As reported online in today’s Globe and Mail, our sinister Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, plans to suspend Parliament until March. Although he will have to ask permission of the Governor-General, Michele Jean, this is considered a formality, and, indeed, a forgone conclusion given her collusion with the government just over a year ago when she agreed to a Parliamentary ‘time- out’ to prevent the government from falling and being replaced by a coalition consisting of the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP.
What is the Harper government fleeing from this time? The answer lies in the parliamentary committee examining alleged government knowledge that our military was contravening the Geneva Convention in handing over Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities who commonly practice torture on its prisoners. Recent testimony by Richard Colvin clearly suggests a cover-up about this knowledge, and the fact that the government has refused the committee’s request for unredacted documents is the most obvious catalyst for this contemptible move by a craven Prime Minister. Harper is doubtlessly counting on the public’s short attention span to be his biggest ally in this shameful attack on freedom of information in particular and democracy in general.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Animal Shows, Human Nature, and Chris Hedges
I recently had the pleasure of watching a Nova special on PBS entitled The Last Great Ape, which profiled the bonobo ape, an endangered species found exclusively in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aside from its intelligence, the most remarkable aspect of the bonobo is that its matriarchal culture operates on co-operation, not the confrontation and violence that defines its chimpanzee cousin’s way of life. The program tells us that the two species diverged about two million years ago. Given the fact that we all evolved from a common primate ancestor, the program reminds us that human society has elements of both species in its makeup, both the capacity for terrible aggression and life-affirming co-operative behaviour.
So why is this so important to appreciate? I just read a thought-provoking book by Chris Hedges called I Don’t Believe in Atheists, the thesis of which is that both religious fundamentalists and the new atheists (people such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens,) are equally dangerous in that both cling to ideologies that ignore some basic truths about human nature. While the fundamentalists prescribe a very narrow set of beliefs as the way to salvation, condemning all others to the fiery pit of hell, scientist- atheists such as Hitchens and Harris argue for the perfectibility of humanity through scientific progress, going so far as to advocate the extermination of Muslims because of the extremist element responsible for terrorism. What makes both polarities so dangerous is the intolerance of all opposing beliefs, the arrogant belief in the absolute truth of their own positions, and the failure to recognize that humans, by their divided animal nature, can never achieve perfection, either through the acceptance of religious or scientific doctrine.
I found both the program and the book refreshing. As implied in the Nova documentary, and made explicit in Hedges’ book, until we confront and completely acknowledge the immutability of the animal side of our natures, real progress (but never perfectibility) in the human condition is not achievable, and we will be forever susceptible to those demagogues, both religious and secular, who try to convince us that salvation is to be found in a set of beliefs, a set of actions, or a ‘final solution.’
So why is this so important to appreciate? I just read a thought-provoking book by Chris Hedges called I Don’t Believe in Atheists, the thesis of which is that both religious fundamentalists and the new atheists (people such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens,) are equally dangerous in that both cling to ideologies that ignore some basic truths about human nature. While the fundamentalists prescribe a very narrow set of beliefs as the way to salvation, condemning all others to the fiery pit of hell, scientist- atheists such as Hitchens and Harris argue for the perfectibility of humanity through scientific progress, going so far as to advocate the extermination of Muslims because of the extremist element responsible for terrorism. What makes both polarities so dangerous is the intolerance of all opposing beliefs, the arrogant belief in the absolute truth of their own positions, and the failure to recognize that humans, by their divided animal nature, can never achieve perfection, either through the acceptance of religious or scientific doctrine.
I found both the program and the book refreshing. As implied in the Nova documentary, and made explicit in Hedges’ book, until we confront and completely acknowledge the immutability of the animal side of our natures, real progress (but never perfectibility) in the human condition is not achievable, and we will be forever susceptible to those demagogues, both religious and secular, who try to convince us that salvation is to be found in a set of beliefs, a set of actions, or a ‘final solution.’
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Ah, The Sweet Smell of Integrity
It’s hard, when looking at local, provincial, national and international political behaviour, not to be deeply cynical about human nature. The failure of the Copenhagen Summit is but the latest example of our short-sightedness as a species. But occasionally, something happens that confirms the human capacity for principled and honourable choices. Two such examples are to be found in yesterday’s Globe and Mail.
Entitled “The day the music died,” the article tells of two defections from the opening and closing 2010 Winter Olympics to be held in British Columbia. The Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, led by conductor Bramwell Tovey, has decided not to be part of the opening ceremonies because it was asked this week to prerecord its music that would then be mimed by other performers during the spectacle. Seeing this as a gross public deception, Mr. Tovey compared it to Ben Johnson’s victory in 1988, winning gold but later stripped of the medal when he tested positive for steroids that enhanced his performance.
The second defection is by Terry Dove, a performer who auditioned to march and dance in the closing ceremonies. An enthusiast of the Olympics, his ardour has been diminished by the recent treatment of those who oppose them for a variety of reasons. One such person, Marla Renn, faced a long delay and intrusive questioning at the Canada-U.S border, simply because she is known as an anti-Olympics activist.
Both Tovey and Dovey have made very difficult choices here, ones that I think we would find hard to make were we in similar situations. God bless them for their integrity, something the modern Olympics lost many years ago. They are real heroes in my eyes.
Entitled “The day the music died,” the article tells of two defections from the opening and closing 2010 Winter Olympics to be held in British Columbia. The Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, led by conductor Bramwell Tovey, has decided not to be part of the opening ceremonies because it was asked this week to prerecord its music that would then be mimed by other performers during the spectacle. Seeing this as a gross public deception, Mr. Tovey compared it to Ben Johnson’s victory in 1988, winning gold but later stripped of the medal when he tested positive for steroids that enhanced his performance.
The second defection is by Terry Dove, a performer who auditioned to march and dance in the closing ceremonies. An enthusiast of the Olympics, his ardour has been diminished by the recent treatment of those who oppose them for a variety of reasons. One such person, Marla Renn, faced a long delay and intrusive questioning at the Canada-U.S border, simply because she is known as an anti-Olympics activist.
Both Tovey and Dovey have made very difficult choices here, ones that I think we would find hard to make were we in similar situations. God bless them for their integrity, something the modern Olympics lost many years ago. They are real heroes in my eyes.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Typical Institutional Behaviour
As I travel further into retirement and have more time to devote to newspaper reading, it occurs to me that I have now lived long enough to see through the majority of attempts by the media and by government to manipulate the public. The latest case in point which I would like to address should be obvious even to the most casual thinker; I refer to the ongoing testimony of Richard Colvin, who was Canada’s second-highest diplomat stationed in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, to a House of Commons committee.
According to Colvin, a whistle-blower in the noblest sense of the word, he tried to alert the Canadian government repeatedly to the fact that Afghans turned over by the Canadian military to Afghan authorities were regularly tortured, despite the fact that most of them had no ties to terrorism, being simple villagers, taxi-drivers, etc., innocent victims who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Indeed, it reached such a point that he was told by his ‘bosses’ in Ottawa to no longer put in writing his allegations.
The Conservative Government’s stance for several years has been that it had no knowledge of such activity, despite the urgent reports sent by Colvin to senior civil servants in the Prime Minister’s Office, General Hillier, who was the Commander of the troops at the time, and various politicians. In trying to handle the damage being done by Colvin’s testimony, the Conservative Government members on the committee are engaging in a classic ‘shoot the messenger’ strategy, trying to impugn him by saying that since he never personally witnessed torture, such evidence he is presenting would not stand up in a court of law. As well, Conservative (former NDPer) Cheryl Gallant is lamenting that his talk of abuse of prisoners is undermining public support for the Afghan mission, a mission that I think very few Canadians now support given the terrible toll of young lives lost to support a corrupt regime, in essence sacrificing their lives for absolutely nothing.
Nonetheless, her statement, and the attitude of the Conservatives on the committee serve only to try to divert thinking Canadians from forcing them to address the real issues here. If it is true that, as claimed, former Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor, and current Defense Minister Peter Mackay knew nothing about these allegations of abuse, what does that say about their competence as ministers? Indeed, can’t the case be cogently argued that Mackay has a moral duty to resign since, if he is telling the truth and did not receive any reports, he is incompetent to head the Ministry of Defense?
Of course, such an act of integrity will never happen, politicians knowing that if they attack the messenger vigorously enough, and let enough time elapse, the public will forget.
With principles so sorely lacking in public life, is it any wonder that only a minority of Canadians vote in federal, provincial, and municipal elections?
According to Colvin, a whistle-blower in the noblest sense of the word, he tried to alert the Canadian government repeatedly to the fact that Afghans turned over by the Canadian military to Afghan authorities were regularly tortured, despite the fact that most of them had no ties to terrorism, being simple villagers, taxi-drivers, etc., innocent victims who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Indeed, it reached such a point that he was told by his ‘bosses’ in Ottawa to no longer put in writing his allegations.
The Conservative Government’s stance for several years has been that it had no knowledge of such activity, despite the urgent reports sent by Colvin to senior civil servants in the Prime Minister’s Office, General Hillier, who was the Commander of the troops at the time, and various politicians. In trying to handle the damage being done by Colvin’s testimony, the Conservative Government members on the committee are engaging in a classic ‘shoot the messenger’ strategy, trying to impugn him by saying that since he never personally witnessed torture, such evidence he is presenting would not stand up in a court of law. As well, Conservative (former NDPer) Cheryl Gallant is lamenting that his talk of abuse of prisoners is undermining public support for the Afghan mission, a mission that I think very few Canadians now support given the terrible toll of young lives lost to support a corrupt regime, in essence sacrificing their lives for absolutely nothing.
Nonetheless, her statement, and the attitude of the Conservatives on the committee serve only to try to divert thinking Canadians from forcing them to address the real issues here. If it is true that, as claimed, former Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor, and current Defense Minister Peter Mackay knew nothing about these allegations of abuse, what does that say about their competence as ministers? Indeed, can’t the case be cogently argued that Mackay has a moral duty to resign since, if he is telling the truth and did not receive any reports, he is incompetent to head the Ministry of Defense?
Of course, such an act of integrity will never happen, politicians knowing that if they attack the messenger vigorously enough, and let enough time elapse, the public will forget.
With principles so sorely lacking in public life, is it any wonder that only a minority of Canadians vote in federal, provincial, and municipal elections?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Revenue Canada and the Culture of Corporate Concealment
I have written blog postings in the past on organizational behaviour and the tendency to conceal unpalatable facts that may affect the public's view of the organization. My years in teaching yielded many examples of such conduct. There is a story in today’s Globe and Mail of malfeasance concealed within Revenue Canada, uncovered only after a freedom of information request by a researcher.
Apparently, in 2008, two employees created fictitious tax returns, one netting $300,000, the other $100,000. I can almost hear the conversation that must have ensued after discovery of the crimes, which, by the way, also entailed the invasion of privacy of many taxpayers as the miscreants plumbed their tax records to facilitate their crimes. Undoubtedly the argument for concealment was made on the basis of these crimes being 'aberrations,’ and that letting the public know about them would serve only to undermine confidence in an institution that ‘operates so well.’
Despite the fact that these crimes have been uncovered, Revenue Canada refuses to answer any questions regarding what happened to the errant employees, other than to say they no longer work for Revenue Canada. They would not reveal whether they were charged (unlikely, since there would then be a public record) or whether the criminals made restitution. Our government agency justified its refusal to provide details, saying to do so would “violate privacy laws.” I wonder if the spokesperson realizes the irony of such a risible declaration.
If you would like to read the full story, I am reproducing it below:
Steven Chase
Ottawa — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 17, 2009 08:21AM EDT
Two Canada Revenue Agency bureaucrats siphoned hundreds of thousands of dollars from Ottawa's coffers by filing fraudulent tax returns and diverting refunds and related benefit payments to their personal bank accounts.
The tax collection agency, which uncovered the fraud in 2008, kept news of it from going public for more than a year, until the facts were released through a request under access-to-information law.
In one case, a veteran male Revenue employee routed $300,000 generated from illegitimate returns into his bank accounts. In an apparently unrelated matter, a female staffer racked up $100,000 using similar means of tricking the government into issuing refunds and payments to accounts she controlled.
The two facilitated this by snooping through taxpayer records – using invasive database searches that, among other things, grant access to Canadians' social insurance numbers.
It was heavy use of some searches that caught the eye of investigators.
On Wednesday, the Canada Revenue Agency refused to name the fraudsters or reveal whether they were fired or charged and convicted, saying that to identify them would violate privacy law. It also could not say if the money was recovered after the fraud was discovered last year.
Revenue spokeswoman Caitlin Workman would reveal only that the two individuals have left the tax collection business. “They no longer work here,” she said.
She dismissed the notion the two cases represent a problem with the corporate culture of Canada Revenue Agency, which is trusted to handle the confidential files of millions of taxpayers.
“We have close to 45,000 employees here, and they deal with millions of tax and benefit files on a daily basis. And here we are talking about two individuals,” Ms. Workman said. “Yes, we take it very seriously, but it should also be put in perspective.”
The male employee took more than $300,000 by routing bogus refunds and related Canada Child Tax Benefit and GST credit payments to personal accounts, just-released Canada Revenue Agency memos say.
The staffer was an expert on these benefits and “could have created fictitious accounts without any assistance,” the internal investigation found.
“For the last eight years, at least, he had filed tax returns and claimed [benefits and credits] for individuals he did not know,” the probe said.
The male staffer used dozens of taxpayer accounts for his fraud.
“Based on the information gained [from the investigation] and the list of social insurance numbers found at his workstation, it is reasonable to believe that [he] may have had a role to play in the issuance of illegitimate refunds on more than 50 accounts,” investigators found.
The female Canada Revenue Agency worker, who had eight years on the job, prepared and filed hundreds of illegitimate returns, ensuring the tax refunds and goods and services tax credits were routed to her own bank accounts.
The records from this investigation were obtained through access-to-information requests by researcher Ken Rubin.
Other Revenue employees became suspicious in the $300,000 fraud case when they tried to verify some of the claims and could not reach the taxpayers.
“After reviewing the motor vehicle records and conducting credit bureau checks ... [a staffer] was unable to determine the whereabouts of the taxpayers involved and could not establish whether or not they actually existed,” the probe reported.
Ms. Workman said internal fraud of this magnitude is very infrequent, but couldn't provide a historical record.
“I don't have any numbers for you but they are very rare.”
Both fraudsters made thousands of unauthorized searches into taxpayers' files, investigators found. The male staffer's transgressions included gaining access to his own files, and those of his spouse and his stepchildren.
Apparently, in 2008, two employees created fictitious tax returns, one netting $300,000, the other $100,000. I can almost hear the conversation that must have ensued after discovery of the crimes, which, by the way, also entailed the invasion of privacy of many taxpayers as the miscreants plumbed their tax records to facilitate their crimes. Undoubtedly the argument for concealment was made on the basis of these crimes being 'aberrations,’ and that letting the public know about them would serve only to undermine confidence in an institution that ‘operates so well.’
Despite the fact that these crimes have been uncovered, Revenue Canada refuses to answer any questions regarding what happened to the errant employees, other than to say they no longer work for Revenue Canada. They would not reveal whether they were charged (unlikely, since there would then be a public record) or whether the criminals made restitution. Our government agency justified its refusal to provide details, saying to do so would “violate privacy laws.” I wonder if the spokesperson realizes the irony of such a risible declaration.
If you would like to read the full story, I am reproducing it below:
Steven Chase
Ottawa — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 17, 2009 08:21AM EDT
Two Canada Revenue Agency bureaucrats siphoned hundreds of thousands of dollars from Ottawa's coffers by filing fraudulent tax returns and diverting refunds and related benefit payments to their personal bank accounts.
The tax collection agency, which uncovered the fraud in 2008, kept news of it from going public for more than a year, until the facts were released through a request under access-to-information law.
In one case, a veteran male Revenue employee routed $300,000 generated from illegitimate returns into his bank accounts. In an apparently unrelated matter, a female staffer racked up $100,000 using similar means of tricking the government into issuing refunds and payments to accounts she controlled.
The two facilitated this by snooping through taxpayer records – using invasive database searches that, among other things, grant access to Canadians' social insurance numbers.
It was heavy use of some searches that caught the eye of investigators.
On Wednesday, the Canada Revenue Agency refused to name the fraudsters or reveal whether they were fired or charged and convicted, saying that to identify them would violate privacy law. It also could not say if the money was recovered after the fraud was discovered last year.
Revenue spokeswoman Caitlin Workman would reveal only that the two individuals have left the tax collection business. “They no longer work here,” she said.
She dismissed the notion the two cases represent a problem with the corporate culture of Canada Revenue Agency, which is trusted to handle the confidential files of millions of taxpayers.
“We have close to 45,000 employees here, and they deal with millions of tax and benefit files on a daily basis. And here we are talking about two individuals,” Ms. Workman said. “Yes, we take it very seriously, but it should also be put in perspective.”
The male employee took more than $300,000 by routing bogus refunds and related Canada Child Tax Benefit and GST credit payments to personal accounts, just-released Canada Revenue Agency memos say.
The staffer was an expert on these benefits and “could have created fictitious accounts without any assistance,” the internal investigation found.
“For the last eight years, at least, he had filed tax returns and claimed [benefits and credits] for individuals he did not know,” the probe said.
The male staffer used dozens of taxpayer accounts for his fraud.
“Based on the information gained [from the investigation] and the list of social insurance numbers found at his workstation, it is reasonable to believe that [he] may have had a role to play in the issuance of illegitimate refunds on more than 50 accounts,” investigators found.
The female Canada Revenue Agency worker, who had eight years on the job, prepared and filed hundreds of illegitimate returns, ensuring the tax refunds and goods and services tax credits were routed to her own bank accounts.
The records from this investigation were obtained through access-to-information requests by researcher Ken Rubin.
Other Revenue employees became suspicious in the $300,000 fraud case when they tried to verify some of the claims and could not reach the taxpayers.
“After reviewing the motor vehicle records and conducting credit bureau checks ... [a staffer] was unable to determine the whereabouts of the taxpayers involved and could not establish whether or not they actually existed,” the probe reported.
Ms. Workman said internal fraud of this magnitude is very infrequent, but couldn't provide a historical record.
“I don't have any numbers for you but they are very rare.”
Both fraudsters made thousands of unauthorized searches into taxpayers' files, investigators found. The male staffer's transgressions included gaining access to his own files, and those of his spouse and his stepchildren.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Why Aren't the Newspapers Covering This Story?
A report released yesterday, entitled Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern, concludes that there is a significant risk of brain tumors arising from cellphone use. Compiled by doctors and scientists, its conclusions are derived from scientific findings from a variety of studies that have been conducted, including one funded by the telecommunications industry which, to no one's surprise, found no elevated risk. As this report points out, the telecom-funded study has design flaws that skewed the results to show no danger.
It is sad to note that thus far, despite the fact that the report has been sent to governments and the media, no newspapers have reported the findings. One can't help but wonder whether the fact that cellphone companies advertise heavily in newspapers could be a factor in this failure to report.
I am providing a link to the pdf file for anyone interested in reading the report, which should spur all of us to be much more careful in our use of these mobile devices.
It is sad to note that thus far, despite the fact that the report has been sent to governments and the media, no newspapers have reported the findings. One can't help but wonder whether the fact that cellphone companies advertise heavily in newspapers could be a factor in this failure to report.
I am providing a link to the pdf file for anyone interested in reading the report, which should spur all of us to be much more careful in our use of these mobile devices.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Shona Holmes on the Michael Coren Show
The other day a friend of mine alerted me to the fact that Shona Holmes was going to be making an appearance on the Michael Coren Show, and despite the fact that I tried to view it with an open mind, I can honestly say that it had very little impact on my overall impressions of the woman and her mission.
Ms. Holmes insists that her life was indeed threatened by her condition, explaining that an abridged version of her “complex medical issues” appeared on the Mayo Clinic website because of some kind of restriction on what could be written there. She offered some convoluted explanation of what she continues to assert was a brain tumour encapsulated within a cyst. While I am at least now willing to grant the possibility of her having had a more serious condition than was indicated on the Clinic website, I feel no more kindly disposed to her ‘mission’ than I did from the outset for a number of reasons.
First, she deplored the fact that a polarization occurs whenever Canadian and American healthcare systems are compared. Insisting that the American ad she made has succeeded in generating debate, she is being either disingenuous or obtuse in refusing to recognize that her ad increases that polarization, speaking, as it does, in absolutes, (e.g., “Government healthcare is not the answer, and it certainly isn’t free”) abetted by the voiceover advising viewers of the great suffering that ensues in Canada where people must wait an unconscionable length of time “for vital surgeries.” When asked by the host whether she felt that the ad was unfair to our system, she insisted that it wasn’t, and would do it again “in a heartbeat.”
In response to Coren’s question about the possibility that she was one of those few people who might have ‘fallen through the cracks” and that our system works pretty well, she declaimed that untold thousands were experiencing similar treatment, and that her efforts in suing the government and trying to force in private insurance are not for herself, but for her neighbours, grandchildren, and fellow citizens. I was disappointed that Mr. Coren did not ask her for statistical evidence to support her claims. Without that support, I cannot escape the notion that her efforts spring more from self-interest than any kind of altruism.
As well, while agreeing with the host that the American system needs reform, she went on to suggest that the majority of Americans are happy with their health insurance, again without statistical support, and questioned the actual number of Americans without insurance, dismissing the majority as illegal immigrants and young people who choose not to have any because they don’t think they need it. Hmm, I wonder if the exorbitant costs of acquiring insurance could be a factor in their decision?
Ms. Holmes also seems to lack insight into why the Canadian people are so furious with her, expressing her disappointment in the discovery that one can’t hold an opposing opinion without being reviled, threatened, etc. What she fails to understand is that people are so upset by her utter arrogance in assuming the role of spokesperson for a healthcare system that all polls suggest enjoys the unqualified support of over 87% of Canadians.
Until Ms. Holmes can begin to see herself as others see her, I suspect she can look forward to continued expressions of ill-will from her fellow Canadians.
Ms. Holmes insists that her life was indeed threatened by her condition, explaining that an abridged version of her “complex medical issues” appeared on the Mayo Clinic website because of some kind of restriction on what could be written there. She offered some convoluted explanation of what she continues to assert was a brain tumour encapsulated within a cyst. While I am at least now willing to grant the possibility of her having had a more serious condition than was indicated on the Clinic website, I feel no more kindly disposed to her ‘mission’ than I did from the outset for a number of reasons.
First, she deplored the fact that a polarization occurs whenever Canadian and American healthcare systems are compared. Insisting that the American ad she made has succeeded in generating debate, she is being either disingenuous or obtuse in refusing to recognize that her ad increases that polarization, speaking, as it does, in absolutes, (e.g., “Government healthcare is not the answer, and it certainly isn’t free”) abetted by the voiceover advising viewers of the great suffering that ensues in Canada where people must wait an unconscionable length of time “for vital surgeries.” When asked by the host whether she felt that the ad was unfair to our system, she insisted that it wasn’t, and would do it again “in a heartbeat.”
In response to Coren’s question about the possibility that she was one of those few people who might have ‘fallen through the cracks” and that our system works pretty well, she declaimed that untold thousands were experiencing similar treatment, and that her efforts in suing the government and trying to force in private insurance are not for herself, but for her neighbours, grandchildren, and fellow citizens. I was disappointed that Mr. Coren did not ask her for statistical evidence to support her claims. Without that support, I cannot escape the notion that her efforts spring more from self-interest than any kind of altruism.
As well, while agreeing with the host that the American system needs reform, she went on to suggest that the majority of Americans are happy with their health insurance, again without statistical support, and questioned the actual number of Americans without insurance, dismissing the majority as illegal immigrants and young people who choose not to have any because they don’t think they need it. Hmm, I wonder if the exorbitant costs of acquiring insurance could be a factor in their decision?
Ms. Holmes also seems to lack insight into why the Canadian people are so furious with her, expressing her disappointment in the discovery that one can’t hold an opposing opinion without being reviled, threatened, etc. What she fails to understand is that people are so upset by her utter arrogance in assuming the role of spokesperson for a healthcare system that all polls suggest enjoys the unqualified support of over 87% of Canadians.
Until Ms. Holmes can begin to see herself as others see her, I suspect she can look forward to continued expressions of ill-will from her fellow Canadians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
