Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby and droit du seigneur

December 31, 2015

I noted – or thought I noted – that Hillary Clinton’s attack on Trump’s “sexist attitudes” petered out when he responded by bringing up Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. How Bill Clinton got away with his blatant sexism and treatment of women in awe of his position still perplexes me. It was a period when a display of “sexual power” by Bill Clinton in the US seemed to be admired by the electorate just as much as Silvio Berlusconi’s bunga-bunga excesses were admired by the electorate in Italy.

I am not sure though that what Bill Clinton got away with as a minor transgressions, can be transformed and utilised by Hillary Clinton as being something positive and to her benefit. In fact, that she was quite as forgiving of his peccadilloes as she was does not reflect that well on her today. It suggests that she also shared his attitudes of the time. It will not be long before his strategic blunders in Somalia and his downright cowardice in Rwanda are compared to her apparent incompetence in Benghazi, Libya.

But today as Bill Cosby finally faces a criminal charge, it occurred to me that there is a commonality of the attitudes exhibited by Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby. They both felt their positions entitled them to certain “perquisites”. No doubt it was, to some extent, an attitude of the times they reigned in, but that does not excuse them. There were very many others of their time, who also reigned as kings of all they surveyed, but who did not succumb to the de facto power they had. They both effectively believed in a form of Droit du Seigneur. Bill Cosby reigned as king of the TV world and all aspiring young women, who felt he could be of some advantage to their careers, were seen by him as “fair game”and part of his right of office. Bill Clinton was king of the White House, and all female groupies, interns and the like caught up in his train, were also seen as “fair game”, and part of his perquisites of office. Neither could (or can) see that they did anything wrong. Hillary Clinton also accepted – perhaps reluctantly and only by default – Bill Clinton’s Droit de Seigneur at that time. Her relatively weak “feminist” credentials are not enhanced by her acceptance of Bill Clinton’s transgressions.

It does not mean that Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton were not likeable. They still are. So was Rolf Harris. But they represent a time that has gone and attitudes that are not defensible – even for their times. They could have chosen – as others chose – not to indulge in the excesses available to them.

I am not sure that Hillary Clinton can get any advantage – except among the already converted – by relying too much on Bill Clinton’s support.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

Czech President has a point – How come young Syrian and Iraqi refugees are not fighting ISIS?

December 27, 2015

Miloš Zeman is a Social Democrat, a former Prime Minister and now President of the Czech Republic. But he is known for being unconventional and not averse, at times, to being politically incorrect and even taking “right wing” positions when it involves common sense. On the refugee situation he takes a fairly hard line – but it must be borne in mind that the Czech Republic is at heart an anti-immigrant nation (>70%).

His Christmas message has been heavily criticised – though mainly outside the Czech Republic:

The Guardian: The Czech president, Milos Zeman, has called the movement of refugees into Europe “an organised invasion” and declared that young men from Syria and Iraq should stay in their countries to “take up arms” against Isis.

“I am profoundly convinced that we are facing an organised invasion and not a spontaneous movement of refugees,” said Zeman in his Christmas message to the Czech Republic.

Compassion was “possible” for refugees who were old or sick, and for children, he said but not for young men who should be back home fighting against jihadists.

“A large majority of the illegal migrants are young men in good health and single. I wonder why these men are not taking up arms to go fight for the freedom of their countries against the Islamic State,” said Zeman, who was elected Czech president in early 2013.

Fleeing their war-torn countries only served to strengthen Isis, he said. ……… 

Migrants are not the only target of Zeman’s caustic remarks: he said last week that his country should introduce the euro on the first day after indebted Greece’s departure from the common currency, causing Athens to recall its ambassador.

He also said he was “very disappointed” that talks in the summer to eject Greece from the euro did not come to fruition.

Both the Czech Republic and Slovakia, former communist countries that joined the European Union in 2004, have rejected the EU’s system of quotas for distributing refugees amid the current migrant wave.

To talk of an “organised invasion” may be a bit of an exaggeration and he could have chosen his words to have been a little kinder to the Greeks, but on both issues I think he voices the correct, but politically incorrect, positions that must be addressed, but which others fear to express.

  1. Why are there so many young, single males among the refugees who are not opposing ISIS in their own countries? and
  2. With Greece remaining within the Eurozone, the Euro is significantly weaker and less attractive to any new prospective members.

The EU and its treaties are not Holy and written in stone. If the whole concept of the EU is to work it requires the club to be able to alter its rules – written for 6 members – to suit the realities of an expanded membership. And a Holy European Empire with a Pope in Brussels is not the way to go.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Czech Republic, European Union, Politics | 1 Comment »

Humans have neutralised natural selection and some alternative is needed

December 25, 2015

I was reading the Reuters report about the fatwas issued by ISIS which apparently justify the harvesting of organs of apostates and infidels – even from living individuals – for the sake of transplantation into “good muslims”. There has to be a genetic component to “barbarism”. Then I saw the report of the Pope’s speech at his midnight mass yesterday attacking consumerism and all “bad things”. That got me to thinking that all the pretty speeches made by politicians and Popes, exhorting “good behaviour”, are all meaningless if actions to ensure and sustain “good behaviour” are not also taken. If humans mean that “good behaviour” is something to aspire to and work for, then we must also take the measures available to us which can improve, whatever we may define as “good behaviour”, from one generation to the next. If behaviour is entirely due to nurture then it just requires proper teaching (though the line between teaching and brainwashing is quite thin). But it is not just nurture, of course. There is little doubt, in my mind that there is a significant genetic component to the behaviour that is expressed by an individual.

Certainly there is no doubt that genetics defines the envelope of behaviours that is open to any individual. Normally the envelope of enabled behaviour is so wide that it allows both “good” and “bad” behaviour. Thereafter it may well be nurture and the peculiarities of each individual which determines which particular behaviour will actually be expressed. But the artificial breeding of pets and livestock shows that key behavioural (as opposed to purely physical) characteristics (aggression, curiosity, propensity to cooperate, playfulness, sensitivity, …) can be selected for. Even “intelligence” has been selected for among dogs with some measure of success. It follows that in addition to physical characteristics, the envelope of possible behaviours that can be expressed by an individual can also be altered by genetics. It is highly likely then, that modifying genetics and shifting the envelope will allow certain behaviours to be completely eliminated from the realm of the possible.

Of course it is primarily natural selection which has produced the humans of today and it is this evolution which gives the cognitive behaviour which favours the “compassionate society”. But in this compassionate society, all those who would otherwise have been deselected by natural selection are now protected. The advances of medical science allied with the development of our ethical standards of behaviour (concepts of “human rights”), mean that the physically and mentally disadvantaged are protected and enabled to survive and reproduce. But one consequence is that even those exhibiting “bad behaviour” are also protected and survive to reproduce. The “welfare society” not only protects the weak and disadvantaged, it also ensures that their genetic weaknesses – assuming that they exist – are carried forward into succeeding generations. The “compassionate society” sees to it that even murderous psychopaths (whose behaviour may well be largely due to genetic “faults”), are imprisoned for relatively short times and then permitted (even encouraged) to pass on their faulty genes to succeeding generations.

Something is not right here. To be a compassionate society and protect the weak and disabled is wholly admirable, I think. But when the protection of the weak and disabled extends to the preferential propagation of the weakness or the disability, then the “compassion” also becomes counter-productive and eventually unsustainable. From the perspective of the future survival of the human race, the unnecessary perpetuation of weaknesses and disabilities becomes stupid and suicidal. It may be that the same genes which give some perceived weakness also give some critical survival attribute, in which case there is a trade-off to be made and a call to be taken.

I like the analogy of genetic propagation being seen as a chemical or nuclear reaction. Run-away reactions are avoided if moderation is available. I am coming to the view that some method of moderation of propagation is actually a necessity. Now that natural selection has been neutralised by human compassion and can no longer provide a moderating influence on genetic propagation, then some other form of genetic moderation is needed to avoid “run-away” genetic explosions. That then requires some form of “artificial” selection as the moderator. We may not yet know the specifics and the extent of the genetic components of intelligence or behaviour, but it is a simple conclusion that without moderation, we may well be ensuring the dumbing-down of the human race or ensuring the propagation and expansion of “bad behaviour”. It may not be causal, but there is a clear correlation showing higher fertility rates with lower “intelligence”. It is an arithmetic certainty that, if there is a causal relationship between intelligence and lower birth rates, then the intelligence of humans will decline.

There is nothing fundamentally incompatible between being a compassionate society which protects the weak and the disabled of the current generation, while still ensuring that genetic weaknesses are not carried forward into succeeding generations. In fact, it could even be considered unethical to knowingly allow such weaknesses to be carried forward, especially if we had the knowledge and the means to prevent it. But that, of course, would be considered eugenics.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Ethics, Evolution | Comments Off on Humans have neutralised natural selection and some alternative is needed

Orthodox Jews show they can be just as horrible as ISIS

December 24, 2015

When the Israeli media themselves are disgusted, then the criticism cannot be just waved away as being ant-Semitic propaganda. To exult in and glorify the killing of a Palestinian toddler is not that far different to the obscenities of ISIS.

This from Haaretz:

The Judea and Samaria district police said on Thursday it opened an investigation into a video shot at a wedding which shows Jewish radicals stabbing a photograph of the Palestinian toddler who was killed in the Duma firebomb attack. A statement said the inquiry commenced a few days ago.
The police said they were looking into the “numerous and serious offenses seen in the video,” including those who were careless with their weapons. The police intends to question those responsible and to revoke their gun licenses.
The video shows Orthodox youths at a Jerusalem wedding singing songs of revenge and dancing with guns and knives. One masked youth holds up a firebomb, while another is seen stabbing a photo of Ali Dawabsheh, the toddler killed along with his parents in the West Bank arson attack earlier this year.

Radicalised, young, orthodox Jews are just as much brainwashed as those from the most rabid madrassas.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

strongly condemned the “shocking images” displayed in a video recently seized by police, which shows Orthodox youths at a Jerusalem wedding dancing with guns and knives, stabbing a photo of Ali Dawabsheh, the toddler who was killed in the Duma firebomb attack that killed three members of the Dawabsheh family this past summer.
This video filmed at an Orthodox wedding three weeks ago, Netanyahu said, exposes “the real face of a group that poses danger to Israeli society and security.” He then went on to bolster the Shin Bet, by saying that the images publicized in the video “attest to the importance of the Shin Bet to our security,” Netanyahu said.  

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Israel | Comments Off on Orthodox Jews show they can be just as horrible as ISIS

Oxford Rhodes campaigners no better than ISIS or the Taliban

December 24, 2015

So politically correct, morally arrogant, mentally infantile campaigners at Cape Town and Oxford want all traces of Cecil Rhodes (statues, plaques …) to be torn down because Rhodes was such a heinous racist.

No different at all to ISIS in Palmyra or the Taliban’s destruction of the statues of the Buddha in Bamiyan.

But the really sad part is that part of the Cape Town University establishment, and some of the Oxford University establishment, give in to, or seriously entertain, such juvenile attempts to rewrite history.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Ethics | Comments Off on Oxford Rhodes campaigners no better than ISIS or the Taliban

Tax avoidance is a measure of the incompetence of the lawmaker and the competence of the taxpayer

December 23, 2015

Taxation is fundamentally a confiscation of private assets for public purposes. It may well be necessary. Tax laws may be fair or unfair. Good citizenship – individual or corporate – then requires that prevailing rules of taxation law be followed, due amounts calculated and paid. Individuals and companies are required to cooperate in calculating the taxes they owe to their tax jurisdictions under existing rules and to pay such amounts in a timely manner.

I find it irritating when the lawmakers then criticise taxpayers for the deficiencies of the laws they have formulated. It has become popular for politicians to criticise large companies and wealthy individuals for “tax avoidance” (which is perfectly legal) as being cases of “not paying your fair share of tax”. It strikes me as a rather irrational – if populist – argument. Tax laws are not inherently, and of themselves, “fair”. In fact the question of “fairness” is not a criteria when it comes to paying or not paying tax. It comes into play only in the formulation of the enabling law. Once a tax law is passed, all legal entities within the jurisdiction are required to pay – whether or not it is “fair” in somebody’s opinion. Many tax laws are intentionally “unfair” to try and implement some policy or other, or to encourage some particular behaviour. When politicians start referring to the “spirit of the law” not being followed, it is just a confession of their own incompetence in formulating laws to implement their intentions.

As law-abiding individuals and companies, we calculate and pay our taxes according to the rules that prevail. We use all available rules of allowable deductions and off-sets and deferred taxes and tax-breaks to minimise the amount of personal assets that are to be confiscated by the State. We use accountants and experts to navigate the complexities and intricacies of tax legislation. No individual is ever expected to pay more than the prevailing rules require. Any individual who does pay more than required, and assuming his perfectly rational objective is to minimise the tax to be payed, is fundamentally incompetent. Any company which pays more tax than it should also demonstrates incompetence and is not demonstrating due care of its investors’ assets.

Individuals and corporations are not required or expected to pay more than what is due under the rules prevailing. The issue of ethics is in play when the rules are formulated and is also involved in the following of the rules. The act of payment is an ethical issue but minimisation of tax due is a matter of competence, not of ethics. Paying more taxes than are due demonstrates incompetence and gains no ethical credits. So when there is criticism of companies for “not paying enough tax”, the real failure is with the politicians who have made the deficient rules – not with the individuals or companies who have followed the prevailing rules to their own best advantage.

I would certainly not wish to invest in any company which was not sufficiently competent to keep its taxes to a minimum.

Tax evasion is illegal and demonstrates a lack of ethics with the taxpayer. Tax avoidance is a measure of the incompetence of lawmakers and of the competence of the taxpayer. I would go so far as to say that to pay more tax than is due is not just incompetent, but also unethical in being deficient in the due care of resources to be expected of any responsible entity.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Business, Ethics | Comments Off on Tax avoidance is a measure of the incompetence of the lawmaker and the competence of the taxpayer

Time running out to stop Trump

December 23, 2015

The US Presidential election beats the new Star Wars for plot and entertainment.

The latest Reuter’s rolling poll shows Carson and Cruz fading and Trump consolidating his position. Clinton-Trump match-ups are meaningless for the moment since the currently secret Democrats for Trump will start coming out of the woodwork only after he has won the nomination – and that will not be till July 2016. Trump’s support is now three times larger than that of his nearest rival.

Reuters Rolling Poll Republicans 22nd December 2015

Reuters Rolling Poll Republicans 22nd December 2015

The primaries start in February and there is little time left for the Republican establishment to stop Trump. I suspect that they will fall in behind Trump if he maintains this lead till March.

Republican primary schedule

Republican primary schedule

I have a theory – which is a little far-fetched – that if it becomes a Trump – Clinton battle, the Democrats for Trump could include large chunks of traditional white, middle-class, liberals who are running a little scared of the demographic changes taking place. It might be thought that the immigrant communities would all be strongly Democratic, but Trump will play successfully to the entrepreneurial instincts that are so strong among many of them. In this scenario, a large section of these “immigrants” would prefer a lively Trump to a jaded Clinton. So, in my theory, Donald Trump could well split the white, liberal vote and even the “immigrant” vote while the Democrats will retain the bulk of the black vote and of the less enterprising immigrant community.

It’s just a theory, of course, but I expect an eventual Trump-Clinton fight to be much more favourable to Trump than the conventional wisdom allows. In any event, it could be a vastly entertaining election.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Time running out to stop Trump

ISIS losing ground is a good way to end 2015

December 22, 2015

A good way to end 2015 will be the news that Ramadi has actually been retaken from ISIS (where the civilian population were advised yesterday by air-dropped leaflets to leave the town and where Iraqi troops are reported today to be entering the town).

ISIS lost Kobane earlier to Kurdish forces and after the Russian entry their northern territories in Syria are beginning to come under pressure. But it is when they lose Mosul and Raqqa and Palmyra that their losses will become irretrievable I think. Of course they are now trying to establish themselves in the confusion that is Libya.

IHS has a new map of the territories lost by ISIS

Preview image

Islamic State territorial gains and losses in 2015 Graphic – IHS

IHS: 

The Islamic State has consistently lost territory month-on-month throughout 2015, according to new analysis released today by IHS Inc. (NYSE: IHS), the leading global source of critical information and insight.

Using open source intelligence including social media and sources inside the countries, the team at IHS estimates that the Islamic State’s ‘caliphate’ shrunk by 12,800 km2 to 78,000 km2 between 1 January and 14 December 2015, a net loss of 14 percent.

The Islamic State’s losses in 2015 include large swathes of Syria’s northern border with Turkey, including the Tal Abyad border crossing, which was the group’s main access point to the Turkish border from their de-facto capital Raqqa.

Retaking Mosul, Raqqa and Palmyra during 2016 will be a hopeful sign that ISIS can be reduced to less than the critical mass of territory under their control. But the idea of a Caliphate will remain as long as they have the tacit support and their inspiration from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Middle East | 1 Comment »

The future of Europe is multiethnic but not multicultural

December 15, 2015

I have for long held the position that a society needs a single overriding culture to be a society. All cultures are dynamic and change as times change and as new groups may be assimilated into it. The new culture inevitably contains elements of what new communities bring to the table and the original culture of that community – in some adjusted form – can continue as a sub-culture, but subordinate to the overriding culture. What is not tenable is the idea that a single society can remain a single society when it is splintered into a collection of many parallel cultures (and which are not subordinate to an overriding culture). It has been the misguided, do-gooding, politically correct approach of the “liberal left” in Europe which has actively encouraged new communities to maintain the cultures of where they came from and remain separate to the existing, prevailing culture. There has been little emphasis on getting new communities to assimilate and a far greater emphasis on separateness. This approach has also given rise to the fear of demanding assimilation from new communities. That has in turn led – and not very surprisingly – to the immigrant ghettos, the no-go areas and large parts of the new population who cannot even speak the local language (into the 3rd generation in some cases).

The downplaying of integration is what now gives the reality of 85 Sharia courts active in the UK or the no-go areas in Malmö or Preston or the separate, parallel societies in Molenbeek and La Goutte d’Or. It is the false god of multiculturalism which has allowed schools in Birmingham to be subverted or the predatory, medieval, sexual mores of the NW Frontier to be transplanted to Rotherham.

It is language which is the primary vehicle of a culture. But while every culture has a primary language, a language may be the vehicle for many cultures. Religion is probably the next most important “carrier” of a culture. The misguided and unsustainable “multicultural” approach has pervaded many European countries, such that even jobs requiring interaction with the public or even gaining citizenship have not required any language proficiency. However the importance of assimilation is finally gaining ground.

Angela Merkel has said this before but is now becoming much more explicit in her criticism of multiculturalism and much more vocal in emphasising the importance of integration.

The Guardian:

Merkel still sought to address lingering concerns over the long-term consequences of the refugee crisis.

“Those who seek refuge with us also have to respect our laws and traditions, and learn to speak German,” she said. “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies, and therefore multiculturalism remains a grand delusion.”

Her comments echoed a similar statement from 2010, when Merkel said multiculturalism had “utterly failed”.

I would have thought it obvious that learning of the local language within some reasonable time be mandatory for a residence permit for any immigrant or asylum seeker. Multiculturalism is not just a “failed concept” as David Cameron has said or a “grand delusion” as Angela Merkel now calls it, it is a false premise. A single society – fundamentally – must have an overriding culture and cannot be multicultural. The existence of multiple parallel cultures can only be accommodated by a collection of societies – or by a fractured and splintered society.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Europe, Politics | 1 Comment »

Do many Democrats secretly support Trump?

December 12, 2015

The US Presidential election is at a fascinating stage. Clarity may come in a few months, but it could still develop into something of a thriller. Talking to some of my American friends, I have been surprised to find that under the vocal indignation about Donald Trump’s clowning and his outrageous comments, there is an undercurrent of admiration for his “stating of things as they really are”. Much of the criticism of Trump, it seems, is because it is expected of them.

The US Presidential election in 2016 is clearly going to be dominated by the issue of immigration. (This holds also for every election that will be held in any country in Europe and for the regional elections in France tomorrow). Economy and taxes and health care will all, I think, trail immigration by a large margin. And that puts Trump in a rather peculiar but unique position. It may well be that Trump is a “figure of this time”; that he is in the right place at the right time. Immigration, itself, is not a single issue and consists of a number of differentiated issues, such as:

  • “illegals” and their regularisation,
  • citizenship and the commitments to acquire citizenship
  • must all (meaning Muslim) immigrants explicitly assert the supremacy of the law of the land over religious Laws (meaning Sharia),
  • prevention of future illegal entry,
  • the entry rules for the relatives of immigrants who are not citizens
  • screening of would be entrants.

It is politically incorrect for any Democrat to admit to any liking for any Republican and – at the present time – quite unthinkable to consider Donald Trump as anything but a pariah. But I sense a thread of support for Donald Trump from the more centrist Democrats and even some immigrants, which will remain hidden and may only show up next November – assuming, of course, that he gets to be a candidate, either for the Republicans or as an Independent.

I am old enough to remember the Reagan elections and I see a parallel between Trump and Reagan. Just as the Reagan Democrats appeared suddenly in droves, I suspect there could be a significant number of secret Trump Democrats who will not (dare not) surface until the real Presidential election. It is worth remembering, that on many issues Trump is remarkably closer to Democratic dogma rather than traditional Republican positions. I remember how incredulous many commentators were at the idea of Reagan, a not very good B-movie, cinema actor, becoming President. There is a similar kind of incredulity about Trump as a serious contender at the present time.

The Atlantic: Like Reagan, Trump is a former Democrat and a one-time TV star, whom the media initially dismissed as having little chance of reaching the White House. But there is a more significant parallel that has gone unnoticed: Trump is running on essentially the same message as Reagan. Reagan insisted that America’s problems were not as complicated or intractable as everyone seemed to think. “For many years now, you and I have been shushed like children and told there are no simple answers to the complex problems which are beyond our comprehension,” Reagan said at his 1967 inauguration as governor of California. “Well, the truth is, there are simple answers—there are not easy ones.”

And of course that is a very powerful message – perhaps an insight. There is always a simple answer which always provides a clear direction. Ways and means for implementing an answer may be difficult but the direction remains clear. It makes a change from politicians who feel it necessary to justify their lack of achievement by over-complicating issues.

Trump does not fit into the normal, standard shape of a conventional Democrat or a Republican. Many minority and immigrant groups also find him difficult to easily classify. Immigrants, especially newly arrived immigrants, have mixed feelings about further immigration and and how it affects their own insecurities. Latinos are incensed at Trump’s comments about immigration, but quite like his hard line about Islamic terrorists. East European immigrants are also attracted to this hard line about both Mexican illegal immigrants and Muslim terrorists. Asian immigrants can be split generally into two groups; Muslims mainly from Islamic countries and non-Muslims. Many of the non-Muslims feel threatened by the Islamisation of their communities and the insidious, creeping encroachment of – and perceived silent surrender to – Sharia Law. A large portion of the Asian communities are not comfortable with the influx of illegal, Latino immigrants. The black community, in my perception, detests the influx of Asians and their perceived economic successes. Asians themselves consider themselves superior, especially academically, intellectually and in business, to the black community. Even the black Muslims feel under threat from all the “new Muslims”, since they come quite low down in the hierarchy of “true Muslims”. Normally the bulk of the immigrant population in the US would be Democratic supporters, but Trump is tapping into some of their greatest fears of other immigrant groups. There is also – I think – a large section of the white, middle-class Democratic support which is inhibited from expressing its fears of immigration and Islamisation and are suddenly quite glad that these fears are being expressed by somebody – even if it is only a Trump.

Of course any support for Trump from the usually Democratic voters is a moot point unless he manages to get on the ballot next November. It occurs to me that many of them would be more likely to vote for Trump if he was labelled an Independent rather than a Republican. So one possible scenario is that Trump will be so far ahead in the Republican race that the GOP establishment decide to have a brokered convention and choose someone other than Trump. That would cause Trump to jump the Republican ship and go Independent – but as late as possible, and in as damaging a way as possible for the Republicans. The conventional wisdom is that an Independent Trump would lose too many votes to even a weak Republican, and that it would be a complete walk-over for Hillary Clinton.

Conventional wisdom, though, is not proving to be very reliable or very prophetic.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »