ANYTHING will help.

Recently, in Safeway, I noticed a Muslim woman in full dress trying to decide on something on the shelf. I stopped and told her what I had used and why I liked it and then I told her the story of my granddaughter - when just three years old - saw an Indian woman in her traditional dress and whispered to me: "OH, There's a PRINCESS", and then literally stalked her around the store until I had to explain to the woman why my granddaughter was following her!
This lovely Muslim woman HUGGED me and thanked me for "being so kind" to her. Are things really so bad, that a common kindness is so unusual? I hope we can all just accept people as individuals and hope for a more tolerant world.

It's really disappointing that Jim Neal thinks so poorly of his fellow residents. While people across the country have had to deal with ugly bigotry after this election, he's claiming without evidence that his neighbors would commit property damage over a sign!

Why does he have a seat on the Human Relations Commission? We all deserve an apology from Commissioner Neal.

"Emotions are bubbling over following November's election"? Seriously? Is there any real proof of this besides children crying (perhaps because their parents have not explained the way our constitutional republic works) and strangers giving hugs at the supermarket? Or does this sort of news just sell?

The only child I heard crying was Commissioner Neal, who is apparently too afraid to put a Trump sign on his lawn. Perhaps you can discuss this with him?

The rest of us are looking to support our neighbors, since this is a community and we care about each other.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Please try to contribute to the conversation. Donald Trump said he would like a registry for all Muslims in the country. People of all faiths rightfully find this terrifying.

Fortunately, here in California, we rejected and will be fighting back against the bigotry of Donald Trump.

@Brick and @Enough - It would have been nice if you had attended the meeting or at least listened to it. It is available on the City's website ( Web Link ) and my relevant comments are from approximately the one hour 30 second mark to the 1 hour 3 minute and 30 second mark.

Nowhere in this article does it say that I mentioned my neighbors; and if you listen, I did not mention my neighbors in my comments. As a matter of fact, I know ALL my neighbors and know that they would never do anything of the sort. However, people do not need to live in Mountain View to drive or walk down my street, and since i live downtown, there are many people that pass by my house from many other cities..

I also specifically stated in my comments that my concerns were based on the violence that occurred in San Jose, as well as the fact that I also have to be concerned about the safety of my wife (who is an immigrant), as well as the 3 other immigrants that live in my house.

The comments that you both made, I think, rather neatly underlines the point I was making about the fact that it it impossible to have a civil discussion and the intolerance faced by those who have a different perspective.

You also may want to recall that just two years ago, a man threatened the current Vice Mayor, Ken Rosenberg, (making a gun sign at him) simply because Ken told him not to vandalize city council campaign signs. Based on these things it would have been irresponsible of me to expose the members of my household to threats of violence.

And just for the record, I voted for Barack Obama in 2012.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, your guy won the election, what does it take for conservatives to not have a victim complex?

However, I'm glad to hear you'll stand with our Muslim brothers and sisters and denounce the horrible rhetoric that Donald Trump has put forth about them. We all stand together in decrying his proposed registry of all Muslims in the country. If only there were some way you could have known how he felt about that before the election, but we can confidently move forward. I'm excited to hear your thoughts on this at the next city council meeting. Maybe you'll have some slides with the faces of Muslims this time?

@Randy - I don't have any problem with anyone who wants to peacefully coexist. As I said at the council meeting, I was speaking up for those victims that NO ONE had spoken up for. People whose only crime was to attend an event, and who were brutally and savagely attacked while police stood by and did nothing. If any Muslims were brutally attacked for no reason and no one else spoke up for them, you can be sure that I would!

As far as the Muslim registry, Trump's official position is that we need to take extra steps to verify those people coming from countries linked to terrorism ( Web Link ). There is nothing in the plan about "a registry of all Muslims in the country". If there were such a plan, or if there is one in the future, I would be opposed to it. The reports that Trump wants to register all Muslims in the US is hyperbole meant to scare and incite people to hatred, fear , and conflict.

As I stated, my wife is an immigrant. She came to this country LEGALLY and yet we were required to undergo interviews for 2 years, submit dozens of fingerprint samples during that time, and report any time we moved. Every time we left the country and returned, we were questioned at the airport and my wife had to give fingerprint scans 4 separate times each time we reentered the country; and she is Italian. By that, I mean that I don't see what the problem is for anyone to have the same level of scrutiny that my wife had and I know that you agree it would be unfair to subject some people to rigorous scrutiny and not others.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, I can understand that it's uncomfortable to face the bigotry put forth by your preferred candidate, but please don't pretend he hasn't said the things he said.

On Sunday November 22, 2015, Trump appeared on ABC's This Week. George Stephanopoulos asked Trump, "You did stir up a controversy with those comments over the database. Let's try to clear that up. Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"

"No, not at all," Trump responded.

Jim, you have clearly ruled out such a thing, but you unfortunately voted for someone who would not.

I don't know why you keep bringing up immigration with regards to Muslims, since many of your Muslim neighbors here in Mountain View are born and raised in this great nation. "All" Muslims includes them. The repeated attempts to deny their American-ness is yet another piece of divisive rhetoric that Donald Trump has foisted upon us.

@Randy, clearly you are the one continually misrepresenting and twisting words and facts. Honestly, what is it with you people who keep doing this? You imply people are full of bigotry and hate and racism and yet it's YOUR every comment and post that drips with it. Why do you purposefully twist someone's words? Are you TRYING to pick fights, make discussions divisive?

You say Jim Neal "keeps bringing up immigration with regards to Muslims". What? Where? It was YOU who brought up Muslims specifically. Jim gave a very factual personal telling of his own experience but then had to defend himself against your mis-representation when you twisted his words.

I just don't get this incessant need for people to continually misrepresent things. We need to have open candid, HONEST discussions and we need to try to heal and come together.

@mvresident2003, I have clearly touched a nerve! However, we'd all appreciate if you didn't turn this into personal attacks. My comments drip with racism? I'd like to see some examples of that. What part of our discussion hasn't been "HONEST?"

It's a clear fact that Donald Trump would not be opposed to a registry of all Muslims in the US. It's an inconvenient fact for you, but it is a fact nonetheless.

@Randy - Let me be more clear then. The link I provided is from Snopes (2016) and it clearly outlines Trump's current position on the matter. I did not see the Stephanopolous interview, but I will take your word for what was said and when it occurred, in 2015. That being said, (as someone who knows how statements can be misinterpreted, such as some people assuming my prior comments applied to my neighbors and others trying to infer that I am anti-muslim) , I understand that sometimes statements need to be clarified or expanded upon in order for the real meaning to be understood. I also know that even afterward, some people will still deliberately misconstrue anything said.

I "brought up" the immigration issue not with regard to Muslims, but to address your point that Trump wanted to have a registry for all US Muslims. My point was that according to Snopes 2016, Trump wants to have a policy that ensures that people coming from countries that are known sponsors of terror, are thoroughly checked out, and pointed out the steps that (as far as I know) all legal immigrants have to go through. My point is that his policy is not directed at anyone in the US, Muslim or otherwise, but is a policy for those who want to immigrate to the US and THAT is where the immmigration part comes in.

You also accuse mvResident2003 of personal attacks, yet you said that I had a "victim complex" just because I spoke out in defense of innocent people who were brutally attacked throughout the US and as close as San Jose. You also try to infer that I deny the American-Ness of Muslims, which I have never said, implied, nor ever made any statement that can be interpreted that way. I find that interesting.


@mvresident2003 - You are absolutely correct. I am glad that you clearly understand what I am saying.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

I feel your eyes referring to my nerve that resents implication and misrepresentation then you didn't touch it, you jumped on it. Your posts aren't honest, they are loaded with misdirection and misrepresentation. Neal didn't even use the word Muslim until YOU did and then you accuse him of continuing to bring it up!

Sigh. This is why this country is so divided. It's sad.

Should read "if you're referring"

Jim, thank you for engaging. However, I'd like a clear statement from you, that you think Donald Trump's failure to reject the idea of a registry of Muslims in the United States is abhorrent. You said you take me at my word on what he said, but then went into a discussion about people deliberately misconstruing things. How can the question from George Stephanopoulos paired with the immediate answer be interpreted otherwise?

I think you are right to be worried about violence against people who are peacefully exercising their rights. Sadly, Donald Trump disagrees. From that very same weekend: "Donald Trump said Sunday that the protester who interrupted his rally at a convention center here on Saturday morning was “so obnoxious and so loud” that “maybe he should have been roughed up.”"

That's from the candidate himself, which is why so many people have been rightly worried.


mvresident, slow down and think critically about your posts and you'll make fewer mistakes. It'll improve your reading comprehension, too, since it's abundantly clear I had no objection to his using the word Muslim, but rather his linking them to immigration. Your kneejerk reactions and inability to understand other people are why we cannot make progress here, and part of why Donald Trump is so unpopular in Santa Clara.

@Randy - I am very glad that we have made progress from having a victim complex to acknowledging that political minorities have a legitimate concern for their safety after enduring unprovoked physical assaults.

As far as my own opinions, I don't know how I can make it any more clear than restating that I am opposed to, reject and find abhorrent any registry of US residents that is based on non-criminal attributes whether it be by race, sex, orientation, political affiliation, religion, etc. I also am opposed to, reject and find abhorrent the classification of people as deplorables, racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, rednecks, and xenophobes just based on their political party preference. I am sure that you find attacks on innocent people to be equally as abhorrent, and that is what I was saying in my original statements which made no mention of Muslims, Trump, neighbors or any of the other items that were brought in to detract from my point that unprovoked violence is unacceptable; and that many people I spoke to did not feel comfortable talking about their opinions for fear of being physically assaulted, losing friends, or in some cases even losing their jobs.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, it strikes me as quite difficult to reconcile your opposition to violence yet your candidate's support for it.

This is a minor point, but feeling like you're going to lose your friends if they find out about your beliefs is usually a bad sign, either for your beliefs or your friends. I'd suggest anyone in that situation take a good, hard look at both of those things.

What Jim Said.

You know Randy, you're starting to sound like my dad. He's in his 70's, listens to Rush Limbaugh and Fox all day and has lost the ability to listen to other sides.

And Jim, I'd be glad to be your friend. You're honorable, well-spoken and seem to be very nice.

Jeez, mvresident, you really can't help but to delve into personal attacks. It's disappointing, since I've yet to see you contribute anything constructive to this discussion.

First, you accused me of racism and dishonesty, and now you're bringing ageism into this. Ibwas brought up to respect my elders.

Regardless, I'm sorry that you feel the need to lash out at others, but I thought we had a higher bar for discussion here.

My goal in speaking out was to bring awareness to the fact that a very horrific and violent act took place in San Jose and to speak up for the victims which included Hispanics, Blacks and Whites. This area is supposed to be one of tolerance for ALL people, and I will reiterate once again that NO ONE should be subjected to unprovoked attacks.

This whole thread shows exactly the reason that I felt it was necessary. Instead of discussing the victims and what we can do to make things better, people are instead engaging in personal attacks and trying to make it a referendum on Trump (whom I did not discuss in my original comments quoted in the article). The victims of this violence deserve better than that.

I am more than happy to discuss my personal decisions for this election in person or via e-mail with anyone who cares to do so and have included my personal e-mail address below, but I would hope that future posters will add to the discussion of how we can prevent this type of violence in the future and acknowledge that it is wrong to physically attack someone or destroy their property for any reason.

My goals have always been to find ways to bring the community together, foster understanding, and ensure that Mountain View remains a great place to live for people of all colors, incomes, religions, and backgrounds.


Jim Neal
jrodricneal@hotmail.com
Old Mountain View

Jim, I may not agree with you politically, but I'm glad we can all stand together against people like Donald Trump who encourage violence towards innocent people peacefully exercising their rights. Our community can come together to reject calls for violence and divisive rhetoric about peaceful Americans.

Jeez, Randy Guelph, you really can't come out from your rhetoric on Trump, and this is why is almost impossible to have an honest and open dialog!
Thanks Jim for your work in trying to bring our community together so we can try to find understanding, I'm really glad that the Human Relations Commission has a voice in you that represents all and not just one side of our City!

I'm sorry, Rose, what about this hasn't been open and honest? I've yet to see any sort of explanation for how someone who says they abhor violence could support someone who encourages violence against peaceful protestors. Perhaps I was raised differently than others, but I expect our leaders to represent the best of us, not the worst.

@Randy - I offered to discuss any other topics you desire via e-mail or even in person, but so far I haven't received anything from you.

This thread focuses on a critically important topic and I am choosing to focus on that. Just this morning the Palo Alto Daily Post had an article titled "GOP women have safety concerns". The story went on to outline that the women were meeting at a restaurant in San Jose on November 16th and one of the member's cars was vandalized. It was severely keyed and the tail light was punched out.

This is exactly what I was talking about and the reason why we need to have a dialog. If the requirement to talk about issues is that we need to be perfect people and we can only support perfect people, then no one would ever be able to speak.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, I'm perfectly happy having this discussion in public. I've already been accused of racism and dishonesty, and that's with the full text available! I promise not to throw a brick through your e-window. But I'm glad to hear conservatives coming around to the idea of safe spaces :-)

Your worries about violence might strike the audience as more genuine if you would denounce Trump's violent rhetoric. Otherwise, it seems mostly like you're just supporting your "team."

We don't expect anyone to be perfect, but we expect them to admit when their leaders have crossed the line. Refusal to do so shows an inability to meet the other side in the middle. Your continual insistence on posting anecdotes is especially worrisome, as you keep ignoring the wave of harassment that spiked after the election: Web Link

Giving a pass to our leaders for "not being perfect" is not the example we should be setting for our children and peers. We must hold them to a higher standard.

@Randy - I wasn't talking about "safe spaces", I didn't "give a pass" to anyone and I'm not on a "side". I don't know why you keep trying to make this about me unless it is to try to distract from the senseless violence that our neighbors are being subjected to. I believe that everyone should be safe from unprovoked attacks wherever they may be.

Also, it is insulting to the victims that you refer to these incidents as "anecdotes", which implies that the stories are unreliable, hearsay or comical. The stories are accurate and have been published. If you find them amusing, then I think that says a lot. There is also video evidence to support most of the incidents I talked about.

If you want to discuss a different topic, you can always write your own article and I will be happy to have the discussion.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, it's quite revealing that given opportunity after opportunity, you simply refuse to directly renounce Donald Trump's violent rhetoric.

I'm sorry if you interpreted my of the term "anecdote" as implying humor in the situation, as I meant no such thing. Anecdotes, while often humorous, are not required to be. I'll use the term "incidents" moving forward to avoid any confusion.

Your continual focus on Trump supporters without ever mentioning any incidents with the other, far more numerous, victims of harassment post-election is disappointing. This and your refusal to denounce Donald Trump's rhetoric make it impossible to build the trust required for a constructive dialog.

@Randy - I am trying to bring attention to a serious issue and I am not going to play the denunciation game, which is merely a way to distract people from the real issue and which would prove nothing to anyone who is more interested in playing "gotcha" games than resolving issues.

Over the last six years, I have spoken out in public and written articles against violence and for people that no one else was speaking up for. I was the first person to talk about the need for balanced growth in Mountain View to preserve neighborhoods and to prevent low and moderate income people from losing their homes.

My current focus is on Trump supporters, because they are the ones being attacked without provocation and NO ONE else is speaking up for them. No one is coming to city hall to demand justice for them, no politicians are giving speeches denouncing the violence against them, the police aren't protecting them, and whenever I speak out on their behalf, people spend more time attacking me or trying to get me to engage in political hopscotch than discussing the victims and the solutions to violence. This tells me that I am doing the right thing.

I have had people actually tell me that the victims "deserved" to be attacked for exactly the reasoning that you are using, that the victims support Trump and therefore support violence; which is ludicrous.

If there are other victims who were were viciously physically attacked and for whom no one is speaking up, then by all means send me the information, or list it yourself. I can only speak to those issues and incidents of which I have personal knowledge.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, if you want to be an effective advocate for your cause, you need to meet people halfway. That involves calling out problems wherever they exist, as painful as it might be to you personally. The way you're approaching this and your refusal to take a principled stand makes the people you're talking to think you have an agenda and only care about the people you agree with. You have a great message, but that's not how we'll come together as a community. Take a look at those numbers and incidents in the article I linked, they're shocking.

Randy, I actually did go to the link before that you mentioned and it is for The Southern Poverty Law Center which actually proves the point that I have made several times here.

The SPLC is a large organization that is speaking out against and taking action on behalf of all the incidents that are listed on their site. They also note:

___________________

We’ve also been tracking false reports (13 total), as a handful of high profile incidents have been recently uncovered, including two (I, II) that we had previously counted and have removed for this update.

While it is almost certain that more false reports will be uncovered, and the SPLC will be quick to update our database, the right-wing narrative that this wave of incidents are all hoaxes simply doesn’t stand up to the numbers. Counting all 13 false reports (listed at the bottom of this post), of which only two were counted in our previous reporting, amounts to just over 1 percent of the total number of incidents collected in this update.
___________________

The notation that some of the reports were false and that they are certain that more will certainly be uncovered fits two of the definitions (hearsay or unreliable) of the word that you used previously "anecdotes". For the ones that are reliable and are proven the SPLC will follow up and take action on them.

With regard to the denunciation game, both major party candidates have been accused of taking actions that could lead to and/or incite violence and I have no desire to argue on behalf of either one or discuss their politics in this thread.

My principles may not match yours, and you may not agree with my principles, but I am taking a stand for them; and one, as I have said before ad nauseam, is to speak out for those who have NOT been spoken out for; especially here in the Peninsula/South Bay Area.

I also have gone more than halfway by engaging in this conversation, offering to talk about this or other issues in person, via e-mail, or in other threads.

I believe that talking about things openly, giving alternate perspectives, and providing information that people may not otherwise have is a great way to bring people together as a community; which is my objective. If you don't agree with that, then that is your right.

The serious and violent nature of the attacks right here in our area is something that cannot be ignored and is the reason that I chose to call out those specific problems.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

I'm sorry, Jim, what are you trying to get at with pointing out the false reports section? You can't be saying because they are acknowledging the existence of a small number of false reports, that these are all anecdotes? I'm honestly having trouble understanding. With the rate of false reports that they've acknowledged, there are still just under 1000 incidents.

Again and again you refuse to say anything about Donald Trump's documented support for violence against peaceful protesters. It's plainly transparent that your failure to do so is because it makes you uncomfortable. If you expect us to believe that you are concerned about violence of all kinds, this would be easy and immediate.

Please, as a member of the Human Relations Commission, take this small action to help our community heal. This doesn't detract from your message, it enhances it!

Randy, perhaps you should re-read what I wrote:

___________________
The notation that some of the reports were false and that they are certain that more will certainly be uncovered fits two of the definitions (hearsay or unreliable) of the word that you used previously "anecdotes". For the ones that are reliable and are proven the SPLC will follow up and take action on them.

Note that I said that for the ones that are RELIABLE (meaning true) the SPLC would follow up. So no, I am not saying that all the reports are false, or even that a majority of them are false, just that some were, which is exactly what the SPLC reported. I fail to see how I can be more clear.

And yes, I haven't said anything about any candidate's actions because I am concerned with what is happening here and affecting our community. Which is what this article and thread are addressing. In other threads I address the topics that they deal with.

I am also speaking on behalf of myself here and not as a member of the HRC.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

In that very same article, the SPLC has listed incidents of anti-Trump harassment, as well. It's a very small number relative to the total, but since they've got it covered you can rest at night and don't need to discuss it anymore. As you stated, they'll follow up on them.

You didn't have any qualms about trying to clarify Trump's stance on a Muslim registry. Yet for some reason now, you have a strong principle not to comment on candidates. Please, we can all see that you're willing to defend him yet refuse to denounce his stance on violence against peaceful protesters. It's painfully clear what your real agenda is. If you truly care about our community, you'd put partisan politics aside and stand up against calls for violence.

I'm thoroughly confused now. Randy you say it's painfully clear what the real agenda is. With all this back and forth I'm missing something here.....what's Jim's "real agenda"?

Randy, I am disappointed that you have decided now to resort to attacks on my character. I am hoping that by bringing the details of these viscous assaults to people's attention, it will raise awareness in the community and encourage people to realize that we need to respect each other even if we disagree.

The SPLC site does not mention the local incidents that I have been talking about ( or at least I didn't see them listed there ). The fact that there is so much resistance to my speaking out on this subject only reinforces the absolute need for it. I realize that it is a difficult topic and that some people would rather talk about anything but the violence that has occurred here; but if it is not addressed now, I am very concerned that we will see more such incidents in the future and that is unacceptable.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

mvresident2003, it's clear that this is partisan politics-as-usual under the guise of being opposed to violence. Frankly, it's sad to see victims of violence being used here as props for a political agenda. They deserve better. I'm glad you returned to the conversation, since I'm awaiting an apology from you for accusing me of racism and dishonesty.

Jim, if this is truly nonpartisan, you would have no difficulty decrying the violent rhetoric that Donald Trump put forth. Yet, time and time again, you dodge the issue under the guise of refusing to talk about candidates. As I showed earlier, you had no trouble defending Trump on the issue of a Muslim registry, but you're avoiding the topic of his violent rhetoric since it is clearly indefensible. Taking the stance that's uncomfortable for you personally will go a long way to helping our community heal, and I'd gladly admit that I was incorrect about your intentions. I deeply want our community to come together against violence.

Randy the first thing you did was to accuse me of having a 'victim complex'. Then you said that you wanted me to denounce unspecified anti-Muslim statements and inferred that I am anti-Muslim. Then you said I brought up immigration with regards to Muslims in this country, when my statements were clearly in regard to the immigration process my wife and I endured and in reference to the process for people immigrating from outside the US. You decried personal attacks against you, but then have no problem with engaging in personal attacks against me. And during the entire conversation on this topic you have interjected one issue after another that has nothing to do with making things any better in our community nor dealing with the violent attacks that occurred here.

I also made it clear that I am not interested in denouncing statements that either candidate made. I did so because I do not want to engage in a conversation about the political campaign in this thread. I will say for the record that I do not support any statement or rhetoric, from any person that calls for unprovoked attacks against innocent people.

I have made it a point to speak out for what I think is right and to speak up for those whom I think have no other voice or are being marginalized. I do not ask their political affiliation, race, religion or any other irrelevant factor. We all have to live together. As far as your unfounded accusation about me engaging in partisan politics, as I stated previously, I voted for Barack Obama in 2012.

I am also in the process of taking several actions to help our community heal but which I cannot discuss until they are finalized. Perhaps instead of attacking me and constantly bringing up unrelated topics, you can share with me your ideas on how we can work together to eliminate unprovoked violence against innocent people and helping them to feel safe expressing their opinions. I look forward to hearing your contributions to these important issues.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, the absurdity of this is staggering. You say "I do not support any statement or rhetoric, from any person that calls for unprovoked attacks against innocent people," but refuse to directly say anything about the documented violent rhetoric of Donald Trump. I honestly can't fathom why you wouldn't make it as a gesture of good faith. To see you willing to speak out against the support of violence, even when it is done by someone you supported, would show everyone that the principle was more important than partisan politics. Instead, you keep having to make general statements, but will only talk about specifics when violence has been directed against someone who supported the same candidate as you did.

I truly want to believe that you're genuine, but I just cannot comprehend why you insist on doing something that undermines the universality of your message.