About this Event
Restaurant: Akura Sushi, 39 E 31st St, Manhattan between Park and Madison
3 Topics Over Dinner is a dinner discussion group that meets on weekends. Links to articles or videos on the internet about 3 Topics, usually unrelated to one another, are posted on the event listing. Attendees read the articles (and other sources if they so wish) or watch the videos to be discussed over dinner. The idea is to be similar to a book club, only with far less reading. The idea is that this required reading / video viewing will be less than 3 hours.
We go to a different nationality restaurant every month, and always restaurants that will do separate checks for a large group, so everyone can pay with their own credit card and we don't have to figure out how to split the check. The restaurants are chosen to be quiet and nice, but not extremely exorbitant. A link to the menu of the restaurant, with prices listed, will always be provided on the announcement.
The restaurants chosen will always be in Manhattan, 77th St or further south.
RSVP's will be limited to have about 8 people at dinner, small enough that everyone can hear one another and we can conduct a single conversation.
The group has been going roughly once a month since 2008. It was formed on meetup.com and has shifted to Eventbrite.
A $5.00 deposit is required to RSVP. This deposit is refunded in cash ten minutes after the event starts. No-shows and latecomers forfeit their deposit.
We desperately need to get away from our screens and talk with each other in person.
"When people actually meet and get to know each other ... what Lincoln called those ‘better angels’ come out. People start recognizing themselves in each other and they start trusting each other, and that’s not just the basis for democracy, but that’s the basis for our long-term salvation." -- Barack Obama
Topic 1: Trump Has Gone Wild With Tariffs
Against the virually unanimous objection of the whole economics profession, and probably in violation of the US constitution, .
Topic 2: Canada Quits Pretending
Trump threatened to invade Greenland in violation of:
- International Law
- The NATO Treaty
- Treaties directly between the US and Denmark signed in 1916 and 1951
which was basically announcing to the world that:
- There is no point in being a "friend" of the United States.
- Treaties with us aren't worth the paper they're written on, our word means nothing, we have no honor.
And in return all we got was things that had been ours for the asking all along.
When you threaten a friend, even if you don't carry out the threat, it irreversibly changes the relationship. It causes a wound that will take decades to heal, at least.
Trump has the largest and most competent military in the world at his disposal, and rest of the world now obviously regards him like a toddler with a machine gun.
Our allies have spent a year flattering Trump even though they realize that he's a thoroughly contemptible human being, and all it's gotten them is asymmetric trade deals at their own expense. And all this insincere sycophantic flattery is demeaning and degrading to the people who have to say it. After getting kicked around for year and watching, with the military threat to Greenland/Denmark, Trump make clear that he will abuse friend and foe alike, Canadian President Mike Carney has drawn the line in the sand that there's no point in going on with the pretense of liking Trump any more.
(16 minutes)
Has Bari Weiss's "The Free Press" lost its mind? I've been reading it for years, and this is by far the most insane article they've ever posted: (paywalled, pirate version ).
Topic 3: ICE Has Been Killing US Citizens Without Accountability
ICE has killed a couple of misguided do-gooders who got in their way. The immediate response of Trump and Kristi Noem was to flagrantly lie about what happened in a way that was immediately obvious to anyone who watched the video, claiming that the shootings were self-defense. At the same time, the FBI has done its best to block state-level prosecution of the agents for their actions, and the Trump administration argues that ICE officers should have "absolute immunity", even when they shoot US citizens in the head.
Most of the response of the Democratic Party has been to argue that the United States should abandon any attempt to control its borders. Many are making a credible argument that the intention of the ICE effort is not about border enforcement, but rather to create a massive police presence answerable only to the executive branch that is not accountable for its actions. Minneapolis currently has 6 times as many ICE agents as city cops on its streets.
Public response has been extremely polarized, which is how Trump wants it, since he thrives when there is a lot of anger and hostility.
Isn't there a middle ground, where we enforce borders, but the agents who do it are held accountable for their actions?
Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to go after employers? There are laws on the books imposing heavy fines on the employers of illegal aliens, particularly for repeat offenders. Enforcing those laws could render illegal aliens unable to support themselves, at which point they would just leave voluntarily, without all these spectacular confrontations and viral videos on social media.
Event Venue & Nearby Stays
Akura Sushi, 39 East 31st Street, New York, United States
USD 5.00
