My Column from the May 19, 2016 Nashua Telegraph: News Curators and Storytelling from the Oval Office

Curator”: A person who is in charge of the things in a museum, zoo, etc.

That is how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word. In today’s world, however, the word has taken on a whole new meaning. The word “curator” is now applied to describe individuals in key positions who curate news content online. So-called news curators filter and control the information made available to the online and other news media, and they are becoming more and more influential in our democracy.

These new curators were most recently in the news a couple of weeks ago, when a former Facebook curator stated that workers there prevented news stories that favored conservative viewpoints from appearing on Facebook’s highly influential “trending” section. This same person stated that news curators were instructed to artificially “inject” stories into the trending section, even if they were not trending at all.

These allegations, if true, fly in the face of Facebook’s claim that the stories on its trending section are based on Facebook’s algorithm, which allegedly was used to prioritize the stories that appeared in the section. Facebook currently boasts 167 million users – who pay nothing to use it – in the United States alone, so the power of its trending section to influence public opinion cannot be ignored. Facebook, by the way, denies the allegations.

On the heels of the Facebook revelation came David Samuels’ article in the May 8, issue of New York Times Magazine under the headline “The Storyteller and the President.” The article tells the story of Ben Rhodes, who is now 38 years old and carries the title of deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

Rhodes is described in the article as the “single most influential voice shaping American foreign policy aside from POTUS himself.” According to the article, Rhodes and the president communicate several times each day. Up until the time he was hired, at age 31, he was an aspiring novelist.

Rhodes too, is a modern-day news curator. In a nutshell, his job is to make sure the president’s foreign policy decisions are supported by a proper narrative, preferably one designed to convince the public of its correctness. As Samuels describes him, “he is the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the press.” Rhodes worked with a team for years to ensure that the story being told to the public surrounding the nuclear disarmament negotiations with Iran was the one that the president wanted us to hear.

How does Rhodes do it? By meticulously feeding information to “the administration’s well- cultivated network of officials, talking heads, columnists and newspaper reporters, Web jockeys and outside advocates who can tweet at critics and tweak their stories backed up by quotations from “senior White House officials” and “spokespeople.”

In other words, Rhodes drives the narrative by getting the story Obama wants told into the hands of modern-day journalists who will rebroadcast it in their columns and on their social media networks. The public is being spoon-fed select information by the administration, which arrives on our devices and in our newspapers in a re-broadcast form.

Another phrase used to describe what Rhodes does to the media: he “ventriloquizes” them. The news media are the dummies, and we are the audience.

Rhodes was hired to help the president communicate with the public, and Rhodes notes that the timing of his appointment came during a decade where 40 percent of newspaper-industry professionals had lost their jobs. Now, there are precious few newspapers that maintain foreign bureaus. The end result is that the newspapers call him to explain to them what is happening in foreign countries. In the era of social media, most of the reporting on foreign affairs takes place in Washington. The reporters tend to be very young, and very inexperienced. For Rhodes, manipulating them is child’s play. They tell his stories.

This, of course, is a stark contrast from the way reporting was done historically. The president used to go on television and address the country, and reporters would listen, interpret and report. Now, the message the president wants to deliver is more effectively carried by all of us, on social media. The key is not getting us to watch the speech. The key is getting the people we follow on Twitter, and the curators at Facebook, and other people with large followings, to re-broadcast the message. The key, sadly, is “ventriloquization” in the media. And then we re-broadcast it ourselves, blindly furthering the desired narrative.

For me, reading the article brought me back to the day when John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate. At the time, I found that act to be the most cynical political maneuver I had ever witnessed, and I refused to vote for McCain because of it. But if Samuels’ article is remotely accurate, then Obama has trumped McCain. If, in fact, his administration provides misleading information to the media that is designed to further his foreign policy agenda, then he is absolutely untrustworthy. Honestly, he could not disrespect us more.

So where does this leave our democracy? Can a democracy function not just without a free press, but without any substantive press at all? The gridlock in Congress over the last few years suggests perhaps not. The pending election suggests that a large part of the voting population cares not necessarily about logic, but about tribal identity, upending the status quo, anger, fear and jealousy. Maybe some of that is attributable to the unreliability of our news sources.

But in light of the methods employed by the Obama administration to further its agenda, I have to admit I really don’t blame them.


My September Column from the Nashua Telegraph on Dinner with Lindsay Graham and the NH Primary

New Hampshire really is a special place. I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when my wife and I attended a fundraiser for Sen. Kelly Ayotte in Warner. There were around 40 folks in attendance, and the agenda called for cocktails, dinner and remarks from Sen. Ayotte.

The setting was spectacular, actually on a working bison ranch. The whole atmosphere screamed New England, but what occurred there was strictly New Hampshire.

Few of us were expecting any special guests beyond Sen. Ayotte and her family, but about 15 minutes into the event, South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham appeared. So there we were, 40 of us, in Warner, on a Bison ranch, with two of our 100 elected U.S. senators – one of whom is a presidential candidate.

If you described this scene to people in other states, they probably would not believe you. But in New Hampshire, every four years at least, it happens. Read More »


My Column from the Nashua Telegraph: June 17, 2015 – It’s Time for Nashua to Step Up

It’s time for Nashua to step up

Scott Flegal

Based on what I saw and heard, I can say unequivocally that the Broad Street Parkway is by far the most significant event for Nashua’s downtown in the last 30 years.

For Nashua’s downtown, the Broad Street Parkway could change everything.

Actually, the proper statement is that it should change everything. But for the parkway to do all it should do for Nashua businesses and residents, Nashua needs to be bold. It needs to be creative. Perhaps most importantly, it needs to identify and execute key strategic initiatives designed to maximize Nashua’s potential.

The new road should have a huge impact on downtown. It unlocks Nashua’s previously landlocked Millyard district. It completely changes the access route to downtown, removing Broad Street and Amherst Street east of the turnpike as preferred ingress options. That, in turn, should reduce the traffic and eliminate the backups that occur routinely on Library Hill.

When one walks around the Millyard district and views the incoming road, one can see the change coming and begin to envision the possibilities.

From a development standpoint, the area is loaded with potential. There is enough land available – much of it with gorgeous views of the river and Mine Falls Park – to accommodate something as previously unimaginable as a small hotel or a conference center.

Some, apparently, envision a performing arts center in the district. In any event, the point is that the parkway so drastically improves the access to the Millyard district and the downtown that the sky is the limit for both areas.

But to fully leverage the economic development opportunity provided by the new road, Nashua needs to do something that it has rarely, if ever, done before. It needs to think big. It needs to shed its negative self-image as a city in the shadow of Manchester and embrace a new identity that will keep it on the map for years to come.

The parkway should be the first step in this new direction.

Nashua’s downtown has absorbed some pretty tough blows over the last few years. The Great Recession was hard on small businesses everywhere, but the sight of empty storefronts on Main Street is a discouraging and daily reminder for many of us of how difficult times are for small businesses.

The relocation of Alec’s Shoe Store – which, as Great American Downtown Director Paul Shea pointed out in a recent Telegraph article, is really a terrific success story – is, for the downtown, a painful loss.

But as it so often does, out of adversity springs opportunity. The access provided by the parkway makes the former Alec’s location an interesting opportunity for the right retail business. Shoppers will no longer have to fight their way to through traffic to shop there.

While this thought may stir up some controversy, maybe it is time to selectively lure the right national retailer to the location. Portsmouth has used this technique beautifully, luring a few niche retail chain stores to its downtown.

While these stores compete with local retailers, they also become destinations for shoppers because of their national reputations. They draw more people to the downtown. In the wake of Alec’s move to Exit 8, Nashua’s downtown badly needs another destination store.

Many will say that Portsmouth is different from Nashua, and in fact it is. It has both the ocean and summer tourists.

But what really differentiates Portsmouth from Nashua is its mindset. Portsmouth thinks big. It embraces bold ideas. It has a brand-new performing arts center and is building yet another parking garage to service its downtown.

In Portsmouth, they get things done. In Nashua, it has taken 25 years to get the Broad Street parkway constructed.

Despite the ridiculous delays in getting the new road built, maybe the timing for its opening is good. The economy is clearly picking up. Foreclosure rates are plummeting. The residential market is surging. Businesses are growing. The work done by the city on Main Street should be concluded in a few more months.

Criticize the aesthetics if you like, but the fact of the matter is that the sidewalk renovation was badly needed. Best of all, when the work is completed, we will already have paid for it. Main Street should be ready to accommodate the growth it should see when the parkway is completed, without spending millions more on sidewalks.

Finally, commuter rail completes a bold vision of Nashua’s future. Truthfully, Nashua’s greatest economic advantage is its proximity to Boston. Commuter rail service through Nashua’s downtown would leverage that advantage.

Large technology companies could locate here and still have access to the talent pool that exists in Boston and Cambridge. Those folks are not interested in sitting in traffic. They do not want to commute in cars. They want to ride the train and stay connected during that time. Nashua needs to do whatever it takes to make commuter rail a reality. It is that important.

So there is a bright vision and a great opportunity for Nashua. But it is hard for us stubborn Yankees to imagine Nashua with a beautifully developed Millyard district, a vibrant downtown, and commuter rail that connects us with the Manchester airport and Boston.

It’s in our blood to be skeptical. But now is the time for us to make change. With some bold and creative leadership, an engaged populace and a strong economy, the vision is achievable. It is up to all of us to make the right decisions and take the right steps to make it happen.

Read More »


Choosing the Right College is More Stressful Than Ever

My column from today’s Nashua Telegraph:

It’s that time of year again. Parents and their soon-to-be high school graduates are agonizing over a most impactful decision: choice of college.

For the graduating senior, the decision sets the stage for the next four years of his or her life. That is an eternity for an 18-year-old. For parents, the decision has implications in both the interpersonal and the financial areas. Make no mistake: This is a stressful time for these families.

The pressure is exacerbated by the skyrocketing cost of obtaining a four-year college degree. For a variety of reasons – not the least of which is the seemingly unlimited availability of loans to finance college education – tuition costs at four-year colleges have continued to increase, despite the Great Recession.

Indeed, we now live in the midst of what many are calling a student loan crisis. According to The Atlantic, student loan debt increased by 511 percent between 1999 and 2011. Read More »


My Column from the Nashua Telegraph – Hillary is Out!

In my life, email is ubiquitous. It arrives in my inbox morning, noon and night. Some of it is junk. Much of it is substantive. All of it needs to be managed. Indeed, managing my email occupies way too much of my time. There are many things I would rather be doing, and just about all of them would be more productive.
Unfortunately, I do not have a choice. Email has become the primary vehicle for communicating with clients. It is, after all, instant, and written. Senders know their message will be instantly received, especially since most of us receive them on our phones as well. That makes it the best method of communication for people engaged in business. Whether I like it or not, that makes it the best method for me.
Managing the volume of emails I receive is a chore. As a lawyer, I am charged with ethical responsibilities relative to retaining client communications and confidentiality. Those duties, I know, must be taken very seriously. They cannot be neglected. To do so would be irresponsible. To do so could constitute malpractice. So client emails are dutifully sorted and saved in the appropriate location. When we run out of space on the system we get more.
All of this makes Hillary Clinton’s recent admission regarding her email management as Secretary of State unfathomable to me. Ms. Clinton has confessed that she not only used a personal email account to conduct official business, but deleted thousands of those email as well, without retaining copies. How could this be? Read More »


My Column from the Nashua Telegraph – 02/18/15 on Annual Small Business Challenges

The first months of a new year can be tough for business owners. First, there is the weather. My business is not a retail business, so I really have no standing to complain. But it weighs on me, and that weighs on my business. Plus, for business owners the beginning of a new year brings with it the same question: where will my revenue come from this year, and what do I need to do to make more of it?
I was staring at the piles of snow on Main Street contemplating this question when it dawned on me that I could use a spark. A refresher was definitely in order. 2015 will be my thirtieth year of practice, a thought that in and of itself gave me pause. What I needed was not mentoring. The itch that needed scratching was not a legal one. I needed business wisdom, and in my view you get that from people with two important qualities. The person needed to be experienced, and the person needed to understand sales and selling. Read More »


Milennials Make Terrific Entrepreneurs – From the Nashua Telegraph, January 14, 2014

From the day I graduated high school I was on a conveyor belt. Four years of college. Three years of graduate school. Take the bar exam. Get a job. Get married. Have children. That pretty well sums up my path during my twenties.
It wasn’t a bad path. It was the path. If you were fortunate to go to college in my generation, that was how it went. Granted, not all went to graduate school. The ones who didn’t simply stepped from college right on to the career conveyor belt. They just had a head start on me.
The adventurous and wealthy among us might have squeezed in an adventure during our college years. Some might have spent a few weeks one summer touring Western Europe via rail. Those were the risk-takers of my generation. Nobody went to Eastern Europe. The Berlin Wall stood tall and strong in those days, and the other side spelled danger. Looking back, it was all pretty tame.
I am reminded of my own path all the time whenever it crosses the path of a Millenial. My path looks nothing like their path. Millenials are generally defined as those individuals born between 1981 and 1993. According to a recent advisory from Deloitte Consulting, LLP, Millenials are the largest generation after the Baby Boomers. There are approximately 75 million of them, and they seem poised to make a substantial impact on the world’s future.

Read More »


My December 17, 2014 column from the Nashua Telegraph……………….Villa Banca Closes

It was very sad to see Villa Banca abruptly close its doors in downtown Nashua a few weeks ago. We can only hope that a new occupant will arrive on the scene who can add some energy to a downtown that has absorbed more than its fair share of body blows during the last couple of years. So what happened to Villa Banca?
Obviously I do not know specifically what led to its demise. However, there are a number of reasons that downtown stores and restaurants continue to struggle. First, it is hard for an entrepreneur, imbued with the intellectual and emotional energy of starting a business, to come to grips with just how difficult that challenge can be. It takes stamina, and lots of it. It requires energy and the ability to work long hours. But it also requires financial stamina.
In my experience, it takes roughly three years for a new business to gain traction in the marketplace. During that time very few customers just walk in the front door, especially on Main Street. They need to be given a reason to come. Maybe the place looks interesting and unique to passersby. Maybe an advertisement got their attention. Maybe they were friends of the owner. Maybe it was word of mouth. The point is that something draws them to the business. Few wander in unsolicited.
If in three years the business is still alive, enough repeat business will have been generated to sustain the enterprise. That means that the business must have enough capital to sustain itself during that difficult three year period. We see so many small businesses open and close on Main Street within a relatively short period of time. Often the reason is a simple one. They are undercapitalized.
So how do we explain Villa Banca, which certainly had a following and a good reputation for a number of years? Unlike Aubuchon Hardware, whose closing constituted another blow to Nashua’s downtown this year, Villa Banca was locally owned. It was not a casualty of corporate restructuring. Obviously, it did not have enough customers for the owners to justify keeping it open. But why was that the case?
I suspect that Villa Banca, like many closely owned businesses, may have fallen victim to the shrinking middle class in America. Economic study after study has demonstrated that the purchasing power of what we think of as the middle class in America has shrunk, and is continuing to shrink. There are simply fewer patrons able to visit Villa Banca regularly enough to permit it to sustain itself and grow. Folks can afford Applebee’s or Chile’s, but they cannot afford Villa Banca. It is the new reality.
I know I see in my law practice that my small business clients are, with a couple of exceptions, merely treading water. For most there are no significant growth plans on the horizon. Few of them are contemplating acquiring a competitor, or buying a building. Few of them are doing very much hiring. Most are not making much more money than they were ten years ago. From all of that one can fairly easily deduce that if anything, these same folks are eating at restaurants like Villa Banca less often these days. The middle class is getting squeezed.
I have neither the inclination nor the time here to get into a political discussion about which party is to blame for this predicament. Truthfully, I swore off allegiance to either one of them some time ago. I am curious to see, however, which party might recognize the plight of the middle class and actually come after its votes in the 2016 Presidential election.
Up to now, the Republicans efforts on tax relief have focused on big business and the wealthy. It seems pretty clear that the benefit of those tax cuts have failed to trickle down far enough. Will the Republicans shift gears and propose some substantive tax relief for the middle class? I think it would win votes. Could it not be justified on economic grounds?
As for the Democrats, their major legislative achievement during their time in control of the White House and at least one branch of Congress was health care reform. I appreciate their efforts. I understand clearly that health care was in the process of swallowing our economy. Who knows, in time it might even prove to have been the right choice. But has it helped the plight of the middle class? If the evidence is in, I have yet to see it. So I have the same question for the Democrats. The middle class is ripe for the picking. Will you be the party that offers it substantive tax relief so its plight improves? Would that sort of legislation not be good for the economy, and generate votes at the same time?
I guess only time will tell whether either party will have the common sense to leap to the defense of the middle class. Until one of them does, however, it will continue to be tough sledding for this vital population group, and for our Main Street businesses that serve them. In Nashua, we have the Broad Street Parkway on the horizon. Let’s hope its arrival breathes some additional life into our downtown community.


My Post-Election Diatribe – Nashua Telegraph – November 12, 2014

I did not want to write this article. I tried to suppress it, I really did. I know that by the time the recent election ended, most of us were fed up with it. Most of us are sick and tired of reading about it, hearing about it or even thinking about it. I get that. Nonetheless, and with apologies to readers who may have overdosed on the topic, I need to write a post-election diatribe. Bear with me if you can.

My diatribe really is not about the election results. With a few notable exceptions, I can live with the choices New Hampshire voters ultimately made. What I cannot get past is what voters were subjected to during the weeks and months preceding the election. What I cannot fathom is the extent to which money is continuing to insidiously corrupt the electoral process and our democracy.

The sheer volume of political advertising was overwhelming. As Election Day approached, it took up more and more space inside my mailbox. My response was a political statement of sorts. I threw them out without reading them. I threw out every last one of them – before they could even enter my house. I separated them from the rest of the mail at my mailbox (without looking at them, of course), and walked to my garage to throw them in the recycling bin. In this fashion, I prevented them from even entering the premises.

Then there were the incessant, mind-numbing television advertisements. They were loud, obnoxious, ominous, dark, negative and repetitive. Eventually, I pretended to be Chauncey Gardiner, the odd chap brilliantly played by Peter Sellers in the movie “Being There.” “What would Chauncey think of this?” I asked myself as I watched Frank Guinta’s round head superimposed inside the 1950s TV set on Carol Shea-Porter’s attack ad for the 42nd time. My eventual conclusion was that the advertisements would have ruined the story, as Chauncey would have been too terrified by the portrayal of the outside world to ever leave the house.

A lot of money was spent on those ads. The Washington Post pegged the total amount spent on the 2014 election at $3.7 billion dollars. But to put that in perspective, the article also pointed out that Americans spend $7.4 billion dollars annually on lawn care. So the problem is less the total amount spent on the election, and more the source of the amount spent. According to the Post, all of that money came from only 0.2 percent of the U.S. population of 316 million. To put it bluntly, all that money came from a very concentrated, small portion of the electorate.

There is a lesson here, I think, and an important one to bear in mind when the ads start next week for the 2016 primaries. There is a direct correlation between the concentration of the funding sources that pay for political advertisements and the partisan, extreme and obnoxious nature of the political advertisements themselves.

That alone ought to be enough to get all of us on the campaign-finance-reform bandwagon. Better we federally fund elections to the tune of $10 billion than go through another $4 billion election cycle like the last one. Honestly, I’m not sure I could withstand one.

Our political parties don’t seem to be helping things, either. I tried to listen carefully to the candidates, but I heard very little of substance from any of the ones running for national office. From the Republicans, I heard nothing but negativity. From the Democrats, I heard nothing. For me, at least, the two sides’ comments were white noise. Neither party cared to inform me.

Sadly, voters need to get used to this sort of campaigning. We may have reached the breaking point, where there is so much money at stake for those in the game that they are afraid to say anything that has the slightest possibility of compromising their chances of winning it.

For incumbents, losing an election means giving up the chance to make a fortune in the private sector down the road, perhaps as a lobbyist. For the challengers, winning an election means a ticket to financial freedom and future prosperity.

These same financial stakes drive all the candidates’ advisors, handlers and contributors. There is just so much money at stake inside the game, driving so many private agendas inside the game, that the public agenda may be become lost. Modern politics have become like the lottery: One needs to be in it to win it.

This is tough stuff to think, and to write, because I genuinely like and respect many of the individuals who are brave enough to wade into the political waters. I wish no misfortune, financial or otherwise, on any of them. I agree with Lawrence Lessig, who wrote that the people in the system are not corrupt – the system is. The money has corrupted it.

That grim realization, though, does nothing to change the sinking feeling I have that those on the inside playing the game are increasingly playing it for themselves, and not for the rest of us.

Read More »


My Take on Market Basket


From the Nashua Telegraph, Thursday, August 20, 2014

Is there any business more interesting than a family business? The relationships between family business owners make the relationships between owners of other privately owned companies look like child’s play. Regular business owners might have long-term relationships; family business relationships, on the other hand, are lifelong. Regular business owners have predecessors and successors; family business owners have mothers, fathers and heirs. Regular business owners have experience; family business owners have scars.

Many of us in New England are witnessing the downside of family ownership as we watch the ongoing Market Basket saga. Market Basket, one of the nation’s largest and most successful privately owned retailers, is being brought to its knees by two competing forces. Internally, the family is feuding. Externally, the employees and customers have banded together in a show of unity and support for one ownership faction that is rare – if not unprecedented.

The feuding piece is fairly easy to comprehend. Family businesses, especially ones owned by second- and third-generation owners, are inherently combustible. What is happening among the family factions at Market Basket is not uncommon. It happens all the time, albeit perhaps not on such a grandiose scale. In the family business world, what is happening at Market Basket is, in many ways, the same old fight.

For years, Arthur T. Demoulas had maintained operational control of the company because of one family member who had consistently supported him – despite the fact that he or she was related to the Arthur S. Demoulas group. For some reason, this person recently switched sides and voted to support the Arthur S. group. That was all it took to swing the balance of power at the board level in favor of Arthur S. Just like that, Arthur T. was converted to a minority voter, without management control. It may have been abrupt, but it was not shocking. In business, these things happen all the time.

What happened next, though, was shocking. It turned out that Arthur T. was so beloved by Market Basket employees that they walked off the job in protest of his ousting. Customers largely followed suit, shopping elsewhere. Was the Arthur S. group surprised by this? It might have been. Then again, the Arthur S. faction might have viewed this as a possible outcome and yet gone ahead anyway. It’s that kind of family, and that kind of feud.

While the family feud driving the Market Basket debacle is somewhat typical, the collective actions of the employees – and, to a lesser degree, customers – may be unprecedented. Almost unanimously, it seems, the employees picked their horse right out of the gate and seem committed to ride it all the way to the end of the race. They believe in Arthur T., and they believe the company should be his. But how will this race finish? It looks to me like it is going to be a very tough one for Arthur T. and the employees to win. They are a longshot.

The brave steps taken by Market Basket employees were the equivalent of a life ring for Arthur T. Their acts alone are all that have prevented him from sinking into the still waters of life as a minority owner. In that capacity, an owner can cry out, but nobody really cares. As I write this column, Arthur T. is still afloat, clinging to that life ring. His chance to regain control of the company and get it back on track is running out.

I say this for two reasons. First, the history between Arthur T. and Arthur S. demonstrates that the interests of employees and customers are not a priority for Arthur S. and company. Arthur T. believed the company’s long-term interests were best served by rewarding loyal employees and customers. Arthur S. placed a higher priority on maximizing the returns for ownership and getting cash into their hands. This, by the way, does not make the Artie S. faction evil or morally inferior. In fact, those two competing philosophies are a hot topic in business circles right now. Regardless, in all likelihood, if Arthur T. loses, the employees will lose too.

The second reason to be concerned about the outcome from the employees’ standpoint is ironic, but nonetheless compelling. The sheer profitability of the Market Basket chain over the last 50 years has been astounding. It has been one of America’s most profitable privately owned retail chains. The money its owners have made during that time is hard for most of us to even comprehend. They have become very, very rich. This is a problem for Arthur T., as the pockets of the owners may have been so thoroughly lined already that the financial pressure brought about by the employee walk-off causes Arthur S. and his group no meaningful financial pain. If that is the case, then Arthur T. simply has no leverage in these negotiations.

What about the Market Basket brand, you say? Family members must care about their legacy, don’t they? The truth is that probably some do. But for many of them, watching Arthur T. go down may be its own reward, powerful enough for them to throw the Market Basket baby out with the bathwater. Under these circumstances, Arthur T. will be hard-pressed to make any offer that is rich enough to get the Arthur S. faction to let him emerge as the hero.

I hope I am wrong. I hope that Artie T. wins the race, and I hope the employees and the Market Basket brand win this race. If they lose it, it is neither a reflection of their courage nor the validity of their actions. They have been brave, if perhaps somewhat naive. They deserve a better outcome then they are likely to get.

Read More »