffington Post. There are decent people to be found across the spectrum, but many of us aren't ready to hear each other. Its so much easier to be a circular nation of victims and haters. Red Hen owner, Michael Moore, Steve King, Maxine Waters, and others are there for you to drink deeply from the cup of victimhood and paranoia, providing sustenance for attacking the "other".
Civility really boils down to the Golden Rule. It is is more important that we actually listen to what the other side is saying and attempt a reasoned debate and discussion. I read daily articles that I profoundly disagree with, but I still read them. I don't need to read a lot of things I do agree with. I already know what I think! I don't need it reinforced, even though that sometimes has value. I don't need to be told over and over how evil half of the country and the politicians that represent them are. Thats how I want to be treated. I don't want to be judged or demonized based on a letter after my name, a bumper sticker on my car, or a "like" on Facebook. Most of us are more complex than that, and often we are closer to the thinking of each other than we realize.
I believe that Donald Trump is a blight on the presidency, the conservative movement, and on the Republican Party. His brand of politics is the polar opposite of everything I believe in, and many of his policies are illogical, rooted in misunderstanding, and in some cases immoral. That being said I don't hate the man. He's the symptom of a greater disease of resentment, anger, bigotry, and yes, the failings of mainstream politics. He won a primary with a number of highly qualified candidates who did not possess his failings, but win it he did. He received 60 million of our votes. That needs to be understood fully. I love and respect some of his voters even as I disagree with them.
I don't own a restaurant, but if Mr. Trump walked in I would great him politely, and try to serve him the meal of his life. If given the opportunity I might try to engage him and express some of my thoughts. Would it do any good? Probably not...but civility has to start somewhere. If everyone waits for the other side to go first it will never happen.
As in so many facets of life, good things happen one person at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)