alpha mike fox: Social Issues

Showing posts with label Social Issues. Show all posts

Herman Cain’s campaign overshadowed by allegations of impropriety

Herman Cain, Republican presidential candidate and former businessman, CEO and radio show host, is facing yet another charge of impropriety, this time from an Atlanta businesswoman who claimed she had a 13-year affair with the former pizza company chief executive. The woman, Ginger White, said that she had been aware at the time Mr. Cain was married and that their relationship was “inappropriate.”

Ms. White said Mr. Cain ended sexual relations with her eight months ago, when he began his run for the Republican nomination.

According to reports, Ms. White produced mobile phone bills showing what she said was Cain’s number. She said he had called her dozens of times over a period of several months. According to her, she decided to go public with her allegations after receiving calls from journalists, and she was bothered by the way Mr. Cain had “demonised” other women who had accused him of sexual harassment.

This surely must end what has been, until lately, an entertaining political campaign. According to Robert Costa at the National Review, “Herman Cain told his senior staff that he is ‘reassessing’ whether to remain in the race. He will make his final decision ‘over the next several days’.”

Mr. Cain is reported to have denied the “charges unequivocally.” He said, he had known “this lady” for “a number of years.” And that he’d “been attempting to help her financially because she was out of work and destitute, desperate.”

I believe, sadly, this candidate’s time in the sun is at an end. Even in these everything-goes days, marriage fidelity is expected, demanded, of a man who aspires to be the president.

Kyoto Accord losing steam

There is quite a bit of coverage of climate change in today’s National Post, all of which seem to echo the same theme: the Kyoto Accord has lost its appeal and will not likely be replaced with anything more effective when the current agreement expires at the end of 2012.

Canada—which has had an ambiguous relationship with the Kyoto protocol, first signing and ratifying it, then virtually ignoring its obligations—is rumoured to be planning to formally pull out of the international treaty before the end of this year. “Kyoto is the past,” Environment Minister Peter Kent is quoted as saying recently. Mr. Kent also described a previous Liberal government’s decision to agree to the protocol as “one of the biggest blunders they made.” The minister, however, declined to confirm the rumour that Canada will formally pull out by year’s end.

That Kyoto has not worked should not come as a surprise to anyone; it was flawed from the start. Countries that are sources of the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions either never signed the agreement (the United States) or were not required to make reductions (Brazil, China, India, Russia) under the protocol. Japan, the world’s third largest economy, voted to “accept” (but not ratify) its Kyoto reduction targets, then passed a law making those targets not legally binding. And several major economies have made it clear they’ll not sign a new agreement without the signatures of all major emitters, both from the developed and developing worlds.

Consequently, the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Durban, South Africa will not likely see much progress in its objective of replacing Kyoto.

To too many observers, Kyoto is seen to be less about climate change and more about massive (hundreds of billions of dollars) income redistribution from the developed world to everyone else. And for many, this is a non-starter.

Here’s a quote from Tasha Kheiriddin’s piece in the National Post:

Environmental policy analyst James Taylor noted recently in Forbes magazine that while global carbon emissions have soared 33% over the past decade (according to the U.S. Department of Energy), global temperatures flatlined over the same period—and rose merely 0.2 to 0.3 degrees Celsius during the past third of a century.

Is it any wonder I remain a man-made climate change sceptic?

CBC ordered to hand over papers

The CBC has once again been told by a court it is legally required to turn over papers to Suzanne Legault, Canada’s information commissioner. This time it is a unanimous decision by the Federal Court of Appeal, which upheld an earlier Federal Court decision.

The national broadcaster has been refusing to hand over 16 requests for information, claiming it is allowed to protect its journalistic, creative and programming material. It also refused to allow Ms. Legault to review the material in order to assess its decision. Ms. Legault took the case to court in 2010 and won, but the CBC appealed to a higher court. It was that appeal the went against the CBC in yesterday’s decision.

So here we have a semi-public agency, the CBC, defying a law it insists other public agencies follow diligently, for which defiance it is sued by a public official, loses its case, appeals to a higher court and loses once more—all with public money. There’s something seriously wrong with this picture.

So long as the CBC has access to ever more of taxpayers’ money, they’ll never act in a financially prudent manner. It’s time to trim its wings.

Will labour unions stand down and let Toronto’s agencies evict the occupiers?

Ibelieve it is a dangerous sign that all too often when there is civil disobedience and breaches of public safety, there are labour unions, principally public sector unions, at the core of the illegal activity. We saw it the 2010 G-20 Toronto summit and we see it again at the recent “Occupations”.

Workers belonging to public sector unions are among the most privileged in the land. Their paycheques, vacation allowance, sick-leave and pensions are the envy of the private sector, and yet they seem determined to cast themselves as victims, and more particularly, victims of the capitalist system. And I wonder how many of the union leaders are themselves—by virtue of their income—in that detested 1% we hear so much about.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, role they’ll play in the eviction of Occupiers from St. James Park at Toronto. Will the unions stand down and allow the city to take control of its public space, or will they join the—as Toronto Sun’s Joe Warmington phrases it—“urban warriors mustering and recruiting to put up a massive battle to prevent this?”

As Warmington rightly says:

Toronto Police, the bylaw people, the fire department, as well as the mayor’s office, have been very respectful toward the occupiers. There has been patience shown, discretion, integrity and, if anything, too much leniency. No one can say there has been an over the top response because there hasn’t been. There has been no pepper spray, rubber bullets or unnecessary kettling or arrests.

Now that the court has ruled if police do go into and remove the tents and structures from the park, as well as anyone not complying with bylaws, they will not be deemed unreasonable if these tactics are used, should they become necessary.

Surely, at some point, the rule of law must prevail. Let’s hope our public sector unions see it that way and let the city agencies get on with their jobs.

© Russell G. Campbell, 2011.
All rights reserved.

The views I express on this blog are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of political parties, institutions or organizations with which I am associated.

Are days numbered for Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

© House of Commons – MP Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice

In what must be much to the chagrin of leftists across our land, Rob Nicholson (left), the federal Minister of Justice, rose in the House of Commons this week to urge MPs to vote for the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act because it is an affront to free speech.

Section 13, of course, is the controversial provision than bans communication that is likely to expose identifiable groups to hatred or contempt. The section has been pretty widely condemned over the past few years, with several national media organizations—including the National Post, Maclean’s and the Toronto Star—calling for it to go. And recently, Alberta MP Brian Storseth has put forth a private members bill that, if passed, would see the offensive section scrapped, leaving the criminal code to deal with charges of hate speech in Canada.

According a report in today’s National Post Mr. Nicholson congratulated Mr. Storseth “for his commitment to the promotion and protection of free speech among all Canadians.” The Post adds that the minister said:

Our government believes that Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combatting hate propaganda. We believe the Criminal Code is the best vehicle to prosecute these crimes, therefore I urge all members to support [Mr. Storseth’s bill] and our government’s forthcoming amendments to strengthen the hate provisions of the Criminal Code.

Conservatives voted almost unanimously at a policy conference in 2008 in support of scrapping Section 13 so the minister’s support of Mr. Storseth’s bill is no surprise. And I’m fully expecting accusations from the opposition benches and elsewhere that the Conservative government seeks to protect hatemongers. Be that as it may, though, I support the move to scrap Section 13.

With government support for its repeal, Section 13 could finally be gone by early next year—better late than never, and Bravo! to the Conservative government.

NDP Pat Martin tells Twitter users “F--- you” and to “Eat my shorts.”

There’s a lot being written about Winnipeg MP Pat Martin’s use of foul language in a Twitter outburst over several Tweets (details here, here and here, if you missed the story). Wouldn’t you think a New Democrat front-bencher would understand that at least 25-30% of his Twitter followers would be offended by the use of such language.

It saddens me to see that normal discourse has deteriorated to the point that gratuitous use in a public forum of synonyms for fornication and human excrement is now acceptable, especially when used by a member of parliament.

I suppose we should pity the dolts among us who apparently lack the wits to express themselves without resorting to four-letter-words referring to sex or excrement.

Or perhaps the feelings of 25-30% of Canadians who find profanity distasteful is of little importance to Mr. Martin. But, wait: Isn’t that about the same level of support the NDP gets in a national election and boasts how popular they are?

What “being a conservative” means to me

Most writers have biases of one sort or another, and I don’t pretend to be any different in that respect. My opinions reflect my core values and beliefs. Readers of this blog may therefore find it instructive to know more about my political philosophy, such as it is.

My journey, politically, to the point of publishing this blog has taken some five decades. I consider myself to be old fashioned: I believe in honour, basic decency, individual rights and civic obligations and responsibilities, which, perhaps, is why I lean to the right politically. There was a time when I saw myself as modern and progressive: I voted Liberal federally and provincially—though, sometimes, Progressive Conservative provincially.

Soon after my thirtieth birthday, however, I realized progressivism offered a false promise, and I joined the Progressive Conservative Party (such an unfortunate name) at both the provincial and national levels. I have voted conservative ever since. I have canvassed in support of candidates at all three levels of government, have sat on my local riding’s board of directors and served on a regional committee of the provincial party.

When the federal PCs brought back the ineffectual Joe Clark to lead their fading party, I shifted my allegiance to the relatively new Reform Party and followed it through its attempts to remake itself into a political party Eastern Canadians would feel comfortable supporting.

I now consider myself a Blue Tory, aka, a Mike Harris Tory or a small “c” conservative.

As general principles, my moral compass, so to speak:

I believe in the supremacy of the rule of law—secular law.

I believe in equality of rights under the law for every Canadian man and woman, including Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Canadians.

I believe in equal opportunity for all Canadians, but am suspicious of affirmative action programs (based on race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin) since they too often lead to unfair levels of discrimination against other Canadians.

I believe in freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres and that human and civil rights and obligations attach to individuals rather than to groups.

I believe all religions should be tolerated, but need not necessarily be considered equal or even be respected.

I believe Canadian citizenship, though a birthright, is also a privilege that confers equal rights and demands obligations—such as the duty to vote—from all recipients. I also believe Canadians who are serving in federal penitentiaries should have their citizenship and right to vote suspended for the duration of their term of incarceration. And those who take up arms against Canada or a Canadian ally (on the battlefield or in an act of terrorism) should forfeit their citizenship, as should any Canadian convicted of treason.

I believe in lower taxes and smaller governments, with limited government regulation of every-day life, business and investing. I do believe, however, that while individuals should retain primary financial responsibility for personal needs—including housing, childcare, retirement income and health-care coverage—there is a role for governments to provide funding in these areas.

I believe in a mixed economy based on economic liberalism with limited, prudent state intervention and regulation—i.e., a largely free-market economy based on a free price system, free trade and private property.

I am anti-supply management (or other economic planning schemes) and government sponsored or owned monopolies, as for example alcohol and gambling.

I believe the federal government should vacate areas of provincial constitutional responsibility and cease duplication of taxation and costs and other interference in provincial jurisdiction.

Canada should have a Canadian head of state, cutting formal ties with the British monarchy, and an elected senate.

I am pro-life. Though I’d not ban abortion, I’d place restrictions on those performed in the later months of pregnancy and de-fund abortion when it is used as just another form of birth control.

I believe certain crimes are so de-humanizing—extreme cases of premeditated murder, terrorism resulting in loss of life, violent rape and molestation or extreme cases of gross neglect of a child—they should forfeit the perpetrator his or her life. In repeated offences of pedophilia and rape, I’d reluctantly settle for surgical castration.

I believe gays and lesbians should be treated like anyone else and have the same individual rights under the law. I do, however, believe the traditional institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman. Same-gender unions should be provided for and offered similar but separate legal status.

I believe provinces should fund for every Canadian child a minimum of 13 years of schooling (including one year of kindergarten) plus a two-year employment-related post-secondary college or apprentice program. I also believe Canadians should have greater choice in primary and secondary education, and for this reason, I favour allowing “charter schools” as is done in Alberta, or something similar.

Unions should no longer be allowed to represent workers in the public sector, including teachers. Public sector workers, however, should have the right to form non-union-affiliated “employee associations” to represent them in matters of common interest, but should not have the right to withhold labour. And the government of the day should have the final say in all matters of public sector employment, including payroll and benefits.

Public sector departments should only be allowed to perform work not reasonably available from private sector sources, i.e., contracting-out should be the norm, not the exception. Defence and national security departments and police services should be the only exceptions.

Bilingualism (in official languages) should be encouraged, but not mandated unless all provinces accept equal treatment of English and French. Unilingual labeling of products should be accepted in any Canadian province that is not officially bilingual.

Free speech protection should be strengthened in our constitution and criminal code, and only a court of law should be allowed to adjudicate cases of abuse relating to hate speech. Hate speech should be defined legally to specifically exclude “hurt” speech.

I believe immigration should be encouraged, but only so far as it is a net benefit to Canada, both economically and socially. Immigration to meet Canada’s economic needs should be promoted over family unification. And immigration policies should stress obligations as much as rights.

I believe immigrants should assimilate and become Canadians, not remain in economic, religious or social silos. While multiculturalism in diet and generally accepted cultural practices should be tolerated, it should not be officially promoted. Reasonable accommodation of foreign cultural practices should be applied with caution so as not to adulterate Canadian norms, values and practices.

Canada should be able to protect itself militarily at home and abroad, and should have the wherewithal to project power internationally when our vital national interests or international treaty obligations require it. To do so, Canada should allocate an average 2.5% per annum of GDP in every ten-year cycle.

Veterans of Canada’s wars should be treated with respect and dignity and be given the benefit of doubt when dealing with government agencies—better ten veterans get more than they are entitled to than one veteran be denied her or his due.

Canada should maintain a policy stance that recognizes that the science on man-made global warming is not yet settled.

Russ Campbell

Is this democracy or merely idiocy?

Not a moment too soon: patience seems to be wearing thin with the Occupy movements across Canada, and city officials in several communities are moving to reclaim public property. In some cases, demonstrators have been given deadlines to leave.

Apparently, patience has already run out in U.S. cities like Oakland, where Occupiers have had tear gas and beanbag rounds fired at them, and in Atlanta, where police arrested about 50 people after protesters were warned to leave a downtown park.

“People have a right to protest, but this is no longer a protest. This is a campground.”

– Charles Gauthier
Vancouver

In Calgary and Halifax, protesters have been asked to relocate, and the mayor of London, Ontario said that it’s time for the protesters to leave a city park. Not surprisingly too, the Occupy protests have become an issue in the Vancouver mayoral campaign.

In Toronto and Vancouver, city spokespersons have made it clear that, while they respect the right of citizens to hold public protests, they will not for much longer tolerate unlawful encampments in public spaces.

Edmonton businessman Ralph Young of Melcor Developments Ltd. gives an example of the public nuisance the Occupy movement typically causes when he noted that there’s a smell that lingers because the only sanitation facilities are a few portable toilets. And, apparently, Young has heard complaints from his corporate tenants about protesters “doing bodily functions outside in the open,” as well as the sudden appearance of syringes and needles nearby.

Who among us would like to have that on or near our property?

I believe we need a better balance between citizens’ right to peaceful protest in parks and other public spaces and the general public’s right to enjoy those spaces. And surely it’s the duty of police services to remove protesters from private property that has been occupied without explicit permission of the owners. I agree with Charles Gauthier, Executive Director, Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Assn., who said recently, “People have a right to protest, but this is no longer a protest. This is a campground.”

In Montreal, about 200 demonstrators have set up camp in a park in front of the Montreal Stock Exchange tower. A spokesman for the city said there are no plans to remove these people.

In downtown Toronto, rag-tag group of people are illegally living in St. James park in tents and makeshift shelters. The protesters have been there for two weeks and are occupying the park without a permit, which makes them squatters.

On the west coast, heavy rains turned Occupy Vancouver’s shanty-town of tents on the lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery into a muddy quagmire this week.

So what about those who live and work in those areas, Have they no rights? Why aren’t the policy enforcing laws by which the rest of us abide? Is this democracy or merely idiocy?

Let’s scrap the useless long-gun registry and move on

The long-gun registry is back in the news. The government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has launched a plan to finally put the federal long-gun registry out of business, plugging the hole down which more than $2-billion of taxpayers’ money have already drained.

The Tories have long argued that registration of rifles and shotguns is a useless burden on firearms owners and are now, with their majority in both the House and the Senate, in a position to scrap the database.

So once again the debate on the merits of the Tory initiative heats up: politicians posture and rant during Question Period and cable news channels top-up their schedules with interviews with much the same characters as we heard during the debate on Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner’s Bill C-391 in 2009, which would have repealed the long-gun registry back then, had it not been voted down by the opposition.

I hear two primary arguments for retaining this costly program: (a) it’s a valuable tool for police services; and (b) it reduces crimes committed with long-guns.

Firstly, just because police say they want to have a certain tool doesn’t mean they should be given it. Many police services would like to have the option of searching homes without a warrant in times when a neighbourhood child goes missing. We may sympathize with police reasoning, but that does not justify suspending our basic right to privacy and protection against un-lawful search. Our laws should not be crafted primarily to make police work easier, otherwise, there would be an across-the-board ban on all guns, and be damned with individual rights. As to statistics police chiefs use in support of their contention the registry is a valuable police tool, here’s a passage from a piece I wrote last September:

A frequently used statistic to support keeping long-guns in the registry is the 14,012 average daily queries the RCMP claim were made in 2010. This oft-quoted statistic is grossly misleading as only 530 of those are specific to firearms registration (i.e., licence number, serial number and certificate number). The remaining 96.3 per cent (13,482) are automatically generated every time an address is checked or a [motor vehicle] license plate is verified.

Secondly, crimes committed with long-guns have indeed been declining. Some rightly point to the fact that from the mid-1990s—when the firearms registry became law—to 2010, there was a reduction in long gun crimes. But, as pointed out by the National Post’s Lorne Gunter in Wednesday’s newspaper, “there was already less [gun crime] in 1998 than there had been in 1988, and less in 1988 than there had been in 1978.” In other words, violent crime per capita in Canada peaked in 1975 and the rate has been on the decline since then.

It’s been the law in Canada since 1934 to register handguns. Yet handgun crimes are rampant on the streets of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. If registration had the power to prevent crime and improve our safety, this simply would not be the case.

The long-gun registry applies only to sporting rifles and shotguns; all firearms classified as “restricted” or “prohibited” would remain registered, even after the House passes, as expected, its new bill.

Moreover, it is instructive to note there are alternatives in the form of other databases that keep track of firearm threats. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, gives the following examples:

The National Information Centre holds criminal records;
Police have access to data on firearms licences; and
Provincial databases such as PRIME (Police Records Information Management Environment) in British Columbia, collect information from previous incidents, including where police noted firearms at people’s homes.

The long-gun registry was inspired by the murder of 14 students at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique by Marc Lapine using a legally obtained Mini-14 rifle. The current law would not have prevented that tragic incident.

Since its inception, the long-gun register has been mired in controversy, distortions and scandal. The gun registry has been reasonable described as a boondoggle and one of the most embarrassing spending scandals in federal Liberal Party history.

Spin, half-truths and muddled reasoning have been hallmarks of this debate. Let’s scrap the useless long-gun registry and move on.
--

A version of this entry was also published at
Postmedia’s Canada.Com The Real Agenda blog.

Has Britain soured on the EU?

There will be a vote in the U.K. parliament on Monday on Britain’s continued membership in the European Union. The vote will decide if the U.K. will hold a nationwide referendum on whether it should leave the EU, renegotiate its treaty with Brussels, or remain a member on current terms.

In 2007, Prime Minister David Cameron—while he was leader of the opposition—chastised then prime minister Gordon Brown for refusing “to give the British people a referendum on the EU constitutional treaty.” Now that he holds the reins of power, however, Cameron is singing a different tune. And, although British MPs have agreed to hold a vote on a referendum, Cameron, who has expressed his desire to take back some powers from Brussels, is now publicly opposed to a referendum and will order his MPs to vote against it.

Dear friends, put not your trust in politicians.

And, while all Conservative MPs, and Lib Dem and Labour MPs have been instructed to vote against the motion for a referendum, the BBC reports 61 Tory MPs have signed it and may defy their party’s whip.

Cameron does have a point, as he argues:

Our [the U.K.’s] national interest is for us to be in the EU, helping to determine the rules governing the single market—our biggest export market which consumes more than 50% of our exports and which drives so much of investment in the UK.

This is not an abstract, theoretical argument, it matters for millions of jobs and millions of families and businesses in our country.

The coalition government is applying what is known in Britain as “a three-line whip”—the strongest order a party can give—on Conservative MPs, meaning that MPs who vote against the government will be expected to resign from government jobs.

A poll published today in theguardian shows that a clear majority of 70% wants a referendum and 49% would vote for Britain to leave the EU, as against just 40% who prefer to stay in.

Earlier this month, Nile Gardiner, a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator, wrote in The Telegraph:

Great Britain has witnessed the steady erosion of its sovereignty and freedom, with the deathly hand of Brussels stifling Britain’s ability to trade freely and act independently on the world stage. A proud nation that won two World Wars, defeated the scourge of Nazi Germany, and helped force the Soviet Empire to its knees now has its counter-terrorism policies dictated by a faceless ‘human rights’ court in Strasbourg, and lacks the freedom to even negotiate a trade agreement with its closest allies such as the United States and Australia.

Gardiner’s words resonate well with this former U.K. citizen. I’d be very tempted to vote against continuing full membership in the EU. A free-trade agreement, yes, but no to the rest.

Bad climate science: IPCC exposed as unreliable reporters

There seems to be an increasing number of media people, especially among conservative writers, who question the role human activity plays in climate change, and, more specifically, anthropogenic global warming. For many like me the idea that the science is now “settled” couldn’t be farther from the truth.

“Before they were sucked into the giant vortex of global warming, environmentalists did useful things. They protested against massive Third World dams that would ruin both natural and human habitats. They warned about invasive species and diseases that could tear through our forests and wreck our water systems. They fought for national parks and greenbelts and protected areas. … They believed in conservation… rather than false claims to scientific certainty about the future, unenforceable treaties and radical utopian social reform.”

– Margaret Wente,
Nov. 27, 2010
The Globe and Mail

Terrance Corcoran and Peter Foster of the Financial Post, Lawrence Solomon of the National Post, Margaret Wente of the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Sun’s Lorrie Goldstein are among those who write critically of the inconsistencies and flaws in the science of climate change.

To this group I am adding Canadian investigative journalist and photographer Donna Laframboise whose new book, The Delinquent Teenager Who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert has singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—or, if it hasn’t, it should.

Donna Laframboise’s book is published by Ivy Avenue Press (ISBN: 978-1-894984-05-8) and is available as a Kindle e-book for $4.99 at Amazon.com or as a downloadable digital PDF edition, complete with embedded Webpage-like hyperlinks to supporting articles and research. I purchased the PDF edition. The book will also be available soon at Amazon.com as a $20 paperback.

Ms. Laframboise’s excellent exposé is reviewed here, with the first of a two-part excerpt here, and there is another review here. So, given the aforementioned reviews, I’ll limit myself to a few points from the book and not duplicate the excellent efforts of others.

Firstly, let me say for the record that it does seem to me that Canada’s climate has become warmer since I arrived here over 50 years ago. Why else is Prime Minister Stephen Harper so excited about the new promise of the Canadian Arctic? I believe, though, the phenomenon is unlikely to have been caused by human activity and that we’re being bulldozed, if not bamboozled, into wasting trillions of dollars to slow, stop or even reverse the warming trend.

This does not mean I’m not an environmentalist—quite the contrary, I’m a paid-up member of a naturalist and conservation group—notwithstanding the fact such organizations can be like the ones the Financial Post’s Peter Foster calls “professional environmental alarmists and eco-activists.” In that group I’d include the global Green parties, the World Wildlife Fund, David Suzuki and his foundation’s campaign to demonize companies producing oil and gas in Canada, and followers of former U.S. vice president Al Gore, who has managed to turn climate-change into a get-rich-quick scheme.

My hope for the environment can be nicely summed up by Lorrie Goldstein’s suggestion in the Toronto Sun that:

“We need a made-in-Canada policy focusing on clean air, safe drinking water, cleaning up toxic waste dumps, safely disposing radioactive waste, tougher vehicle emission standards, boosting research into practical ‘green’ energy sources such as natural gas, putting scrubbers on coal-fired electricity plants and creating more national parks.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a creature of the United Nations. It is recognized as the world’s leading climate change body. Its mandate is to survey the relevant scientific literature, decide what it means, and write reports—reports that Ms. Laframboise refers to as the “Climate Bible.”

The IPCC’s Climate Bible is referred to and cited by governments and NGOs worldwide. More than any other literature, the Climate Bible is the reason carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes are being introduced. And governments in jurisdictions like Ontario, Canada have launched expensive searches for alternative sources of energy—so-called green technology. Because of what they have read in Climate Bible, governments seem prepared to see heating bills rise at rates doubling and tripling the rate of inflation. Furthermore, it is in large measure due to the IPCC’s reported evidence that our government is providing costly financial subsidies to everyone whose green energy can reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

In such high regard is the IPCC held, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to it for its “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change…”.

Yes, the IPCC is a very big deal. As Ms. Laframboise’s tell us:

“The IPCC has lounged, for more than two decades, in a large comfy chair atop a pedestal. When the IPCC is mentioned in broadcasts, newspapers, and books it is portrayed as a paragon of scientific truth and authority.”

But, thanks to Ms. Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager, we now know that, far from objectively weighing and selecting the best available science-based evidence, the IPCC—in reviewer Peter Foster’s words—“cherry-picks egregiously to support its main objective,” i.e., to serve its government masters.

“The real moral of this story is that scientists are merely human. They can be as short-sighted and as political and as dishonorable as the rest of us.”

– Donna Laframboise,
The Delinquent Teenager

And contrary to its claims, the IPCC’s lead authors are not always the world’s leading scientists. All too frequently, in fact, they are more recent graduates and/or eco-activists from environmental NGOs. Many of whom are described as owing their selection to their gender and country of origin, i.e., diversity, than to their expertise.

Moreover, The Delinquent Teenager shows this famous boast attributed to Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, to be baseless: “IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”

Ms. Laframboise tells us that she oversaw a Citizen Audit of the 2007 IPCC’s report (Climate Bible) and that auditors examined the 18,531 references cited in the report. Of these, an astonishing 5,587 (30%) were determined not to have been peer-reviewed.

I remember that day I first discovered Santa Claus did not exist. I was a heart- broken little boy. My family had fibbed to me, leaving me with a mild sense of betrayal and loss. They’d white-lied for my own sake, it must be said, and keeping me in the dark about my beloved St. Nick’s real identity, or his lack of one, did me no long-term harm, at least as far as I can tell.

Has Ms. Laframboise discovered that, like Santa, man-made global warming is a myth and that governments, Green parties, environmental NGOs and a certain ex-politician have deliberately lied to us? If so, it is not—as in the case of the Santa Claus deception—for our own sakes, but because the truth does not fit their own self-interests. And, for their transgressions, the developed countries of the world will be billions of dollars and millions of jobs poorer. Whether global warming is a myth or not, Ms. Laframboise has called into question the merits of further government reliance on the IPCC for anything.

I’ll close with this quotation from The Delinquent Teenager:

“For years we’ve been told the IPCC is a reputable and professional organization—a grownup in a pinstripe suit. In reality, it’s a rule-breaking, not-to-be-trusted, delinquent teenager.

“Surely climate activists and climate skeptics can agree on this one thing: the future of the planet is too important to be left in hands such as these. Governments should suspend funding immediately. The IPCC must be disbanded.”

And to this I add, amen.

Bring on the flat tax!

Republican presidential candidates, businessman Herman Cain and
Gov. Rick Perry | Photo: Justin Sullivan/GettyImages

[This entry was published previously on Postmedia Network’s The Real Agenda blog.]

The 9-9-9 tax plan being proposed by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is beginning to take heavy fire from other presidential hopefuls and analysts alike. Some claim Mr. Cain’s plan would shift the tax burden in the United States, raising taxes on the poor while cutting taxes for the rich—hardly the narrative Mr. Cain wants to hear.

The 9-9-9 tax plan has resonated with Republicans and has helped propel the former Godfathers pizza CEO onto the top rung of leading contenders for the Republican nomination. His quick rise in polls, though, has meant Mr. Cain’s plan is receiving more scrutiny.

Mr. Cain would replace the current federal tax code in its entirety with a flat 9% personal income tax, a 9% corporate income tax, and a 9% tax on sales of new products. He would also eliminate the payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security, along with estate and capital gains taxes. And, in a second phase, Mr. Cain would eliminate all federal income taxes for individuals and for corporations and replace them with a national sales tax—Herman Cain, however, hasn’t yet offered an estimate of the sales tax rate that would be necessary to raise sufficient money to fund the federal government.

I spent years as an accountant with responsibility for a corporation’s taxes and remember well the bookcase full of material I referred to daily. Like that of the United States, the Canadian tax structure is bewildering in its complexity. And, while Mr. Cain’s campaign hasn’t offered nearly enough specifics for anyone to do a thorough analysis of his 9-9-9 plan, I welcome the fact that the idea of a simple flat tax is now on the table for open debate.

I am encouraged also by Gov. Rick Perry of Texas saying recently that he too will propose a flat tax as part of a tax overhaul program.

According to The New York Times, “He [Perry] has in the past suggested support for some form of a flat tax, but has backed off from endorsing one. Mr. Perry recently recruited as an adviser Steve Forbes, who ran for president in 1996 on a pledge of implementing a single flat tax on income, without any deductions.”

On Wednesday past, Gov. Perry gave us the broad outlines of his tax plan that he said will feature spending cuts, entitlement reform and a flat tax. And he promised then to provide specifics in six days.

Should a flat tax be successful in the United States, we could expect to see one here in Canada within a decade. Imagine: no need for a tax accountant or expensive tax software, no complicated forms, few itemized list of deductions, credits or other “loopholes”. And no estate tax, no capital gains tax and no dividends tax.

I can hardly wait.

Except photograph, © Russell G. Campbell, 2011.

The views I express on this blog are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of political parties, institutions or organizations with which I am associated.

Isn’t Canada’s Occupy Movement just a sham and a shameless display of hypocrisy?

[This entry was also published by Postmedia Network Canada.com’s The Real Agenda blog under the title, Occupy Wall Street in Canada: The smell of hypocrisy.]

I’ve been following the Occupy movement for the past month and am no closer to an understanding of what is really behind the spread to Canadian shores of this global expression of outrage at bankers in particular and corporate greed and social inequality in general.

In just four weeks, the movement has spread from a relatively small demonstration—1,000 people or so—on New York’s Wall Street to tens of thousands spread over 900 cities around the world. While there are some common threads tying these groups together, they appear to be, at best, only loosely affiliated, with the exact targets of the demonstrations differing depending on the city and the country in which the protests are held. Each movement seems to have its own local flavour.

United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon has said the global financial crisis was the trigger. “What you are seeing all around the world, starting from Wall Street, people are showing their frustrations,” he said. But how real/justified are the frustrations of the protestors, which seem to be growing into wave of global anger at perceived social and economic injustice?

In the United States, Europe and South American countries like Chile, I believe the movement will have a measurable impact.

In the United States, where they are just over a year away from presidential and Congressional elections, politicians will ignore such a wide-spread movement at their re-election peril—though some will find it hard to get behind protestors who are showing a nasty tendency toward anti-Israel, anti-Jewish sentiment. Clever politicians will mine the speeches and slogans to find the “calls to action” they can use in their upcoming campaigns, just as Barack Obama’s spokesman Josh Earnest adopted the protesters’ “the 99%” terminology when he said, “The president will continue to acknowledge the frustration that he himself shares about the need for Washington to do more to support our economic recovery and to ensure that the interest of the 99% of Americans is well-represented.” And, if the Democrats retain the White House and win back the House of Representatives, expect more regulation of banks and corporations in general.

In Europe the situation is more dire. There, as in Israel and Chile, the Occupy Movement seems to owe more of its inspiration to the Arab Spring. Spain’s “indignados”, for example, begun camping out in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol square in May, and at least 200,000 people turned out on the streets for last Saturday’s round of protests. The Spanish flavour of the movement is targeting the November general election when it could help defeat the socialist party of the prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.

While the Israelis targeted housing, the high cost of living and need for “social justice”, in Greece, there was a backlash against austerity measures being imposed. What Ilias Iliopoulos, general secretary of Greece’s civil-servants’ union called, “heartless economic policies.” In Greece, we have seen the most focused public anger, with strikes, work stoppages and sit-ins as well as a two-day general walk-out. And, I fear, the worst is yet to come. The country is flat broke and other European countries with more frugal and industrious populations are the ones bailing them out—yet Greek civil-servants riot in their streets.

As far as Canada is concerned, the movement, so far, has been underwhelming. The backing of major unions is, though, cause for concern. It is curious indeed that a movement that claims to represent 99% of Canada’s population should be so strongly supported by powerful and wealthy public sector unions, which represent workers who are a privileged segment of our population that has actually grown in size and, in some cases, pay-cheque since the global financial crisis triggered the recent recession with which the whole world grapples.

Rather than being part of the 99%, the several hundred-thousand Canadian public sector employees and their union representatives make up their own privileged “per cent.” They are recession proof, lay-off proof and have fat pay-cheques and generous sick-leave, vacation and pension plans. These folks are no more part of the 99% than are our politicians, the top echelons of the banks and other large corporations. Do they join these protest groups because they hope we won’t notice how well-off they are compared to their fellow Canadians? They sure have nothing in common with the needy, the jobless and the victims of social injustice.

As far as I’m concerned, there are many people in many countries who can be characterized as victims of the social order; but not so much in Canada. And, for the most part, the Occupy Movement here is a sham and a shameless display of hypocrisy.

The Dragon had a tooth or two pulled by CBC ombudsman

The CBC’s ombudsman, Kirk LaPointe, says Kevin O’Leary’s remarks during an interview with author Chris Hedges violated the public broadcaster’s journalistic standards. The ruling followed complaints filed after O’Leary called the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist “a left-wing nutbar” during CBC News Network’s The Lang & O’Leary Exchange on Oct. 6.

Ombudsman LaPointe says e-mailed complaints and comments—many of them demanding an apology and some demanding O’Leary be fired—began arriving the evening the program aired and continued for several days, while video (see below) of the exchange was posted online.

You’d think O’Leary could get through a short interview without resorting to personal insults, wouldn’t you? His attitude here and as an outspoken judge on CBC’s Dragons’ Den reminds me a lot of Don Cherry’s rants on CBC’s hockey broadcasts.

Fellows like these, once they become popular, seem to see themselves as gurus who have the last word on their areas of expertise. Both have been a success in their areas and seem to believe it gives them special license to always be right. At least, in the case of O’Leary, he is most often right except, perhaps, sometimes when he’s showing off.

Except video, © Russell G. Campbell, 2011.
All rights reserved.

The views I express on this blog are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of political parties, institutions or organizations with which I am associated.

Latest test of Canada’s hate-speech laws

Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa | Kevin Morris

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on Wednesday regarding the case of a Saskatchewan man, William Whatcott, accused of anti-gay hate speech—the top court will issue a written ruling in the future. The Supreme Court appeal, brought by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, is focused on photocopies that Mr. Whatcott distributed in Regina and Saskatoon 10 years ago.

In 2002 Mr. Whatcott had been found by a tribunal to be in violation of Section 14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, which prohibits speech that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity [of an identifiable group].” In his defence, Mr. Whatcott made the distinction between homosexual conduct and gay identity, and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal agreed and overturned his tribunal conviction.

Is it not appalling that a provincial legislature can pass a law making it an offence to ridicule, belittle, or affront the dignity of an identifiable group? Has the Saskatchewan legislature become so captured by the intolerance of political correctness it has lost its collective common sense? Let’s hope our top court has not suffered similarly and will strike down this vague piece of silly legislation.

In 1990, the Supreme Court judged the federal human rights law against hate speech to be a reasonable limit on the Charter right to free expression. As far as I can tell, the standard used was a definition of hate as “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification.” Take note that almost all the terms used in this definition are synonyms of libel and slander, which are already covered by our criminal code.

Additionally, the legal definition of hatred has been refined in human rights law (by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) with an eleven-point checklist of “hallmarks of hate.” As far as I’m concerned, the only point worth protecting groups from is number 11, “Calls to take violent action against the targeted group.” Libel and slander laws should take care of the rest or send the case to a proper court with charges under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants to us all freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media. Section 1 then restricts the granted freedoms by making them subject “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

I contend that suppression of expressions of contempt, ridicule, belittlement, or affronts to dignity cannot fairly be considered reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Freedom of expression is far too fundamental a right to be so easily restricted. Without freedom of expression, other rights are virtually meaningless.

Political correctness is stifling our democracy. In our over-reaching attempts to protect certain groups, we are abandoning too many others to the clutches of capricious tribunals and vote-hungry legislators.

Let us hope the Supreme Court will return some sense of sanity to our so-called hate-speech laws—and won’t keep us waiting too long for its decision.

In Burlington the PCs offer the best choice on Oct. 6

Those of us living in Ontario get a chance to exercise our franchise in the provincial general election on Thursday, Oct. 6. By all accounts, the race is between Dalton McGuinty’s ruling Liberals and Progressive Conservatives led by Tim Hudak, assuming no late “orange crush” from the rejuvenated New Democrats and their popular leader, Andrea Horwath.

My local riding, Burlington, has an interesting race underway. After the retirement of incumbent PC Joyce Savoline, the seat has opened up and could be lost to the PCs for the first time since 1943. The race here is mainly between local businesswoman Jane McKenna running as the PC candidate and Liberal candidate Karmel Sakran a lawyer, though, with vote-splitting, the New Democrat Peggy Russell could be a dark horse set for a run up the middle.

One local pundit asks, “Will you vote for the party or the person?” And suggests, “If you decide at this point that you will vote for the party no matter what—well then you’re some kind of an idiot or at best an irresponsible citizen.”

I agree with him, but only to a point. For my money, when there is no clear-cut “best person” running in a riding, and the other party has made a cock up of the economy over its eight-year term, wouldn’t one have to be our pundit’s “idiot or at best an irresponsible citizen” if one voted for a particular candidate just because she/he was not running for the Progressive Conservative Party? Well, perhaps not an idiot, but I think you get my point.

For many in Ontario, this election is an anybody-but-the-PCs campaign. This is clearly the case with the teachers’ unions and with the various powerful, rich public sector unions and other diehard leftists. And, with due respect, I believe it’s the point of view of the pundit I quoted above.

So I ask myself, why not vote PC in Burlington?

The PC party’s candidates have held the Burlington riding in its various configurations since the 1943, and during that time the town, later the city, has grown and prospered. Since the mid-eighties (a 26-year span), the PCs have only been in government for about eight years, so local candidates were handicapped in obtaining funding and other benefits for the city.

There are two main election issues in Burlington: a new highway the Liberal government was considering that would have cut across the city’s section of the Niagara Escarpment; and provincial funding for the expansion of Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital (JBMH).

As to the highway: all parties agree it will not be built across Burlington’s escarpment. The anybody-but-the-PCs crowd would have us believe otherwise, but both the local PC candidate and PC leader Tim Hudak have made their position clear on this file.

So we can safely vote PC on this one.

As to funding for the hospital. The hospital desperately needs to expand, but lacks the funds. Apparently, one floor is closed because it also lacks funds to keep it open. So who do we blame?

Do we blame the incumbent MPP who is in opposition? Or is the fault with the Liberal government that has been in office for about half of the last 26 years, and all of the past eight years? It is the Grit politicians who hold the purse strings, not the bureaucrats. No number of telephone calls and badgering of bureaucrats by an opposition MPP will get you anything unless their Liberal political masters give their OK. And apparently Burlington and our hospital wasn’t one of their priorities.

By the way, JBMH opened in 1961 (under a PC government) and doubled in size in 1971 (under a PC government). It made internal renovations in 1993 (under an NDP government) and a minor expansion occurred and 2001 (under a PC government). Where were the Liberals? For Burlington’s hospital, they’ve always been missing in action.

And, by the way, where were the Liberals when a 20-month-long outbreak of C. difficile led to 62 deaths at JBMH in 2006–07. Our pundit says, “The hospital got so run down and so difficult to keep clean that it had a serious C.difficile outbreak that resulted in the loss of more than 90 lives. That kind of funding failure in any community is criminal.”

Let’s be absolutely clear: cleaning standards, or lack thereof, led to the C.difficile crisis at JBMH. A responsible CEO and board would have closed the facility if the governing Liberals were not giving them enough funds to keep the place clean. What sort of people would have risked our lives like that? People died under a Liberal government watch, and, with respect, trying to blame an opposition party MPP for not “deliver[ing] for the community” just doesn’t cut it on this file.

But I do agree, “That kind of funding failure in any community is criminal.” So why hasn’t someone from the Liberal government gone to jail?

So on this file too, I’ll vote PC and not the do-nothing-for-our-hospital Liberals.

In summary, PC candidate, Jane McKenna has given clear, unambiguous support for Burlington’s two major issues in this election, convincing me that (a) while the mid-peninsula highway is important to Ontario’s future economy, it will not be crossing Burlington’s section of the fragile Niagara Escarpment; and (b) Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital will receive provincial funding for its expansion project, should the PCs gain power.

By the way, for the Liberal candidate to keep insisting the PCs may not carry through with funding is morally reprehensible—after all, it’s a bit rich coming from the Liberals whose record for breaking election promises is second to none.

So I voted PC and hope you readers who live in the Burlington riding will do the same.

Tory MP Brian Storseth gives free-speechers something to cheer about

There’s an old saying, Better late than never. An apt way to describe my reaction to the news that five years after forming the government, the Conservatives have put forward an initiative to amend section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), upon which federal Human Rights Commission/Tribunal hate speech cases are based.

Section 13 (1) states in part (full text here):

“It is a discriminatory practice … to communicate … any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

This is a nasty bit of legislation that has emboldened petty officials to overreach in their efforts to reengineer our society. Not only does it place unreasonable restrictions on our right to free expression, but it is also discriminatory for it offers special protections only to certain persons in our society, that is, only to those who are “identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

No protection here for most of us. Nor should there be. Our criminal code already covers slander, libel and hate speech. And none of us require protection from communications that can be merely insulting.

At the Conservative Party’s 2008 policy convention at Winnipeg, delegates passed a resolution to repeal/modify (I can’t remember which) section 13. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson supported the resolution so, since its passing, I’ve anxiously awaited action in Ottawa. No luck so far.

“Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle in our democracy and one which Canadians have fought and died for, for over a century.”

– MP Brian Storseth

Liberal MP Keith Martin proposed a private member’s bill to rescind section 13.1. Martin said it is being applied by “rogue commissions where a small number of people [are] determining what Canadians can and can’t say.” He also said some of history’s most important ideas “were originally deemed to be sacrilegious and certainly in opposition to conventional wisdom.” Unfortunately, without the backing of the party in power, the bill died without coming to a vote. Another Liberal MP, former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler called for reform of section 13, to little effect, of course.

Finally, our wait may soon come to an end. Brian Storseth, a Conservative MP from Alberta’s Westlock-St. Paul riding has taken up the cause. He has introduced Bill C-304, “An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (Protecting Freedom),” a private member’s bill that—since it’s a Conservative MP’s initiative—could actually see the light of day and may even get a chance to be debated.

Have heart, free-speechers!

Is Ontario doomed to four more years of Dalton McGuinty?

From September 27, 2011 Ontario election debate | screengrab from YouTube

The prospect of four more years of a government led by Dalton McGuinty leaves me with a sense of dread. Based on recent polls, we’ll probably to have a Liberal minority government, which is most likely to be propped up by the NDP with their anti-corporation, high-social-spending, pro-public-service-union agenda.

With only four days to go, most voter-preference polls show the Liberals in a lead or a statistical tie with Tim Hudak’s Tories. Andrea Horwath’s NDP trail with a respectable third-place showing.

I have already voted for the PCs, but it was not that the alternative to McGuinty was so attractive, but that the Liberal government has been so inept and deceitful over the last eight years—mismanagement of the security and energy files, broken promises, waste at public agencies like eHealth and out-of-control spending, which since 2003 has increased far faster than the province’s GDP growth rate.

Fundamental responsibilities of any state government is enforcement of the law, maintenance of the peace and protection of citizens. On this front, the Liberal government has been a miserable failure and do not deserve another term. Two examples for the sake of illustration:

First, in what Ontario ombudsman Andre Marin called a mass violation of civil rights, McGuinty passed a law that police used to exercise heightened powers during the G20 summit in Toronto and, by his own admission, failed to tell people that it had given police extra powers for the June summit.

Secondly, I remind readers of the travesty of justice that started in Caledonia in 2006 and continues today, though in reduced form. Residents of Caledonia were forsaken by their government and left to fend for themselves in the face of a violent insurrection by native band-members that saw non-native residents terrorized, police officers assaulted and public property destroyed. And, for the most part, the Ontario Provincial Police refused to intervene and arrest native lawbreakers, though some arrests were made later. Throughout, Dalton McGuinty has sought the moral low-ground on this file as he appeased the lawbreakers by abandoning the law-abiding.

Mismanagement and waste have been hallmarks of this McGuinty government. Remember in 2009 when Ontario’s auditor general issued a report in which he castigated the Liberal government and the senior management of the provincial agency, eHealth, for wasting $1-billion over a decade during which it failed to create an electronic health record. The report claimed the Liberal government allowed eHealth to waste millions on unused computer systems and to pay out other millions to consultants for contracts that were never tendered. This mismanagement occurred when then Energy Minister George Smitherman was health minister and continued under his successor, David Caplan, who resigned as health minister over the affair.

The number of McGuinty’s broken promises and flip-flops have reached comic proportions. It began with his now infamous 2003 written pledge not to raise taxes and continued in the last election when he again made his no-tax promise, both of which he broke when he enacted the Health Premium, eco-fees and the harmonized sales tax. And members of his caucus have mused about implementing a carbon tax or a cap and trade system that will have a similar negative effect on our pocket books. More recently, two gas-fired power plants in the Toronto area have been cancelled because of a voters’ backlash. The Grits had assured us these were essential to our energy plans, but quickly bowed to a not-in-our-backyard campaign. With Grits, principle is soon jettisoned and replaced with appeasement and pragmatism.

Yes, there was labour peace with the teachers and other public sector unions, and some gains were made in education and health care, but, boy, did we ever pay and pay and pay for it. Interest on Ontario’s provincial debt is over $10-billion a year—money that could better be spent on education, health, roads, transit or returned to residents as tax relief. And these staggering debt charges come during a time when interest rates are very low. Just imagine what debt charges will be when interest rates go back to more traditional levels—the era of cheap money won’t last.

I’ll conclude with this shameful example of duplicity. Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal government promised to freeze the wages of provincial public-sector employees. Not only was that promise not kept, but the Grits tried to deceive voters by making an agreement with union workers for secret bonuses to be paid to them once election day has passed. Shameful.

And the voters of Ontario are asking for four more years of this?

Except photo, © Russell G. Campbell, 2011.
All rights reserved.

The views I express on this blog are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of political parties, institutions or organizations with which I am associated.