I Supported Measure K

In June of 2006 the City Council decided to hand over the fate of Target to the voters or the “mob” as James Schwab would derisively comment. At the time I felt the Davis City Council should have made the decision itself. That is why they are elected to the council in the first place. In Redding we never had these large ballot battles over development, the council always decided.

If another future development like Target comes to Davis the council should decide on the question instead of tearing the community apart. City Council members have great access to staff, legal and environmental scholars, developer testimony, and so on. They are in the best position to decide these issues and indeed four out of the five of the council members sided with Target.

I also thought that it was rather inappropriate on the City Council’s part to make a decision on Target during the interim period between the June 2006 election and when City Council members are sworn in. This silenced Target as a political issue in the race because the new City Council members would have no say on the decision. It also shielded the existing City Council from damage. Although politically smart it is quite shady.

Target quickly mobilized resources to campaign on the issue. They rented out a suite in order to promote their campaign and gave out free t-shirts. Along with a professional website and professional people imported from other places they were ready to go. I joined the Target campaign in the Fall of 2006 until the end on the election day.

The Target store had many advantages that were seemingly ignored by the opposition. Target would bring considerable income into the City of Davis and would continue to expand as the years went by. The city at the time was too dependent on the University Mall for sales tax revenue. The Target would also provide products that could not be found in Davis and they were at cheaper prices. This would be very advantageous for students and for families.

The Target also had a Unitrans bus route that would pass along side it. It had an electrical outlet for electrical cars, crosswalks for pedestrians, and was convenient for West and South Davis residents as far as location was concerned.

The Target store was classified as a LEED bronze which is a very difficult rating to get. Only three buildings in the US had such a classification proving that it was the best environmental alternative. It was to be surrounded by trees to make it look nice and its size would block out undesirable traffic from the major highways in the area.

Critics pointed out the possibility of shop lifting but the police chief, who happened to endorse the project, debunked that theory as alarmist. Critics also said there would be a dramatic increase in traffic while at the same time declaring the store would close down due to a lack of business. The truth of the matter is that many people were burning fuel driving to Woodland to get their stuff. It is best to keep tax revenue in Davis instead of it being sent off to places like Dixon, Woodland, and Sacramento.

The alternative to Target would be a warehouse or a car lot. Now, car lots provide a lot of money to the city but not as much as Target. If one looks at the environment Target was the best plan. Some complained that the character of Davis would be forever changed despite the fact that box stores like Ace Hardware, Safeway, Borders, and Office Depot are already here. My point is that Target would do much better for Davis’ character than an open field where nothing happens.

So, all things considered, I volunteered quite a bit. I phone banked, delivered signs, precinct walked, made Facebook groups, argued on the Davis Wiki, held up signs on Election Day, and other small tasks. Was it momentous action? Probably not, but it did put a strain on my schedule and it was more than some other City Council candidates ever did.

In ASUCD I tried to pass a resolution in favor of Target which was introduced by an enthused Spencer Higgins (other Senators refused). It went through the proper channels of going to the External Affairs Commission. The EAC under Mike Lay’s command failed it unanimously. And it wasn’t like the resolution was bad format or content wise. I made changes as they were suggested. It was apparent however that the commission knew very little about the project and was confused by the presence of Lamar Heystek and Rob Roy. Those two fought against the resolution as I argued all the points that I could muster. Heystek had the usual tendency to go over time with his comments. Mike Lay didn’t decide to enforce time limits until I spoke a second time and only after I complained about it. James Schwab said that the resolution should fail due to its divisive nature on the students even though he wrote in his blog that he favored the project. After the resolution had failed it went to the Environmental Planning and Policy Commission. It was also voted down unanimously even as I had victoriously announced that Measure K had won. I was informed by Dan Xie who was the chair of EPPC that Measure K was in fact not environmentally sound. So it never went to Senate and the Senate never had a vote on the subject.

The EAC instead voted unanimously in favor of SMUD which was glorified by Heystek, Roy, and then Senator Salem. Interestingly SMUD was apparently more divisive as it failed in Sacramento and Woodland and barely passed in Davis. That resolution went on to pass unanimously in the Senate. Problem in judging political climate? Perhaps, but I wasn’t alone on this Target issue. President Darnell Holloway was a supporter of Measure K and would have signed into law a measure supporting Measure K. When the election was over Measure K had won with 51.5% of the vote. I won but ASUCD, Heystek, Greenwald, Roy, the EAC, and EPPC were all wrong.

The battle over Target didn’t end after the passage of Measure K. In his zeal to destroy Target Heystek introduced an ordinance that it would increase the minimum wage on retail stores to the same level as Safeway. This would have hurt Target and it was his intention to drive them out of business or at least punish them for wanting to come here. He was defeated by the other four City Council members but he already knew that was going to happen; he wanted to make a political statement.

I must oppose, for obvious reasons, legislation that is designed to destroy business in Davis. There is a way to deal with a certain issue and one cannot punish corporations in order to bring about prosperity. I hope to see Target open in 2009; it should be an exciting day for many residents. Those who voted against Measure K will surely change their minds upon seeing the benefits. But it really needs to be said that City Council candidates: Mike Levy, Lamar Heystek, Stan Forbes, and Rob Roy were all wrong on Target but Ruth Asmundson was right and that is to her credit. Perhaps that is one of the many reasons she got the most votes in the June 2006 election.

Spencer Higgins Draft

On July 24^th some friends and acquaintances came up with this neat idea to draft Spencer Higgins into the City Council race of 2008. The first step was to create a Facebook group which was to be secret until it hit a certain amount of members. The enthusiasm among Higgin’s friends was undeniable as the group has now surpassed 120 people despite it being a secret group. I have had conversations with people who are enthused by this possible candidacy and with good reason.

Spencer Higgins is aware of the existence of the group but is not a member and does not have access to the group itself. This is after all a draft, and many of us hope to gently push Higgins into the race due to our support for his ideals and past works. Higgins will be interning in Washington DC for the Fall Quarter and so for the time being he will be researching City politics and communication with important people on the possibility of a run. Once he comes back in January he will be able to give a definitive yes or no on the question. But for the time being he is merely “testing the waters.” Any implication that it is beyond that would be inaccurate.

Spencer Higgins ran for ASUCD Senate in the Fall of 2004 as an Independent showing early interest in the ASUCD process. He successfully won a Senate seat under Student Focus in the Fall of 2005. Before becoming elected he was an Academic Affairs Commissioner and Senate intern. In the Winter of 2007 Spencer Higgins was a presidential candidate for ASUCD. He was at the same time a pro-Unitrans campaign worker. During his time at UC Davis Higgins was a Theta XI member and become the Philanthropy Chair. Higgins has held internships with Governor Schwarzenegger and will soon become an intern in Washington DC. There are probably other associations and activities that Higgins has been involved in that I am ignorant of, but I am certain that he has the governmental experience to quickly learn complex processes.

Chairing the draft is enthusiastic supporter Wenche Molenaar who used to be the ASUCD Gender and Sexuality Commission Chair and who now works for the Rudy Giuliani campaign. For the time being our goal is to get the message out on Higgin’s personality, intentions, and past activities. There will be a time when it will be appropriate to advance specific policy goals but not at this particular point. It should be noted that I have my own opinions and Higgins has his own. We are separate individuals with separate opinions on the issues. I can comment on the draft and what I personally think but I only speak for myself.

If Higgins does run and that’s a big IF he would be one of the youngest candidates if not the youngest candidate to run for City Council. He would also be a student during this time which means he would have daily interaction with students who may have concerns about their city. We can take the policy questions people have and come up with answers. So, if you happen to get an invite please join the group and then invite your friends into the group as well. This could be a new revolutionary beginning to how students interact with the city.

Davis Police

Here in Davis we have two police departments, that being the Davis Police Department and the UC Davis Police Department. The UC Davis Police Department has jurisdiction over the campus and sections of West Davis. The Davis Police Department covers everywhere else but the two departments often work together.

Every election the subject of police comes up. Should we fund them more? Should we have more oversight? Should we create more committees and commissions to discuss the supposed problems of racial profiling and discrimination? Should we lecture the police on how they handle individual cases in our community? As usual in politics candidates make grand promises to the people and then find themselves unable to solve the problem. This is because there is only so much one council member can do concerning the problem and a lack of motivation by others.

It is probably true that the present City Council incumbents and probable challengers have more experience than me in how to work with the Davis Police Department. They may claim their years of interaction and communication with the Police Department but the thing they lack is vision and life experience.

My father is a Sergeant in the Redding Police Department. He was originally a Pasadena cop and then transferred to Redding in 1988 and has been a police officer ever since. He will retire in January of 2009 at the age of 50 after serving Redding for 20 years. Throughout my life time my father was a patrol officer, investigator, head investigator, SWAT team member, corporal, sergeant, and will go back to patrol within the year. During my life time I have read police reports, made acquaintances with several officers, shot different types of weapons, ride alongs, and I’ve been to the department quite frequently. My father had a tendency to bring his work home with him and I was naturally interested in the types of crimes that he was working on.

It was during this time that I found myself respecting the power of a firearm. I would on occasion go to the police range and I wasn’t bad at shooting. I would often shoot 9mm, .45 cal, .40 cal, and 380 cal. My favorite was the .380 even though it was a rather small gun. I could shoot one handed, left handed, it didn’t matter as far as I was concerned. I also had the opportunity to fire M16 rifles, MP5 submachine gun, and 12 gauge shotguns at various differences. When it comes to these weapons you can’t have a Hollywood attitude. These weapons are indeed powerful and it was with frequent practice with them that I learned their importance in police.

It is said that many people do not like the idea of SWAT teams having submachine guns, sniper rifles, shock bombs, pepper spray bombs, and so on. The truth of the matter is that a SWAT team is the least likely to kill a suspect armed or unarmed in a given situation; the SWAT team moves so fast that the criminal is arrested before he knows what hits him. Contrary to conventional thinking a cop is the most dangerous when he is alone with a suspect in a car. This is not to say that the cop is an enemy, but the kind of shootouts that do occur usually happen when a cop is the most vulnerable. A heavily armed police force is a force that brings more peace and tranquility to a community. As contradictory as that sounds it is the truth.

This is not to say that Davis needs a SWAT team nor can it afford one. This is a small town where violent crime is rather rare. As such a SWAT team would not be necessary but in the event we did have a SWAT team, be rest assured that the ACLU and other ultra liberal anti authoritarian groups would be protesting in the streets. It’s not because they actually feel threatened by a SWAT team but they simply don’t like police power due to their irrational anarchist political feelings.

There was a complaint on the Davis Wiki that cops were upgrading their weapons to assault rifles instead of shotguns. There was some hysteria that this was a bad thing for cops to upgrade their weapons; that we were becoming a police state of sort. The fact of the matter is that rifles are safer than shotguns because shot guns spray pellets all over the place and are not practical long range. A rifle bullet also tends to shatter upon impact upon hitting a wall but a pistol bullet will go through the wall. As such in close urban environments a pistol is more dangerous than a rifle. Too many anti-authoritarians see these high power rifles as a threat due to their ignorance and anti-police feelings. You would think that some of these people would desire to disarm all cops of any weapon.

And so the issues concerning the police are as follows. The police budget continues to expand year after year which is not all too surprising. The City of Davis pays its police department 13 million dollars or 140% more money than the entire ASUCD budget. This money is necessary for personal and equipment. As the town grows the police needs more money and there is also the problem of inflation and wage increases. Davis also needs to stay competitive because if we don’t pay cops the market amount we will lose them to towns like Dixon and so on. JJ Charlesworth, a candidate for Davis City Council in 2004 was wrong to want to cut the police budget. The Chief of Police righteously said that Charlesworth was uninformed on police issues. Perhaps Charlesworth was betting on cynical Davis residents who would be willing to vote for him based on that one issue.

There are the constant accusations of racial profiling that are always brought up by the anti-authoritarian groups. Cops are not paid more nor do they receive an incentive for racial profiling. In most cases cops arrest based on calls and complaints they receive. The problem seems to be is whether a cop pulls someone over simply because the person is a minority. So, if there isn’t a police policy concerning minorities then it must be the individual officers. It has been alleged that Davis must be recruiting racist cops, how else can we explain these happenings? But the fact of the matter is that there is a point of view problem. If you are a cop you pull people over all the time and see hundreds of faces a year during the term of your work. A minority suspect on the other hand only experiences getting pulled over once in four years and is stunned by the experience. This difference in perspective causes a lot of confusion among civilians. People make such a big deal over statistics. If minorities are arrested more often than their population percentage allegations of racial profiling are thrown about. What needs to be realized is that perhaps people are arrested due to their actions regardless of race. There are several other reasons for these stats. There is racial inequality due to economic, cultural, geographical, and circumstantial reasons. These inequalities can in some cases greater frequency of crimes. To say that minorities are arrested with greater frequency is due to racist cops is an oversimplification of the issue.

If a cop pulls you over it’s probably for a reason outside of your race. Will a cop pull someone over for a minor technicality on your car? It happens all the time and the cop may do just that if he has a slight suspicion that he may find more violations upon having a chat with the owner of the car. You will find that cops like to have conversations with a possible suspect to gather information; they will stop you in mid-sentence before you ask for a lawyer, and they will give you a coke, cigarettes, and other types of compliments as they chat with you. I have been told that cigarettes are a cop’s best friend in interrogation rooms.

Students also tend to complain against the cops for the enforcement of noise violations. Let us be clear. The vast amounts of students are law abiding citizens who do not have to deal with noise violations or the police in general. But on occasion you have a noisy party and the police are called out. The police come to parties not because they want to but due to a complaint. That means that a neighbor was annoyed and called the cops. On most occasions cops do not give citations but merely warn parties that they are too noisy. In some of these parties you have underage drinking and on rare occasions drug use. This cannot stand in a law abiding society and you should be busted if you engage in such actions. Sometimes you have students who actively insult and fight with the police over noise violations. This does not help relations between police and students. Are some cops jerks on occasion, yes, it happens. Are students jerks to police, yes, it happens as well. We are all human beings, but there is no trend or policy for cops to act like jerks towards students.

Now as far as abuse in Davis, if you compare us to other cities we are pretty well off. Every abuse listed on the Davis Wiki can be explained away with a clear understanding of the events and police policy. We do not have an abusive police, period.

In ASUCD there are leaders who have made statements against the police and actively fight the police. These same leaders are a walking contradiction. Senator Peake works for the ACLU, a notoriously anti-police organization, so as to create ties between students and police. On the other hand he promotes and marches in the May 1^st rally which advocates civil disobedience against the City of Davis to which cops have to show up and put people on buses. You have James Schwab, who invented the ASUCD Police Relations Committee, telling a fellow student to close a door on a police officer’s face to prevent the officer from seeing under aged drinking. The Police Relations Committee he was in charge of never got off the ground despite the fact that I applied for it and some other people I personally knew applied for it. He didn’t like me politically so he shut it down for six months despite the fact that I have two decades of police experience.

ASUCD passed a resolution in favor a Police Relations Committee made up of seven individuals. These individuals would be appointed by the City Council, the Police Chief, and ASUCD; the resolution was written by Rob Roy. The Senate didn’t get the police side of the story or the City’s side of the story mainly because it was an urgent resolution decided around 11pm. In the resolution they used the Halema case to justify their proposal. The City shot it down in large part because the Senate was not properly informed on the Halema case. Don Saylor famously voiced his opposing feelings on the issue. The ASUCD then used this response to say that the City Council was out of touch with the student body and further bashed the police. The truth is that the students didn’t vote for their leaders to make uninformed judgments in the form of an emergency resolution. The City Council and I were right, ASUCD was not. As this was occurring ASUCD created a new a police relations committee which, surprise, doesn’t function either. Why do these committees fail? It could have a lot to do with their being a total lack of complaints.

With the Halema case the District Attorney (then and now), the City Council, and the Davis Police Department believed that Police Officer Ly was in the right. Even City Council candidate Mike Levy stated that the police were technically correct and that people shouldn’t jump to conclusions. The City felt so strongly that they awarded Ly Officer of the Year. If one listens to the tape and the evidence it is clear that Ly was polite and professional. He was not racist, abusive, or an authoritarian jerk. There is some dispute over whether he continued to question Halema even though she wanted a lawyer. Although it may go against police policy to continue questioning someone after they ask for a lawyer it really isn’t that big of a deal. Any statements she makes after desiring a lawyer would simply be thrown out of court. One of the first meetings I was involved in ASUCD had James Schwab presenting his case about Halema and the police. Upon reflecting back on that April 2006 presentation I found much of what he said to be inaccurate. Halema and her family ruthlessly attacked Officer Ly, sued the Davis Enterprise, and then sued the Police Department after being busted for a hit and run and I am supposed to just let that go?

The City Council needs to have the leadership to defend the police, our own troops, from the attacks of anti-authoritarian groups that have an axe to grind against all police institutions. Groups like the ACLU side with criminals, child molesters, sex offenders, terrorists, murderers, and fight the police at every opportunity. They fight against the non-lethal TAZER and hopes to one day disarm the police entirely. They fight for anarchy and the destruction of an orderly society because they are crazy but also because they have a warped view of the world. We need a city council that will defend the police from these loons and we need a city council that will publicly fight back. We need a city council that will engage with ASUCD and educate ASUCD about the police, not just make chiding statements at 10:45pm on a Tuesday when no one is listening. It will be a disaster if an anti-police candidate wins in a city council election.

Only a pro-police city council candidate will have the experience and influence to make change. But the anti-authoritarians have weakened us. They have cost us the Chief of Police (he resigned) as well as four officers who also resigned. The Human Relations Committee’s constant attack of the police is inappropriate and it really served them right when the City Council disbanded them.

I know that the silent majority of Davis residents and students support the police. The question is whether they will allow the minority of anti-authoritarians to win in 2008.

Silent Majority

Fellow Students and Davis Community Members,

On May 1^st, 2007 several hundred students marched down 5^th Street and then proceeded to block the La Rue Intersection. Two dozen individuals dissatisfied with Sodexho employment blocked the Intersection causing traffic jams and inconvenience to many citizens. These individuals deliberately and knowingly broke the law by sitting in a tight circle in the center of the intersection.

By blocking the La Rue intersection Unitrans buses could not move forward causing many students to be late to class. Some of these students had important midterms and classes they could not afford to miss. Other Davis community members were inconvenienced by the organizers; they could not get to where they wanted to go or conduct their necessary trips for the day. The blocking of the intersection was entirely illegal and as a result the organizers were arrested one by one and bussed off to be booked.

What is even more troubling is that the organizers did not warn the community in advance as to what they were going to do. As a result many Davis community members and students were literally stranded.

First we must realize that the march would have been considered a success without the blocking of the intersection. Objectively the organizers of the march had much to celebrate considering the amount of people who marched.

Second the blocking of the intersection was entirely a Sodexho employee affair. The anti-war movement, the immigrant rights organizations, and the worker’s right organizations did not participate in the illegal activity that took place that day. The Sodexho employees acted alone for the purpose of publicity.

The Sodexho workers in the weeks afterwards disrupted a Brown Bag Lunch talk hosted by the Chancellor. They selflessly kept the Chancellor from addressing the interested parties at the event. If you walk around the campus you will find spray painted graffiti supporting the Sodexho workers on university property. This is lawlessness.

On May 23^rd, 2007 Sodexho workers surrounded Mrak Hall preventing employees and students from freely going in and out of the building. Protesters banged on the windows in an intimidating fashion and made it impossible for students to receive services from Mrak Hall. I, myself had desired to conduct business at Mrak Hall but was prevented by the mob that was there. As before some of the protestors were arrested for violating the law. Organizers wrote in the California Aggie that their protests would escalate as the university refuse to give in to their demands.

As a result of the Sodexho employee’s criminal activity many students and Davis community members have distance themselves from them. The Sodexho employees have resorted to blackmail and extortion to get what they want. They can’t prove their case on economic grounds and as such they hope to embarrass the university into submission with bad press and criminal intimidation. It is perfectly reasonable to feel sympathy towards Sodexho workers. It is righteous to want to help our fellow students achieve greater success in the work place. But by making Sodexho workers employees of UC Davis it will increase student fees and will make strikes more frequent on the campus. There is firm evidence that not all Sodexho workers desire to be UC Davis employees in the first place.

Those demonstrators who break the law and cause chaos on the campus are not the majority of students on the UC Davis campus. They will not be the leaders of the future. The Silent Majority of students need to stand up and be counted.

Davis College Republican Game

On May 1^st the Davis College Republicans organized an Immigration Game on the quad of the UC Davis campus. The event was advertised through club meetings and through a Facebook event. The reason the event was to take place on May 1^st was due to the large protests expected to form at the same time on that day.

The rules of the game were simple enough but every rule was symbolic of how our immigration system was broken. There would be two sides with two flags that were meant to be captured. The illegal immigrants on one side would attempt to capture the flag without being caught by INS agents who were represented by the other team.

The illegal immigrants were to be larger in numbers then the INS agents to symbolize the fact that the INS agents are currently and have always been outnumbered by the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who cross the border. No one can dispute the point that the INS is under staffed and is currently overwhelmed with the task of securing the border.

The INS side was to always play on defensive the entire game to symbolize the argument that INS agents are constantly defending the border and are not allowed to make any offensive moves against the problem. This is not to say that the Davis College Republicans desire INS agents to invade Mexican territory in retaliation. Rather it was to state that INS agents have to be right 100% of the time for them to win the game on illegal border crossing.

INS agents in the game were to have their hands behind their back. This was to symbolize the argument that INS agents lack the necessary personal, funds, equipment, and technology to properly do their jobs. This statement is a criticism of both the Bush administration’s and Congress’ inability to get the job done concerning the border.

Illegal Immigrant players would also be released from their cells after a ten minute period. This was to represent Amnesty. Amnesty which took place in 1986 by the Reagan administration and a Democratic Congress was later seen as a disaster by many Republicans. In a Capture the Flag game those who are tagged by the other side are sent to a holding place.

The game’s design gives a sense of futility for the INS side. Not only were they outnumbered and outgunned they would have to release all the prisoners they had accumulated every 10 minutes. This game was called “street theater” by the Davis College Republican Chair.

Was the game in itself racist? Instead of giving a rational argument against the complaints brought up by the Davis College Republicans too many labeled the game itself racist. The game itself could not be racist as its rules were never about race of any particular ethnicity. Some of the posters and advertisements shown by the Davis College Republicans were in English and Spanish, but that was merely another element to the satire. It is known by most that over 90% of all illegal immigration comes from Latin America. It is not racist in it of itself to point this fact out as any immigration policy will ultimately have to involve itself in geography. That said, I do believe the Davis College Republican posters should have had Ukrainian translation for good measure.

Had some of the players covered themselves in brown paint or specifically committed an action that poked fun of any particular race then perhaps a case could be made. However, if one supports stricter border controls that is not necessarily racist behavior towards Hispanics. Supporting a wall on the Israeli border is not necessarily racist against Palestinians, these are merely policy positions.

In reality the game couldn’t even begin because Hispanic organizations La Raza (The Race) and MECHA intervened and ambushed the smaller Davis College Republican group. It is true that these two groups had reserved in advance space on the quad but they did not have authority to enforce their reservation on the DCR group, which is up to university personal. Many DCR officers reported later that they had been threatened with violence through emails and personal confrontations. Campus police had to escort several DCR members from the quad so that they would not be physically attacked by protestors. Days later DCR members who had not even attended the event were threatened through emails and here I thought I was popular.

The Davis College Republicans as I have observed are not racist by any imagination. The organization is made up of Caucasians, Hispanics, Asians, African Americans, Jews, and even Libertarians. They have also campaigned for Republican candidates of every nationality and ethnicity. Only one who has not associated themselves with the group would be so ignorant as to claim they were a racist group.

On the other hand Hispanic organizations on the campus have taken the liberty of shouting anarchist slogans in Spanish on American soil during the protest marches. There were signs in the march that were written in Spanish, many of which were demeaning towards the university leadership. If you were to read the publications of the Hispanic organization you would find that they attack European colonists and European history. Hispanic organizations also have a tendency to segregate themselves from the rest of society. Yet none of these things can be touched upon because any attack on the Hispanic community is automatically considered racist.

As for me personally I have a non-related Mexican American aunt, and a cousin of Mexican descent. I have had friends in my high school class who were Hispanics and as a Catholic I cannot help but have positive relations with Hispanic people. In 2004 and 2005 I build houses for poor Mexican families and I have taken several Spanish language courses throughout my educational career. I am Hispanic myself in a way as I am ¼ Spanish; my grandmother being full blooded Spanish. My best friend is half Mexican; I am indeed immune to ignorant claims that I could ever be racist.

Perhaps the Davis College Republicans could have chosen a better way to advocate their message to the world. That said, until students and community members can understand each other’s motives there will continue to be these kinds of misunderstandings. And then there are those who wish to cause trouble. These people are the leaders who want to continue the division between the races and do not seek to reconcile differences. These individuals have a political stake in continuing the hate. These people must be confronted whenever possible.