The lunatics have taken over the asylum

A day ago, it looked as if Malcolm Turnbull could survive at least long enough to implement his deal with Labor, a deal that would deliver a drastically weakened emissions trading scheme with massive overcompensation of every possible big business interest. It would be marvellous to report that a popular uprising against rent-seeking lobby groups changed all this. But, in fact, Turnbull’s leadership has been rendered untenable by a Liberal Party base, and commentariat, that has entered a state of collective insanity in which the most absurd conspiracy theories are taken as a starting point for reasoning. Over time on this blog, I’ve seen even seemingly sensible commenters of a libertarian or conservative cast of mind succumb to this tribalist lunacy. The handful who have resisted (hi, Tokyo Tom) are increasingly regarded as “beyond the pale”.

From delusional beliefs on climate science follow equally delusional beliefs on political strategy, symbolised by the 37 votes for a Kevin Andrews spill yesterday and by the apparent certainty that, assuming Turnbull holds his ground, a majority of Liberals will vote for the delusionist candidate, Tony Abbott

Amazingly, even the editorialist at the Oz, whose columnists have uniformly promoted delusional conspiracy theories recognises the hopelessness of such a stance. as the Oz says

In truth, there is nowhere for Coalition members to go on this issue, other than to support the amended and improved bill and claim as their work the concessions they have wrung from the government. The introduction of a cap-and-trade ETS has been bipartisan policy for more than two years and it is supreme folly for rebels within the Liberals to believe they can go to an election as the destroyers, rather than the enablers, of such a scheme.

There may be room for the Nationals to argue against an ETS in the bush, but it is politically naive to think that voters in the inner-city areas of Melbourne and Sydney would welcome such regressive policies from their MPs. How exactly would Mr Abbott, for example, propose campaigning on this issue in seats such as North Sydney and Wentworth, where Liberal voters are determined to see action on climate change? Having a bob each way on the issue will not go down well with voters who have followed the debate and who expect, as Mr Turnbull says, responsible political parties to take responsible action

There is no reasoning with lunatics, and my attempts to do so have gone nowhere. At this point, we just have to hope that they will remain, as they are at present, in the minority, and that they can be kept as far as possible from political power.

There’s no guarantee that sanity will prevail. As the conman in Huckleberry Finn says ‘Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?” But, as I recall, he ends up tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

278 thoughts on “The lunatics have taken over the asylum

  1. Incidentally I have had little enthusiasm for an ETS – count me as a ‘policy sceptic’ rather than a ‘climate sceptic’.

    As Ross Gittins in Saturday’s Fairfax papers points out, the ETS provides a lot of motivation for electricity producers to reduce GHG emissions. They get their free permits anyway, but if they reduce their GHG emissions then they can sell their free permits for cold hard cash.

    The objection to the ETS is not environmental. It is that taxpayers are slugged to pay for the bad investment decisions of coal-burning electricity investors.

    Sure taxpayers don’t like getting ripped off, but they should ask themselves (Green supporters especially), is it more important to act in an environmentally friendly way or is it more important that taxpayers don’t get ripped off by selfish vested interest that has the government by the balls.

  2. “And why havent you gone to the ABS to get the real figures instead of to the productivity commission who is only referring to a narrow part of govt assistance to Mining.”

    Alice,

    The PC explicitly say they have not measured some things. But it is incorrect to suggest the TAR Reports don’t reflect the rough level of net assistance firms receive.

  3. Colin
    Webb, its a blog site, Alice by and large is wedded to thepresentation of fact based discussion. Unlike folk who have nothing to contribute themselves and whos best efforts as to commenting on the thread topic is a cheap snipe at someone who does try to contribute in good faith.

  4. That may well be regarded as a gratuitous comment; after about 4 or 5 comments the quality drops off considerably.

  5. @Colin Webb
    The problem I have is that people like Colin who I have never heard of…(another troll with another new name?) drops in to smear me but puts up quite happily with Mark Hill’s blatant misrepresentation of mining industry subsidies. I guess some people just get off on misrepresenting facts and deluding themselves…so now we have another one in here with another new name.

  6. @rog
    And Rog – I dont mind Paul responding at all…who usually speaks sense and makes sense to me unlike the Mark Hills, Paul Williams, SPVs and Colin who I have never heard of or even spoken to. Colin – that was an informative educated comment for a first timer wasnt it? Maybe its you could do with some practice on net etiquette.

  7. @Mark Hill
    So at least you admit Mark you have not presented the full facts on mining industry subsidies and if I recall you were sugessting they presented us with a negative subsidy.
    Thanks for your apology.

  8. @Paul Williams
    Id suggest too you Paul Williams that there is not much interest from anyone in answering your question on the benefits of an ETS. Its pretty obvious where you stand. On the side of the lunatics.

    Good luck with that. Most in here are really tired of putting up with the nonsense denialism. Why dont you go back to Catallyx and take your feathered friends with you (Mark, Yourself, Colin here and throw SPF in the back of the ute when you do).

    Im really at the point where I feel I dont want to put up with this irresponsible idiocy (anti ETS) masquerading as a legitimate view. Its not legitimate. Its destructive, immoral, unethical, and based on bare faced lies. I wont be a party to it. Dont expect me to respond to any of you.

    Greed and selfishness masquerading as climate science denialism. Blind unquestioning free market, small (no stripped ..actually no government) ideologies masquerading as the saviour of our society. People are soooo…over this. There is a place for you (all four of you). You have only been in here a week and how many more new names can you invent?

    New ethos DNFTT. No air at all.

  9. Alice, I apologise for publishing my comment – I assumed the comments were moderated, and addressed mine to the host, as I have a few times in the past. However, I do consider your comments on this thread to have been repeatedly well into the area of personal attacks on other contributors. In most cases I don’t disagree with what I assume to be your position (I was an environmental activist in country NSW whose life and family were threatened by developers when I was younger and more mobile than I am now, so you don’t need to attribute attitudes or associations to me that are not true), but I have found your sustained rage on this thread tiring. I’m sorry to have said it aloud.

  10. But I agree it is your right to speak as you wish, and it is John’s discussion space so it’s his prerogative to decide what is acceptable and what isn’t. I was letting him know that it looked to at least one of the quiet people in the room like the discussion had been hijacked and had developed some of the tone of the blogs of the very people you presumably despise. Perhaps I should just say: “Alice, I think you’ve made your point.”

  11. Boy, the loonies are sure getting desperate now. You’re perfectly correct Alice, these trolls from Catallax and the like are beneath contempt and not even a challenge ffs.

    Colin Webb is obviously a pathetic fake and charlatan.

    Tell us Col, what was the environmental issue you were an activist around in country NSW way back when. And how precisely did that make you today a climate denialist and lead you to regard the rage of planetary defenders such as Alice so beyond the pale that you’re driven to attack her personally, sans argument, here and now.

    /crickets

  12. @Alicia
    Yep Alicia – I agree…it goes from bad to worse.
    Colin – take a hike. You are in the minority here just like you are out there and normal people are over this climate denialism BS. Take your wacky friends with you and leave quietly and lock the door behind you.
    You dont fool us one bit. You are not nice. You are not polite. You dont have a legitimate argument. You dont have a legitimate science. You peddle lies.

  13. Alice, at the risk of further offending you, you simply prove my point. Don’t worry, I’m now also angry with your assumptions. I don’t have an argument because I’m only arguing with you about your rage, not your “planetary defence”. If you don’t want my apology, that’s your business. I thought the thread was about the quality of leadership, rather than the insults you can throw from the barricades. But don’t let it worry you (I’m sure it won’t). You’re doing a great job of bringing about change.

  14. @Colin Webb
    Rage is quite right.

    Justifiable rage. Rage at lunatics who deny climate change is happening. If thats an apology for your snipe at #2 its false (..”at the risk of further offending you” like…sure – you would love to! Dont lie.)… but dont worry Im sure you will get a chance to take another shot. Make sure its a good one Colin because I fire back.

    The thread is about the lunatics running the asylum on climate change and how delusional beliefs par extraordinairre have infected the liberal party so badly they are acting like rabid dogs. If you dont have an argument why are you here? To argue about my rage?

    You sure are way off topic.

  15. @iain

    You did respond iain, pointing out the opportunity for further legislation, etc. As I replied, I didn’t consider your points to be tangible benefits. But thanks for at least replying.

    Entertaining as it is to watch Alice foaming at the mouth, I think I’ll leave you to it for a bit.

    I really just popped in to see what the lefty take on Climategate was. Complete denial.

  16. I get upset about this issue also, but it’s time for everyone to calm down a bit. We have both truth and the numbers on our side and will prevail.

  17. Apologies JQ but last line of the post immediately above yours says it all..the planned attack by yet another insult posse… but they are getting desperate as Alicia says, and yes we will win. Its a matter of time and its on our side.

  18. Alice,

    How is referring to net assistance for every industry grouping net of some state Government assistance etc “not presenting the full facts” [explictly stated by the PC] with regards to subsidies? The figures aren’t 100% accurate but they are a reliable indicator of net assistance for each industry grouping.

    You may not understand how subsidies and tariffs are interrelated – I’m sorry for that but I’m not sympathetic about it.

    Regarding the ABS for the “real” figures, where do you think other Governmental organisations by and large get their data from? Yes the PC does collect some of their own by most still heavily rely upon the ABS.

  19. Read you comment JQ, nevertheless:
    Colin
    Webb; “I dont have an argument with you because I’m only arguing about your rage, not your planetary defence”.
    Well, firstly the “rage” that so troubles such sensitive souls as have turned up here recently, is largely a figment of their own imaginations and their inability to argue beyond ad hominem.
    Secondly, I suggest there are millions of adults in this country just now who feel the exact same rightful indignation at the crude and costly stunts and burlesque of the last month.
    Can I suggest- yet again- that you and your friends argue on the ISSUES rather than trying disrupt people like Alice, who do have something to say and who are, incidently, well versed in your tactics and are six steps ahead of you, at worst.
    as to the isue, Sen Raymond is talking onLatelineas Iwrite this. The Hockey push ison, so the opposition will end uppassing the tcarbon trade legisaltion anyway, but with the added penalty of eating another one of its (few) next generation leaders and sending them to the footof the table as far as national credibility.
    “broad church”, indeed!

  20. Interesting reading Mungo McCallum’s dissection of the relationship between Grech, the Tories, and the Murdoch OZ, as a source of Tory propaganda. It hangs on the conduit between Albrechtsen and Grech the supposedly incoruptible public servant, via the relationship between Albrechtsen’s hot shot husband and that unspeakable little grub who is so much at the core of Turnbull’s down fall.

  21. @paul walter
    Paul – a pleasure and I meant every word of it. Its not hard to sort the sane out from the deliberate lunatics that drop in here but I dont see why they think they have a right to bully people and they do it all the time to shut down the argument on climate change. They use cute phraseology and “oh pardon me…I didnt mean to …and with respect”….You know how it goes but they dont mean it. They just would hate to get kicked out while they are busy trying to put the knife those on the right side of this debate. The other tactic used is every obscure sidetrack known to man. Smoke and mirrors. Thats all we get from them.

  22. “Wow, just wow. Ken N who blogs at Catallaxy has a go at me, asserting that the comments on my blog are just like those at Andrew Bolt’s. This sort of thing seems to be SOP for the Catallaxians. See this previous example where Jason Soon claimed that I was just like Graeme Bird. Perhaps you could support your claim with an example?
    Catallaxy has the worst comment section of any blog that I’m aware of. It’s the last home of the trolls who have been banned from every other Australian blog. I used to comment there, but I gave up when it stopped being possible to have a reasoned discussion there.”

    With the exception of the word “trolls” I would have to agree with everything Tim has said here. I don’t know to what extent I am to blame for creating this monstrosity that is Catallaxy 2009. But it has to be one of the most anti-intellectual sites around. Its not just anti-intellectual in terms of the participants. It appears to be stridently, smugly, proudly anti-intellectual in-principle.

    Tim’s position is pretty clear on this matter. He thinks that CO2 is bad for the biosphere and he acts accordingly. But the Catallaxians don’t stand for the idea that CO2 is bad for the biosphere. They don’t stand for the idea that CO2 is good for the biosphere. They don’t stand for small government. Or for anything at all. They stand for the mob mentality, cronyism, triangulation, nihilism, and the hatred for any novel or creative thought.

    The atmosphere got so bad, clubby and mob-like there that I was finding myself having to constantly stick up for a woman against ritualised pre-emptive abuse of the strongest sort. During better days I used to say to some of the leftist girls that they ought to “come over to the bright side of the road”. But there is no bright side of the road to take them to on the right that I know of.

    Catallaxy has taken up the strange point of view that the science doesn’t matter.

    Their triangulation has gotten so out of hand that they have a sort of twice daily ritual of laying abuse on Tim, yet at the same time they agree with his policies? They are now pushing the ETS and fervently hoping for a Turnbull win. So the inherent policy appears to be one of image-positioning. Instead of some authentic sensible middle ground its as if they believe that abusing Tim, and simultaneously pushing for the ETS, that to them makes them fair and balanced. But if they agree with the ETS they ought to be admitting to Tim that he was right all along.

  23. Alice, thanks. Just online and yes, I’ve wondered long and hard about their pathology. I can”get a line” with people like you, but always find it impossible to have the feeling there is any connectivity between myself and these, its like trying to communicate with a jelly fish or something else lifeless.
    Parallel universes.
    Just a sense of their weirdness.

  24. @Paul Williams
    Perhaps one of the reasons you are not satisfied with the responses to your question about what tangible benefits the population at large will receive from an ETS is the question itself is framed from a self-interested perspective. I could ask “why should I bother to put rubbish in a bin when it is more convenient to drop it on the ground? Shouldn’t I be compensated for all the extra private effort?”

    The CPRS is the bastard child of our vested interest driven parliament but the theory behind an ETS is very simple. It’s a why of discovering a price for pollution. See http://www.theage.com.au/business/scope-to-improve-pollution-reduction-scheme-20091129-jyxw.html

    Most people, libertarians being the exception except that there are resource limits, physical constraints and the world has to be shared with other people. They cover this curriculum in Kindergarten now.

  25. @Paul Williams
    Perhaps one of the reasons you are not satisfied with the responses to your question about what tangible benefits the population at large will receive from an ETS is the question itself is framed from a self-interested perspective. I could ask “why should I bother to put rubbish in a bin when it is more convenient to drop it on the ground? Shouldn’t I be compensated for all the extra private effort?”

    The CPRS is the bastard child of our vested interest driven parliament but the theory behind an ETS is very simple. It’s a way of discovering a price for pollution. See http://www.theage.com.au/business/scope-to-improve-pollution-reduction-scheme-20091129-jyxw.html

    Most people, libertarians being the exception, accept that there are resource limits, physical constraints and the world has to be shared with other people. They cover this curriculum in Kindergarten now.

  26. @Michael

    Even accepting the proposition that CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic environmental damage, the ETS will have no effect on global CO2 levels. Shutting down Australia’s industrial output completely will not cause a measurable decrease in atmospheric CO2.

    Therefore an ETS cannot affect climate, and that’s even before the scientific argument.

    The logical position for a devout believer in the infallibility of the Holy CRU is to wait until a world agreement is in place.

    Then an ETS might be accepted by the public if a) there are cast iron guarantees that the rest of the world will meet their commitments, and b) there was some real evidence that the climate was warming, and the warming was causing problems that could not be tackled other than by reducing emissions.

    Hopefully the Mad Monk will kick Rudd and Wong hard enough, (but with compassion), that we can get a forensic dissection of the pros and cons of an ETS. Then we can vote on the merits of the issue, rather than be fed a load of spin.

  27. Paul Williams :
    @Michael
    Even accepting the proposition that CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic environmental damage, the ETS will have no effect on global CO2 levels. Shutting down Australia’s industrial output completely will not cause a measurable decrease in atmospheric CO2.
    Therefore an ETS cannot affect climate, and that’s even before the scientific argument.

    How do you prove this proposition? Are you saying that an ETS will have no impact on Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions? Or are you saying that other countries will increase their emissions because we are “Shutting down Australia’s industrial output completely” (which we won’t)?

    The position you take is an honourable one, Australia should be the last country to take responsibility for carbon dioxide since we are very “special”. Special in the developmentally disadvantaged category and we are only capable of following the lead of other more advanced nations like India and China.

  28. “Most people, libertarians being the exception except that there are resource limits, physical constraints and the world has to be shared with other people. They cover this curriculum in Kindergarten now.”

    Yesterday people were lamenting libertarians as economic rationalists.

    I am beginning to believe some of the more inflammatory commenters here do not know what economic rationalism is.

    Libertarians strictly support the doctrine of free (see William Belsham) will and economic rationalism is strictly impartial analysis that seeks utilitarian outcomes and assumes bounded rationality (i.e imperfect, incomplete information and rational ignorance etc).

    You can be either without being the other but usually they are complimentary. You can also believe in free will metaphysically but not morally or politically, as you can accept economic rationalism but not politically.

    Hint: Scarcity doesn’t vindicate Ehrlich. Mitigation needs justification and any need to mitigate doesn’t necessitate support for an ETS, which is far from workable or effective.

  29. Mark Hill :Yesterday people were lamenting libertarians as economic rationalists.
    I am beginning to believe some of the more inflammatory commenters here do not know what economic rationalism is.
    Libertarians strictly support the doctrine of free (see William Belsham) will and economic rationalism is strictly impartial analysis that seeks utilitarian outcomes and assumes bounded rationality (i.e imperfect, incomplete information and rational ignorance etc).
    You can be either without being the other but usually they are complimentary. You can also believe in free will metaphysically but not morally or politically, as you can accept economic rationalism but not politically.
    Hint: Scarcity doesn’t vindicate Ehrlich. Mitigation needs justification and any need to mitigate doesn’t necessitate support for an ETS, which is far from workable or effective.

    Que? What a load of bollocks! ‘[S]trictly impartial analysis’, clearly you do not know what this means. Free will? Do some still believe this actually means something? How can you differentiate between someone who has free will and someone who doesn’t? What does ‘free will’ mean? The words are meaningless. A bit like talking about souls. The words ‘economic rationalism’ are ironic. As evidenced by the propensity of these types to be AGW deniers, rationalism is not one of their attributes. Please continue to post.

  30. @Mark Hill
    I don’t know who you are referring to but I haven’t mentioned economic rationalists. Just as the right likes to caricature the left, libertarians can be characterised by some thinly shared attitudes, typically selfishness and an inability to appreciate the contributions of others to their own prosperity.

    I’m not a climate expert, but I take advice from those who are and it is economically rational to take externalities into account and price them. I also don’t believe an ETS is the answer – it’s part of the answer and a small step in the direction of acknowledging that we operate in a constrained environment. I don’t believe the CPRS will be anymore damaging to Australian industry than being overly protected from reality and seeing other economies develop valuable improvements in using energy more efficiently whilst we stay static.

  31. Freelander,
    Spoken like a true apologist for dictators. I suppose, as you deny the existence of free will, that you did not choose to spend time commenting on a website, but that this is what would have inevitably happened anyway.

  32. Andrew Reynolds :
    Freelander,
    Spoken like a true apologist for dictators. I suppose, as you deny the existence of free will, that you did not choose to spend time commenting on a website, but that this is what would have inevitably happened anyway.

    There is no evidence for free will and plenty against – just search on automaticity and Bargh for justone line of research. What is it that people can’t understand this, it has no impact on whther you are unique or predictable or valued. ‘Free will’ is a corrosive concept that has been used to excuse all sorts of oppression.

  33. Michael – strip away the rhetoric and our views on climate change are not too far apart. It is the detail we differ on.

    Freelander – how is ‘economic rationalism’ “ironic”?

  34. Michael – yes there are caricatures but they are probably all wrong. What’s worse are ones which strongly mischaracterise and build strawmen the object of the abuse doesn’t even want to defend.

    nanks – how much oppression has the denial of free will been responsible for?

    I’d be interested to know how the concept of free will has been used historically to oppress people. Can you give me some examples? I’ll disclose that I don’t believe this is true.

  35. Michael :

    How do you prove this proposition? Are you saying that an ETS will have no impact on Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions? Or are you saying that other countries will increase their emissions because we are “Shutting down Australia’s industrial output completely” (which we won’t)?
    The position you take is an honourable one, Australia should be the last country to take responsibility for carbon dioxide since we are very “special”. Special in the developmentally disadvantaged category and we are only capable of following the lead of other more advanced nations like India and China.

    @Michael

    Australia produces about 1.4% of global emissions, and that percentage is falling as developing countries increase their emissions much faster, and from a higher total, than we do. China is currently building the equivalent of Australia’s coal fired electricity production every nine months. That’s going to swamp a 5%, 15% or even 100% reduction in Australia’s emissions.

    It truly is kindergarten stuff. (If Kevin has a hundred apples and throws away five, while Mao has a thousand and grows a hundred, how many apples are there?)

  36. @Mark Hill
    The obvious one is oppression via the application of the doctrine of sin by the Catholic church. ‘Sin’ rests upon the explicit statement of ‘free-will’.
    But more or less the entire system of injustice and inequality in the USA rests upon the idea of free-will eg their discriminatory criminal justice and health care systems. Like wise Australia. ‘Individualism’ is also typically reliant upon some sort of notion of free-will, and from individualism social inequalities naturally arise.

  37. @Paul Williams
    No. What evidence do you have that China will increase it’s emissions more because we reduce ours? If china has 1,000 apples and adds 100 more and Australia has 100 apples and minuses 5 is it more or less than if china has 1,000 apples and adds 100 and Australia doesn’t throw any of it’s apples away?

    China’s per capita emissions are lower than ours. They have been for a long time, but of course Australia as stated before is a “special” case and cannot be expected to do anything before everyone else acts first so we can be shown the way.

  38. The doctrine of free will. If we are machines, in the sense that we are made in the mold of a Laplacian determinism, then we have no free will. Each molecule moves in its own way as physics dictates. At the top end, our behaviour resembles free will. I say something on a topic under discussion. You respond or you don’t, depending upon how all those little molecules moved in your noggin, in the physical environment they inhabit. How can an external observer, endowed with free will, tell the difference in terms of the motivations of the observed? Are they motivated by physics as machines, from the bottom up; or, are they motivated as agents of free will? Face it. Freewill is a technical illusion, but we are no more or less for that.
    If we choose to go to the Quantum level of discussion, then everything is in terms of probability functions, but that just introduces astatistical aspect to the “machine” – it doesn’t introduce free will, that’s for sure (unless microscale randomness is a synonym for free will).

    Which leaves bounded rationality. Anyone care to have a go?

  39. @Bird:

    “I don’t know to what extent I am to blame for creating this monstrosity that is Catallaxy 2009.”

    You are entirely to blame.

  40. Repudiating free will because of the actions of organisations which you are both critical of and which have historically sought to eliminate free will seems odd to me.

    Likewise, I don’t think freewill can repudiated by immediately assuming we are ‘machines’ – which generally infers an absence of free will.

    As for rationality, it isn’t the way the concept is constructed but the idea that we are not deterministic beakers that you’re opposed to.

    Free will might be an illusion, but it is one you half to deal with. Believing free will does not exist does not mitigate choices in your own life.

    The idea that libertarians (believers in free will) should be chided by believers in a lack of free will for reductive thinking about human nature is just wrong. It should be the other way around.

  41. @Bird

    The worst offenders at Catallaxy today in the sense of undermining reason and rationality themselves and turning that site into the laughing stock of the blogosphere is not your good self, but jc and CL in that order.

  42. @paul walter
    Exactly Paul…its like the line of reasong is pre set like a pre written instruction manual..

    “this is how you counter, this is how to divert, say this if you want to change the topic, go for the personal insult when all else fails….but above all dont say what you really think (I suspect this would be too odious for most normal people to handle)…

    That if we just leave everything alone we get some fatalistic outcome that is best for some and terrible for others…and that man via collective actions expressed in government, has no business interfering in either the market or the environment. I find this idea well…just plain silly.

    Yes I do feel like I am talking to jellyfish sometimes because they twist, turn, slip through your fingers but they are transparent and dont appear to have a solid backbone of an argument at all. Always there is the feeling the real agenda is not so pretty (and that something is being withheld from their arguments…something dark and abhorrent that they dont really want to let you know).

    And Paul, it is about derailing decent people’s discussions on the sort of ETS we would like and need. It is deliberate. It is about silencing. It is about intimidation. It is about disruption. It is about casting doubt. It is about hijacking the debate. It is about delusion. It is about delay and is about selfishness and disregard for the environment and one’s fellow man IMHO.

    We discuss an ETS but there is so much more that could be done. Why are we still allowing widespread use of plastic everywhere? Why the bags? Why the drinkbottles? Why the excess packaging? Why the waste there? Why the landfill?. We should have been and could have thinking about these things ten or twenty years ago were it not for the same old breed of obstructionists.

    One day it will take only one law and we will wonder why on earth we didnt do it sooner. It will take so little time to get over it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s