Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2012 15:47:15 GMT -5
Where in Canada is the suicide rate the highest, Virgil? Surprisingly, amongst Virgil's colleagues. The rate is particularly high in Toronto, but that's entirely due to our proximity to the snow leopards in the Toronto Zoo. In Canada, suicide rates aren't so much a "where" as they are a "who". The suicide rates of Aboriginals and Inuits is extremely high. We also hold the bleak record of being home to the suicide capital of Earth: a city in Northern Ontario called "Pikangikum" with a suicide rate of 250 per 100,000. Canada's handling of aboriginals is the quintessential example of failed social engineering. We have a federal ministry and a dozen provincial and territorial ministries devoted to throwing money at the problem, but the abuse, the corruption, the death, and the dependency continue to grow worse year after year.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 17, 2012 15:49:45 GMT -5
I did a little sleuthing and came up with this: www.suicideprevention.ca/about-suicide/#03-provincesLooks like the highest rate per 100,000 is in Nunavuk, which has a high Inouit population. Suicide is more common amongst our native peoples, as well. Nunavuk is also awfully darned cold and dreary, from the sounds of it, which doesn't help matters any, I'd imagine.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 17, 2012 15:53:03 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,503
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 15:56:06 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2012 16:12:28 GMT -5
I doubt it helps any, but these are people adapted to that climate, with a diet that supplements many of the deficiencies.
The problem is far greater than seasonal affective disorders. Most aboriginal reservations and compounds are breeding grounds for poverty, alcoholism, violence, and abuse. The Canadian government tried to amend for abuses by giving aboriginals an all-expenses-paid trip through life, but all this accomplished was to rob aboriginals of all sense of purpose. They get free housing, free education, free university, free work placement, and significant community funding, but it seems to have divested them of all pride and ambition.
As long as they don't blockade highways or pan handle on streets, etc., most (not all) Canadians are content to throw tax money at the problem and ignore it. In the western provinces where the reserves are closer to major cities, there tends to be a lot more conflict (and naturally, racism). Natives are generally seen as sluggards and drunks. I've heard from dozens of people that they're totally unemployable.
I know it sounds callous, but I believe the best thing that the federal government could do for them right now is cut them off cold. Let the ones who won't fight for survival die. Kill the ones who retaliate with violence. And let the self-motivated ones who survive by working and adapting exist with a sense of dignity and purpose.
I really don't see any other way to fix the problem. You can't help a man who won't help himself.
The horror stories about abuse, rape, drugs, violence, etc. that come out of the reserves seem to get worse by the year. In many cases, federal officials can't even get onto the reservations.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Oct 17, 2012 16:13:35 GMT -5
There is no reason to kill when you live in a socialist utopia. They may have a low rate of murder, but they have a large rate of "hunting accidents." ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 17, 2012 16:16:15 GMT -5
We have the same inherent problems in our native peoples, Virgil. Another component to this sort of thing is the genetic connection. These people tend to intermarry, and that allows genetic mental ailments to proliferate. Additionally, even though the population is inured to the climate, they're still human and still vulnerable to the effects of lack of sunshine. It's my feeling the problems in these communities are due to a number of contributing factors. Those you pinpoint are certainly amongst them, but don't stand alone, IMO.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2012 16:34:21 GMT -5
I'm not denying there could be hereditary or physiological causes too.
Cultural factors are another big one.
Most native cultures place very little value on punctuality, or even showing up to appointments. Their culture is more "drop in if you feel like it, when you feel like it". It's maddening to the European-descended cultures, and a huge impediment to integrating with the rest of society. In our society, a student has to show up on the days the class is taught, on time, to attend class. An employee has to show up on workdays, on time, to perform his job. There really isn't any room for compromise.
The majority of native cultures also have the custom that it is impolite to turn down an offer—even if you don't intend to follow through. Hence, if somebody invites you over to dinner and you don't want to go, the polite response is to agree to come to dinner and then just not show up.
Again, there's nothing morally or ethically wrong with this approach, but it just isn't compatible with the way our society works. We consider it extremely disrespectful.
Aboriginal notions about personal property are also very contrary to our own. And the list goes on...
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 17, 2012 16:40:16 GMT -5
Having grown up in Oklahoma, I'm aware of the cultural differences, Virgil. When I was in grade school, our school custodian was a Native American. I took my lunch to school and used to eat with him, sharing my lunch. I could listen raptly to his stories for hours on end and enjoyed his company far more than I enjoyed playing on the gym equipment, or eating in the cafeteria. It's very true these people are not well understood by most, and the differences in their culture are, often, wrongly judged by our culture. We could learn from them in so many ways, just as they could learn from us. If only we'd teach one another instead of pointing fingers and finding the wrong. ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sad.png)
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 17, 2012 16:52:04 GMT -5
I know it sounds callous, but I believe the best thing that the federal government could do for them right now is cut them off cold. Let the ones who won't fight for survival die. Kill the ones who retaliate with violence. And let the self-motivated ones who survive by working and adapting exist with a sense of dignity and purpose. ----------------- I agree that throwing more and more money at the problem is pointless. It hasn't worked yet and never will. However, just letting them die isn't the answer, either. I think a huge problem is the reservations we put them on. There's no work, no opportunities, no future. The kids start huffing gasoline at the age of seven, and it goes downhill from there. I don't know what the answer is.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2012 17:11:24 GMT -5
I don't see that they're "wrongly judged" by most. A good friend of mine from Saskatchewan had no use for them at all, but it was because they would pass out drunk on his front lawn in Regina when he was a child. There were a number of 'incidents' where he and his family were terrorized by belligerent individuals. Understandably, it coloured his opinion of them.
I think most Canadians are quite willing to give native people a chance, but people have limits. An employee has to show up to work on time. Sexual advances or sexist comments aren't widely tolerated in our society. Animal rights activists don't like baby seals being clubbed to death. You cannot fish in a lake that belongs to Joe Blow simply because your ancestors fished there twenty generations ago. We may be "judging" others with these standards, but I don't see that doing so is unjust. And I, like most, don't believe we should relax the standards to accommodate.
I'm a pragmatist by nature, and our handling of the situation couldn't be worse than it is now. And as I see it, if we're a nation of 33 million and they're a dozen nations with a combined population of less than 100,000, it's their job to adapt to our culture (to the point of self-sufficiency) rather than us adapting to them. Whatever traditions, literature, customs, languages, heritage, etc. they can preserve during that transition is what they get. If they're able to spread their culture beyond their ethnic boundaries, as your friend did with you, all the more power to them.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 17, 2012 17:37:34 GMT -5
Animal rights activists don't like baby seals being clubbed to death. -------------- It's not the natives that are clubbing baby seals to death. It's Maritime fishermen.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2012 18:08:10 GMT -5
Could've fooled me. www.arcticcollege.ca/news/News_eng.aspx?ID=187According to this and other articles, the Inuit are the only group exempt from bans on clubbing the "whitecoats" (baby seals). Everyone else has been banned from doing so for decades. I didn't realize it, but apparently the only reason the anti-sealing literature features baby seals is because they're cute, not because they're actually the ones being clubbed to death. www.sealhunting.ca/tag/inuit-people/
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 40,068
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Oct 17, 2012 18:33:12 GMT -5
On September 30, 2012 Candy Crowley said to David Axelrod that Obama did NOT call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. She just flat out lied last night folks and she knew it. Hey liberal media...we're not just on to you, we're going to come back at you with the facts in front of a bigger audience than you could ever hope to have. Your monopoly on information, and influence over public opinion is on the wane. Candy Crowley == liberal media Ummm, not really. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yikes.png) Monopoloy on information? Maybe you should ease off the caffeine or whatever it is for the next three weeks. Fox news and Rush on the radio have been around how long now? I'm not sure if you are aware but this post like many of yours read like textbook examples of grandiose thinking - a symptom of a manic episode. You've got the typical black&white thinking of some depressives too.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 17, 2012 18:36:14 GMT -5
Just a few years ago, hundreds of thousands of baby harp seals were clubbed to death in front of their mothers by Canadian fishermen. The quota set by the Canadian government for 2012 was 400,000 seals, although it's expected that far fewer will actually be killed. The event has turned into an annual spectacle, with animal protection groups and the media attempting to document the slaughter from ships or helicopters. The Canadian government and the sealers themselves attempt to block access to the area to avoid publicity. A Change in Policy After images of pure-white baby seals being clubbed to death caused publicity problems for the Canadian government, the seal slaughter was restructured in 1987 to target seals over 2 weeks old, when the seals’ coats are beginning to turn grey. The Canadian government claims that these 2-week-old seals are adults, even though they are still too young to swim and cannot escape. animalrights.about.com/od/fur/a/FurSeals.htm
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 17, 2012 18:39:13 GMT -5
Who are the sealers and how many are there? There are 14,000 registered sealers of which 9,000 are considered professional sealers. The sealing season lasts only a few weeks each year. Not all registered sealers kill seals. Some people register as sealers without having ever gone to the ice and they have no intention of going. Wearing their seal license button gets them free drinks in some areas of Atlantic Canada. All it takes to get a license is CAD$2.00. The Canadian government states that about 6,000 people receive some income from sealing. This amounts to about 1% of the population of Atlantic Canada. It is limited employment and highly subsidized. In 2005, the seal hunt brought in $16.2 million* in gross revenues. This amounts to $2,700 average per sealer before deductions for fuel, vessel maintenance and operation, provisions, gear and clothing. Some like sealing boat owners may make over $50,000 and some working as crew may only make a $1,000 or less. Subsidies are provided by the Canadian government in the form of ships which break the ice to assist the sealers in reaching the seals; search and rescue by the Coast Guard; surveillance and location of the seal herds for the sealers; regulatory costs; marketing research; and public relations. www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals-faq.html#02
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2012 19:15:39 GMT -5
Fine. So put that on the posters. The pictures of the whitecoats are a lie. The link I posted claims that the majority of the costs incurred are for the policing and prosecution of anti-sealing protestors. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2012 19:16:40 GMT -5
Not quite sure how a thread about a presidential debate wound up drifting to the topic of baby seals, but it is what it is... ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/gfx/2011-03-14-bp5.jpg)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 1, 2024 0:49:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 19:20:08 GMT -5
Candy Crowley == liberal media Ummm, not really. [image] Monopoloy on information?
Not a monopoly but a preponderance. There are about four times as many reporters that identify themselves as liberal as conservatives, which is way out of line with the general population. The retiring NY Times ombudsman referred to the newspaper as "a culture of like minds". When those like minds are determining what's newsworthy and how that topic is covered it can create a bias in reporting.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,503
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 20:57:23 GMT -5
Candy Crowley == liberal media Ummm, not really. [image] Monopoloy on information?
Not a monopoly but a preponderance. There are about four times as many reporters that identify themselves as liberal as conservatives, which is way out of line with the general population. The retiring NY Times ombudsman referred to the newspaper as "a culture of like minds". When those like minds are determining what's newsworthy and how that topic is covered it can create a bias in reporting. but it doesn't. that is the funny part. all studies which have attempted to measure said bias have failed miserably.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,503
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 21:30:27 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 1, 2024 0:49:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 21:34:32 GMT -5
I come from the point of view that everyone has bias - or a worldview through which we interpret data and experiences. If your worldview is liberal you are going to react more favorably to those things that agree with you. all studies which have attempted to measure said bias have failed miserably. How would you measure if there is bias in reporting? This op-ed goes over some thoughts on the topic. www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-hard-look-at-the-president.htmledited: when I was working on my MA in history we had to practice looking at our biases and looking for other's biases and understanding how to read documents with that in mind. There's also sorts of different biases at play - confirmation bias, selection bias, attentional bias. I'm very suspicious when people say there is no bias. I'd rather hear this is my bias and this is how I've accounted for it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,503
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 21:41:38 GMT -5
I come from the point of view that everyone has bias - or a worldview through which we interpret data and experiences. If your worldview is liberal you are going to react more favorably to those things that agree with you. all studies which have attempted to measure said bias have failed miserably. How would you measure if there is bias in reporting? you are the one claiming it exists. why don't you tell me?This op-ed goes over some thoughts on the topic. www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-hard-look-at-the-president.htmldid you know that over 60% of opinion writers are conservative? unlike reporters, who are generally paid to NOT express their opinions (that is what journalists are trained to do), they are actually paid to express their opinions. what sort of bias would you expect to find there? did you know that the voting patterns of reporters actually don't have much to do with where they fall on the liberal-conservative continuum? it is a fact. when reporters are surveyed for their actual VIEWS it turns out that they are MORE CONSERVATIVE than the average American. now, i ask you, have you ever heard EITHER of those things mentioned in the media? be truthful.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 1, 2024 0:49:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 21:44:39 GMT -5
unlike reporters, who are generally paid to NOT express their opinions Bias is not just your opinion - it's how you look at data, what draws your attention, how you weight things in your mind. Like a pessimistic person who only sees negative things everywhere. So a reporter may be drawn to stories that highlight people suffering because of lack of healthcare because that reporter believes there should be universal healthcare.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,503
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 21:52:32 GMT -5
unlike reporters, who are generally paid to NOT express their opinions Bias is not just your opinion - it's how you look at data, what draws your attention, how you weight things in your mind. Like a pessimistic person who only sees negative things everywhere. So a reporter may be drawn to stories that highlight people suffering because of lack of healthcare because that reporter believes there should be universal healthcare. again- you made the claim that there is systematic liberal bias in the media. this is based on a book written either in the 70's or early 80's called "the media elite" which shows, among other things, that the vast majority of reporters are Democrats. from this, they extrapolate (wrongly, as it turns out) that the media is liberally biased. there are two flaws with that study. first, it turns out that even though it is TRUE that most reporters are Democrats, they are actually moderate to conservative Democrats, not flaming liberals. when their actual POSITIONS are measured against those of average Americans, they are slightly to the RIGHT of center. second, there is no measurable difference between a (non-opinion) piece written by a liberal journalist, and a conservative one. there are a lot of very important reasons why it is true, but it would require another thread to go over all of it, and the matter is so detailed and arcane that i doubt seriously it would interest more than maybe THREE people here, and two of them would be screaming and wailing the entire time rather than studying the data, as i have. the answer to your question, which i am pretty sure you are not going to answer, is that there are many ways to measure bias. the best one that i know of is by omissions: what stories are carried and how they are edited. when you measure bias this way, a pattern emerges that predominates in the US media, but it is in no way a liberal pattern. i would also add that the evidence for it is overwhelming. it is perhaps the most verifiable truth that can be made in the social sciences. edit: i didn't tell you HOW omissions are shown. omissions are shown by getting the most detailed facts of a story, and comparing to how it is reported. it is REALLY HARD WORK, which is why people like Bozell The Clown are really not up to the task. he would rather shoot from the hip than break a sweat, and the result is that he writes pleasant enough entertainment, and right wing flack, but it is in no way scientifically rigorous or convincing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 1, 2024 0:49:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 21:53:38 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,503
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 22:05:20 GMT -5
did you read anything i just wrote? i just said that reporters are overwhelmingly Democrat. that proves nothing. in order for it to prove something you would have to show TWO things: 1) first, that the fact that one is a Democratic reporter automatically makes you a liberal- a person MORE liberal than the average American. 2) second, you would have to show that this fact (or non-fact, as the case may be), influences how a person writes a story. i would posit that the assumption that this bias exists has the opposite effect on reporting, tending to make it more conservative. of course, i can't prove that. but you can't prove the opposite, either. that is because political bias in news reporting is rubbish. it does, however, serve to cover up the very real biases that take place, that are largely apolitical.
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Oct 17, 2012 22:12:16 GMT -5
The missed opportunity for Romney was on the question of how he would be different from Bush. How is Romney different from Bush is not the question. The real question is how is Obama different from Jimmy Carter? Nope. The real question was how was Romney (NOT OBAMA) different from Bush. The question was directed at Romney, not Obama. Because some people out there, who are not satisfied with the last 4 years, realize that it was Bush and the Republicans who took this country into the "Great Recession." They hoped for a rapid recovery by Obama but understand that Obama was cleaning up Bush's and the Republican's mess. Carter is long gone paul. Only the hard core right wingers such as yourself consider Carter, AT ALL. By the way, I admire President Carter more than most presidents of my time ( I was born in 1970) . He was courageous, progressive and a visionary. We need more presidents like him.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,503
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 22:14:50 GMT -5
the fact that i can't see daylight between Romney and Bush is the entire reason he is precisely the last candidate on the ballot i would vote for. that and the fact that he makes Bush seem like an honest and steady man by comparison.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Oct 17, 2012 22:38:14 GMT -5
The dems can try to lie it away or wish it away; it ain't gonna go away. and of course the claim that requested had been made for extra security, that's not a bit exaggerated is it? The ignored requests were for 1-2 additional security agents in keeping with a memo from last year that said the embassy should have had 5 security agents not Marine detachments which never arrived. Lying/misleading cuts both ways. Really? That is all you have to say with regard to Obama and his administration lying to the American people in an attempt to cover up this incident prior to the election? Did you watch the Congressional hearings last week? Did you hear the testimony of the gentleman that had been on security detail in Libya prior to the attack? It has been reported that Candy Crowley has already walked back what she interjected during the debate. She was way out of line. Moderators should moderate, not participate. It is just one more example of the liberal media bias in favor of Obama. If a Republican (i.e. Bush) had been caught in such a blatant lie, the media would have been all over it like white on rice and they would have crucified him; but because it is Obama, the liberal media has bent over backwards to give him a pass. Yup, the truth is usually enough. By the way, the rest of your response had nothing to do with what I posted. If Mitt and his entire team is too stupid to read then he deserved what Crowley handed him. Obama's statement in the Rose garden had been floating around on the internet for at least a day before Mitt opened his mouth. Personally I think it's pretty insulting to every American to suggest that the first thought of the president when hearing that 4 Americans died was about how it would effect him politically. That's right up there with suggesting that Bush might have been excited on 9/11 because the terror attacks might result in a boost of his approval ratings. Such a response to this incident is pretty sick.
|
|