Quebec teachers burn out by the dozen. With anxiety, stress and depression on the rise (according to union stats) those who are to ensure Quebec's intellectual future reach their breaking point and refuse to cope passively with the system. From walking out on a misbehaving class to taking long term leave, a signal is sent that something just isn't right.
Before we suspect malicious intent, let's stop and think. Let us now imagine the frustration of discovering that your students don't care for your knowledge, that you may not uphold your right to be respected as a superior and a teacher, that there's always someone who will expect more and more of you without any right to demand it but their own perceived worth of your skill. I would quake too, and throw everything to the dogs.
One of the oft-cited concerns is the integration of special-needs students in the classrooms. Though everyone has the right to education, let's be honest and admit that learning is not something that can be fit into a one-size-fits-all model. Some may be inclined to interpretation rather than calculation, some will excel in areas of investigation and fact, some will be best served by different teaching tools and techniques. Quotas, targets and o.s.f.a. classrooms eventually lead to frustration. Compounded with discipline lack and some parents' arrogance (well, yes, there is, we the public aren't faultless either) this creates an environment which any teacher, unionized or not, would find unacceptable.
Those with no passion for teaching and learning wouldn't care to walk out or feel any sort of frustration at their growing inability to perform the job to the highest standards. Quebec's woes may be the warning sign that many of the real teachers we should guard as a jewel of our education system are about to crack.
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Friday, 20 February 2009
Purpose - who truly lost it
CBC's Don Pittis argues politicians miss out the "human factor" in all their stimulus planning, that the general populace in the States is as good as in a motivation coma. Though I agree with his analysis (you can give man the money but you can't make him spend it right) I disagree with his conclusion that a new "sense of purpose" is needed.
People tend to strive to improve their situation, earn a better livelihood and seek their own maximum happiness. Without digressing into Objectivist arguments, US consumers forgot that a loan is not as earned as a honest income. It was money, to spend at their heart's volition. We all saw the ads for car loans, vacation loans, plasma TV loans, as if the whole economy was supposed, like in a defaulting third-world country, to run on credit and a shopkeeper's "black book". I was brought up in cultures where debt is considered an infamy to be hidden, and I'm sure glad for this moral code I acquired. If I and my family can live within our modest means, why can't everyone else?
Pittis wants to rest from the shock and let society find a new sense of purpose. The United States has been made great by the purpose of generations of Americans: to do something better than anyone around them could. This purpose is still alive in those who hold true to it, and they're the ones who are getting screwed by the stimuli. The true purpose of "Live by your means and seek to increase them" is in no way served by showering the cause of the crisis with freshly-minted cash.
Because if the growth by IOU was a delusion of the masses, patching it up with new fabric is a well thought-out plan by the Administration to close their eyes and keep the broken roller-coaster running without replacing a single rail. It's the government who've lost the sense of purpose, and this is why these purposeless bailouts will not work as they were intended to, if at all.
People tend to strive to improve their situation, earn a better livelihood and seek their own maximum happiness. Without digressing into Objectivist arguments, US consumers forgot that a loan is not as earned as a honest income. It was money, to spend at their heart's volition. We all saw the ads for car loans, vacation loans, plasma TV loans, as if the whole economy was supposed, like in a defaulting third-world country, to run on credit and a shopkeeper's "black book". I was brought up in cultures where debt is considered an infamy to be hidden, and I'm sure glad for this moral code I acquired. If I and my family can live within our modest means, why can't everyone else?
Pittis wants to rest from the shock and let society find a new sense of purpose. The United States has been made great by the purpose of generations of Americans: to do something better than anyone around them could. This purpose is still alive in those who hold true to it, and they're the ones who are getting screwed by the stimuli. The true purpose of "Live by your means and seek to increase them" is in no way served by showering the cause of the crisis with freshly-minted cash.
Because if the growth by IOU was a delusion of the masses, patching it up with new fabric is a well thought-out plan by the Administration to close their eyes and keep the broken roller-coaster running without replacing a single rail. It's the government who've lost the sense of purpose, and this is why these purposeless bailouts will not work as they were intended to, if at all.
Thursday, 19 February 2009
His rights are as good as mine
What may seem like a perversion of justice at first will instead be remembered, I hope, as a landmark case re-enshrining rights too often violated on the impulse of fear. Radical scum cleric Abu Qatada will be compensated for unlawful detention.
His deportation case has already cleared the court system and he will be booted out of the UK, the country that gave him refuge and which he spat on. But his original detention without charge on terrorism suspicion was a stain on Britain's rule of law and right. The current ECHR ruling sets the record straight: charge or be charged!
However great the threats we face, we must not sink to the lowness of the dictatorships where suspicion is a valid arrest motive and silence is an acceptable charge. Often the test of our love of liberty and rights is how prepared we are to extend them to our enemy. If it wants to maintain a credible anti-terrorism record, Britain should beef up its intelligence service, re-route police resources and stop fearing being politically incorrect. After all, sending undercover agents into a mosque or a culture centre to record a hateful sermon would be a much more efficient way to obtain enough proof to prosecute and expel the Qatada-like hatemongers.
Oft invoked as a scarecrow by complainants of dubious repute, the ECHR nevertheless has so far played a key role in bringing to the public's attention the rights violations carried out in EU member states, and other countries accepting its jurisdiction. Unlike our own HRC's, the ECHR does not create rights of its own. It merely looks after the EU Human Rights Charter, a sound document tarnished by local interpretations such as the UK one.
His deportation case has already cleared the court system and he will be booted out of the UK, the country that gave him refuge and which he spat on. But his original detention without charge on terrorism suspicion was a stain on Britain's rule of law and right. The current ECHR ruling sets the record straight: charge or be charged!
However great the threats we face, we must not sink to the lowness of the dictatorships where suspicion is a valid arrest motive and silence is an acceptable charge. Often the test of our love of liberty and rights is how prepared we are to extend them to our enemy. If it wants to maintain a credible anti-terrorism record, Britain should beef up its intelligence service, re-route police resources and stop fearing being politically incorrect. After all, sending undercover agents into a mosque or a culture centre to record a hateful sermon would be a much more efficient way to obtain enough proof to prosecute and expel the Qatada-like hatemongers.
Oft invoked as a scarecrow by complainants of dubious repute, the ECHR nevertheless has so far played a key role in bringing to the public's attention the rights violations carried out in EU member states, and other countries accepting its jurisdiction. Unlike our own HRC's, the ECHR does not create rights of its own. It merely looks after the EU Human Rights Charter, a sound document tarnished by local interpretations such as the UK one.
Sunday, 15 February 2009
EU rights law vs natural evolution of the Monarchy
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. If the Act of Settlement, which bars Catholics and those marrying Catholics from succeeding to the British throne be amended, so be it. But please, keep European human rights laws out of it. It is a narrow-minded approach to a very complex problem. Which means anyone attempting to argue the case from a solely EU law standpoint will botch up a 300-year-old law.
The Sovereign, aside from being a British head of State, i.e. subject to EU law, is also the head of State of a score other countries which, thankfully, are not associated with the EU and, according to the Statute of Westminster, are to be treated as equals. Canada had its Constitution patriated in 1982, thus any change to the way the Monarch in Right of Canada is chosen will have to be validated by Canadian authorities, and others.Laws evolve, and laws dealing with outdated turmoils even more so. It would be stupid, however, to attack a solid law with a jackhammer without considering its repercussions. The stability of the whole Anglican world is at stake. The unity of the Commonwealth is on the scales. Should the amendment be rejected by a national Privy Council, the Commonwealth Realms would have split dynasties. The rift in the Anglican confession could become even larger.
As always, the Law of Unintended Consequences applies. So, drivers of legislative evolution, tread carefully. And do the world a favor: for once, don't invoke an oft-misinterpreted law to justify a change which is meritorious in and of itself.
Monday, 9 February 2009
An Italian tragedy comes to an end
The past few weeks in Italy have seen the circus of mediocrity set up around the tragic state of a 38-year old woman, Eluana Englaro, who has been in a permanent vegetative state for 17 years. As her father and proxy fought in the legal channels for the right to refuse forced feeding and hydration, the political majority exploited the situation.
The definitive sentence of the highest court in Italy, the Cassation, affirmed the right to refuse treatment, the father's right as proxy and Eluana's "implied will" to refuse treatment should such a situation arise. The Government attempted all sorts of tactics: threats (revocation of a clinic's license to practice), harassment (back-to-back police inspections), emergency decree to prohibit all interruptions of feeding (refused by the President as not responding to urgency criteria) and, finally, an ad-hoc law rushed through parliament with the same contents.
The unconstitutionality and sheer stupidity of those moves are evident to everyone. Denying patients' free choice of treatment is as stupid as attempting to overrule a Supreme Court sentence by legislative action. However, as in a final expression of her (proven) refusal to be coerced, Ms. Englaro defied neurologists' prognoses and died an hour ago, a mere four days after her artificial feeding was interrupted.
This is a human tragedy first and foremost, and I for one will not join in my compatriots' childish bickering. It is disappointing to see the supposed leaders of a nation grossly unable to maintain any degree of composture and maturity required to debate and face issues of a human death and great ethical dilemmas such as patient freedom.
This case was grey, but the shameful protagonism display that followed vindicates, in my eyes, the efforts of a father who first sought to bring his daughter back to consciousness and then to take her out of her bodily grave when all hope was lost. He fought a bitter and excruciating court battle, and won it solely on the strength of scientific and personality arguments. His courage is to be admired.
The definitive sentence of the highest court in Italy, the Cassation, affirmed the right to refuse treatment, the father's right as proxy and Eluana's "implied will" to refuse treatment should such a situation arise. The Government attempted all sorts of tactics: threats (revocation of a clinic's license to practice), harassment (back-to-back police inspections), emergency decree to prohibit all interruptions of feeding (refused by the President as not responding to urgency criteria) and, finally, an ad-hoc law rushed through parliament with the same contents.
The unconstitutionality and sheer stupidity of those moves are evident to everyone. Denying patients' free choice of treatment is as stupid as attempting to overrule a Supreme Court sentence by legislative action. However, as in a final expression of her (proven) refusal to be coerced, Ms. Englaro defied neurologists' prognoses and died an hour ago, a mere four days after her artificial feeding was interrupted.
This is a human tragedy first and foremost, and I for one will not join in my compatriots' childish bickering. It is disappointing to see the supposed leaders of a nation grossly unable to maintain any degree of composture and maturity required to debate and face issues of a human death and great ethical dilemmas such as patient freedom.
This case was grey, but the shameful protagonism display that followed vindicates, in my eyes, the efforts of a father who first sought to bring his daughter back to consciousness and then to take her out of her bodily grave when all hope was lost. He fought a bitter and excruciating court battle, and won it solely on the strength of scientific and personality arguments. His courage is to be admired.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Local jobs for local people - with a strike to boot
As well as opportunities, economic crises tend to bring out the worst in a nation too. Look no further than the UK, whose public opinion has always been permeated with suspicion toward foreign workers (sorry Brits). A wave of solidarity strikes is sweeping the nation as workers at the Total Lindsey refinery cross their arms to protest a sub-contractor who uses its own (Italian) workforce.
Demanding that local workforce be sourced for local jobs is everyone's sacrosanct right, and I am not one to argue against this principle. However, the sub-contractor uses its workforce because it's trained to specification and has been known to the employer for longer. Furthermore, concerns about cheap labor are moot as UK law would prohibit paying anyone below minimum wage.
The simple truth is that British workers, and the contractors employing them, have priced themselves out of the contract. The Italian firm has a proven track record of excellence and offered the best price. Why SHOULDN'T Total choose their services?
Why should a multinational company put British workers first (as they demand) when an Italian company can do the same job cheaper and better, all within the confines of British law? The workers' frustration is legitimate, but there's nothing illegal in what Total has done. Foreign workers have helped Britain become the vibrant economy it was. Skilled immigration has filled the voids left by a crumbling education system.
And today, when trouble bites, all British workers can do is demand those who helped the country to be kicked out, discriminated, gratuitously humiliated without even saying "thanks" or "sorry". Ignorant protectionism and blind nationalism are ugly beasts. A sad state of affairs indeed.
Demanding that local workforce be sourced for local jobs is everyone's sacrosanct right, and I am not one to argue against this principle. However, the sub-contractor uses its workforce because it's trained to specification and has been known to the employer for longer. Furthermore, concerns about cheap labor are moot as UK law would prohibit paying anyone below minimum wage.
The simple truth is that British workers, and the contractors employing them, have priced themselves out of the contract. The Italian firm has a proven track record of excellence and offered the best price. Why SHOULDN'T Total choose their services?
Why should a multinational company put British workers first (as they demand) when an Italian company can do the same job cheaper and better, all within the confines of British law? The workers' frustration is legitimate, but there's nothing illegal in what Total has done. Foreign workers have helped Britain become the vibrant economy it was. Skilled immigration has filled the voids left by a crumbling education system.
And today, when trouble bites, all British workers can do is demand those who helped the country to be kicked out, discriminated, gratuitously humiliated without even saying "thanks" or "sorry". Ignorant protectionism and blind nationalism are ugly beasts. A sad state of affairs indeed.
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Let's grit our teeth and stay tuned
The 2009 Canadian budget probably makes many of us cringe and cry foul. I am no economist, but red ink is red for a reason, and deficits are a Tory's worst nightmare. Stephen Taylor, however, puts the issue into perspective far better than I ever could.
At gunpoint one can choose a honorable death while making a brave last stance or try to save one's own neck. Having missed a great majority opportunity in October, the Tories would have probably been destroyed at the polls had they delivered a designed-to-irritate budget. A paradigm shift occurred in the Cabinet (at long last, in my opinion), abandoning childish poking at the opposition and embracing a more mature form of legislative action.
Looking through some provisions of the Budget I noted, naively maybe, a definite conservative streak. The support for the forestry sector, for instance, is heavily focused on innovation rather than just temporary support. FPInnovations is no union-dominated morass seeking a bailout. Homeowner incentives are geared towards consumption (spend and thou shalt receive).
I have a qualm regarding social housing investment. Surely once completed it will allow the low income earners and pensioners to reduce their rent costs. However it may also create ghettos, with the risks associated with social housing estates in the long run for the community. I would have preferred support for people to maintain their current status as tenants, with allowances for moving to less expensive properties. However removing tenants from the rent market may spell disaster for estate companies and buy-to-rent landlords, who will find themselves with no rent income and a depreciated house. Social housing estate-induced community deterioration could be avoided with eventual ownership prospects, so occupants will be encouraged to maintain a neat, safe and attractive environment. If you're going to own it, you'll want it kept nicely.
Ultimately, it is a gritted-teeth Budget. We have not succumbed to the hand-out mentality of the Liberals and expect more from the money we pour into the economy than mere continuation of the status-quo. We are sending out a message that reads "if you wanted to invest or buy, the time is now". Admittedly, we couldn't do more.
This is a Budget which has Canada's present and future at heart, and a good campaign Budget too. Should the Liberals decide to vote it down they will have to bear the ire of voters who would have taken advantage of the stimulus provisions. And there's definitely more of those than coalition fans. One never knows, Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper may yet turn out to have delivered a political masterpiece and a great economic experiment.
At gunpoint one can choose a honorable death while making a brave last stance or try to save one's own neck. Having missed a great majority opportunity in October, the Tories would have probably been destroyed at the polls had they delivered a designed-to-irritate budget. A paradigm shift occurred in the Cabinet (at long last, in my opinion), abandoning childish poking at the opposition and embracing a more mature form of legislative action.
Looking through some provisions of the Budget I noted, naively maybe, a definite conservative streak. The support for the forestry sector, for instance, is heavily focused on innovation rather than just temporary support. FPInnovations is no union-dominated morass seeking a bailout. Homeowner incentives are geared towards consumption (spend and thou shalt receive).
I have a qualm regarding social housing investment. Surely once completed it will allow the low income earners and pensioners to reduce their rent costs. However it may also create ghettos, with the risks associated with social housing estates in the long run for the community. I would have preferred support for people to maintain their current status as tenants, with allowances for moving to less expensive properties. However removing tenants from the rent market may spell disaster for estate companies and buy-to-rent landlords, who will find themselves with no rent income and a depreciated house. Social housing estate-induced community deterioration could be avoided with eventual ownership prospects, so occupants will be encouraged to maintain a neat, safe and attractive environment. If you're going to own it, you'll want it kept nicely.
Ultimately, it is a gritted-teeth Budget. We have not succumbed to the hand-out mentality of the Liberals and expect more from the money we pour into the economy than mere continuation of the status-quo. We are sending out a message that reads "if you wanted to invest or buy, the time is now". Admittedly, we couldn't do more.
This is a Budget which has Canada's present and future at heart, and a good campaign Budget too. Should the Liberals decide to vote it down they will have to bear the ire of voters who would have taken advantage of the stimulus provisions. And there's definitely more of those than coalition fans. One never knows, Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper may yet turn out to have delivered a political masterpiece and a great economic experiment.
Monday, 26 January 2009
Luca's one step closer to being a permanent resident
The recent penury of activity is over. While some have bar exams, birthdays and throne speeches today, I had a Quebec Selection interview this morning. After a pleasant hour I emerged with a CSQ, which means I can apply for Permanent Residence.
A very pleasant interviewer, a very relaxed setting, a very happy Luca at the end of it.
A very pleasant interviewer, a very relaxed setting, a very happy Luca at the end of it.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
A little digression on Putinland
Canadian cincinnatus rightly points out how unwitting pawns can buy into Kremlin propaganda and be duped into believing that Russia is the greatest world superpower. However, Cincinnatus falls into the opposite trap: buying into uninformed Western media reporting.
Cincinnatus contends that the Moscow apartment bombings that spurred the latest Chechen war were orchestrated by the Putin government. I don't believe they were. Considering how idiotic the russian administration is, such a ploy would have come to light and would have been botched up no doubt. Russian apartment buildings are a joke to get into, and explosives are easy to find if you know where to look. My odds that it was the government are at least 5:1.
Moreover, Cincinnatus rightly remarks that Putin won re-election twice in at times very murky circumstances. I am no fan of Mr P's, but I do see a general discontent among the population toward the alternative parties of power and the alternative candidates. Many of them lack credibility (kas'yanov, the oligarch's buddy?). Thus Putin is often the sole choice people have, lest their country be entrusted to someone without a power base (who will therefore seek it with the oligarchs, we've seen how this worked in the 90's) or someone completely deranged. Odds of Putin cheating are 3:1 in my books.
Next, Cincinnatus contends that Russia invaded Georgia on purpose and had the operation planned. The latter is true. The former is bullshit. The pot has been boiling for years and the Russians definitely had a plan to kick Georgian butt. Since the southern President has a tendency to bark at his neighbor while hiding beyond a fictitious veil of Western solidarity, it is no surprise that the offended party has a reserve plan to bust him. Moreover, Russians have a very powerful intelligence service. They knew what Georgia was doing, and therefore were ready to respond. Easy.
The whole area of the former Soviet Union has to be construed as a governmental IQ black hole. Assume that each and every government in the region is stupid. What would a stupid government do? Many crises explained, not least the latest gas standoff which was used as a trading horse between the warring orange factions.
Cincinnatus further states that Putin ordered the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. I doubt it. Firstly, the guy had no real sensitive secret to hold. At most he was a good conspiracy theorist. Secondly, he kept sketchy company, including convicted and wanted terrorist Ahmed Zakayev, who is KNOWN to have organised deadly attacks. Thirdly, if Putin and the FSB wanted to assassinate Litvinenko, a gun shot in a dark alley would have been the chosen method. Any chemical is easy to come about in Russia provided you look hard enough. I wouldn't have risked such negative publicity for such a pawn. Poisoning Berezovsky, on the other hand, would have been a clear FSB job mandated from high above.
Don't get me wrong. I too believe Putin is a thug, that he is incompetent with the economy and very murky in his dealings. However I refuse to believe that someone would risk so much for so little, whether the so little is humiliating Georgia or poisoning Litvinenko. But again, stupid is as stupid does. One never knows.
Cincinnatus contends that the Moscow apartment bombings that spurred the latest Chechen war were orchestrated by the Putin government. I don't believe they were. Considering how idiotic the russian administration is, such a ploy would have come to light and would have been botched up no doubt. Russian apartment buildings are a joke to get into, and explosives are easy to find if you know where to look. My odds that it was the government are at least 5:1.
Moreover, Cincinnatus rightly remarks that Putin won re-election twice in at times very murky circumstances. I am no fan of Mr P's, but I do see a general discontent among the population toward the alternative parties of power and the alternative candidates. Many of them lack credibility (kas'yanov, the oligarch's buddy?). Thus Putin is often the sole choice people have, lest their country be entrusted to someone without a power base (who will therefore seek it with the oligarchs, we've seen how this worked in the 90's) or someone completely deranged. Odds of Putin cheating are 3:1 in my books.
Next, Cincinnatus contends that Russia invaded Georgia on purpose and had the operation planned. The latter is true. The former is bullshit. The pot has been boiling for years and the Russians definitely had a plan to kick Georgian butt. Since the southern President has a tendency to bark at his neighbor while hiding beyond a fictitious veil of Western solidarity, it is no surprise that the offended party has a reserve plan to bust him. Moreover, Russians have a very powerful intelligence service. They knew what Georgia was doing, and therefore were ready to respond. Easy.
The whole area of the former Soviet Union has to be construed as a governmental IQ black hole. Assume that each and every government in the region is stupid. What would a stupid government do? Many crises explained, not least the latest gas standoff which was used as a trading horse between the warring orange factions.
Cincinnatus further states that Putin ordered the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. I doubt it. Firstly, the guy had no real sensitive secret to hold. At most he was a good conspiracy theorist. Secondly, he kept sketchy company, including convicted and wanted terrorist Ahmed Zakayev, who is KNOWN to have organised deadly attacks. Thirdly, if Putin and the FSB wanted to assassinate Litvinenko, a gun shot in a dark alley would have been the chosen method. Any chemical is easy to come about in Russia provided you look hard enough. I wouldn't have risked such negative publicity for such a pawn. Poisoning Berezovsky, on the other hand, would have been a clear FSB job mandated from high above.
Don't get me wrong. I too believe Putin is a thug, that he is incompetent with the economy and very murky in his dealings. However I refuse to believe that someone would risk so much for so little, whether the so little is humiliating Georgia or poisoning Litvinenko. But again, stupid is as stupid does. One never knows.
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Thank God for research - Duh!
Privatization kills, or so say UK academics who published an article in the Lancet. Examining the death rate in countries undergoing sweeping economic reform, they noticed that periods of privatization apparently coincided with an increase in the death rate among the population.
Now, when jobs that provide pay and healthcare vanish it is all too obvious that unemployment will rise, the quality of healthcare will deteriorate and th morbidity may increase. With less tax income, doctors in a public health system will be paid less and resort to taking bribes for faster treatment, or leave the profession altogether. Unemployed people may take to the bottle or illegal means of procurement. Diets veer toward the unhealthy side (as the paper rightly points out).
However it is an unsanctioned reasoning leap to suggest that economic reform leads to death. It is contrary to any academic standard, and flies in the face of the old axiom that correlation does not imply causation.
Questions for the scientists:
1) Should countries therefore not undertake economic reforms and go under?
2) Should economic development (e.g. building factories) be shunned in favour of less-risky forms of economy such as call-centres and basic agriculture?
3) How large was the spike in mortality, if any, in Britain during the Thatcher years? I bet my testicles it was not large, if there was any at all.
Bad privatization causes havoc. Bad science kills. Bad policy can cause huge damages. The moral of the story is that when you screw things up the population loses out. We certainly didn't need a team of academics telling us the bleeding obvious and getting the wrong end of the stick in the process.
DUH!
Now, when jobs that provide pay and healthcare vanish it is all too obvious that unemployment will rise, the quality of healthcare will deteriorate and th morbidity may increase. With less tax income, doctors in a public health system will be paid less and resort to taking bribes for faster treatment, or leave the profession altogether. Unemployed people may take to the bottle or illegal means of procurement. Diets veer toward the unhealthy side (as the paper rightly points out).
However it is an unsanctioned reasoning leap to suggest that economic reform leads to death. It is contrary to any academic standard, and flies in the face of the old axiom that correlation does not imply causation.
Questions for the scientists:
1) Should countries therefore not undertake economic reforms and go under?
2) Should economic development (e.g. building factories) be shunned in favour of less-risky forms of economy such as call-centres and basic agriculture?
3) How large was the spike in mortality, if any, in Britain during the Thatcher years? I bet my testicles it was not large, if there was any at all.
Bad privatization causes havoc. Bad science kills. Bad policy can cause huge damages. The moral of the story is that when you screw things up the population loses out. We certainly didn't need a team of academics telling us the bleeding obvious and getting the wrong end of the stick in the process.
DUH!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)