Menzies House

A Conscience Vote On Same-Sex Marriage

2012-05-25T13:06:59+10:30

Alex Greenwhich, the National Convener of Australian Marriage Equality, argues that denying Coalition MP's a conscience vote on state-sanctioned same-sex marriage will be a significant political error:

The clear message from recent elections and opinion polls is that the Coalition will suffer electorally if it fails to abide by its own principles and allow a free vote on marriage equality.

Currently, Tony Abbott refuses Coalition MPs and Senators a fully-fledged conscience vote on this issue.

This is despite the Labor Party having one, and despite the Coalition's tradition of allowing its members greater freedom than Labor MPs.

Indeed, according to Parliamentary Library research, this is the first time in history the Coalition is denied a free vote when the ALP has one.

Abbott's rationale is that he made a promise at the last election not to support reform.

His hope is that only opponents of marriage equality will notice and/or care by the time the next election rolls around.

But it seems the Australian people are not sticking to script.

At the weekend a Galaxy poll was released showing 77% of Coalition voters want the Coalition to have a conscience vote on the issue.

Yesterday, another Galaxy poll shows 73% of voters believe the Coalitions' tradition of allowing conscience vote on such issues is what should guide Coalition policy, not Tony Abbott's personal views or undertakings.

What's more, today's poll shows 61% of Australians want same-sex marriage in this term of government, not sometime down the track.

Is this feeling strong enough to count at the ballot box?

The Queensland election result suggests it is.

During a recent discussion with Kevin Rudd at the Sydney Writers' Festival, Bob Katter conceded his Australia Party lost 7% of its first-preference votes, or 15 seats, in the Queensland state election because of the anti-gay marriage ad campaign it ran.

Katter labelled it "the crowing glory of all mistakes".

Growing support for marriage equality also suggests Abbott's stance will be a liability for the Coalition.

Polls from the last three years show the minority of Australians who oppose marriage equality are becoming less committed to their position while the majority who support it are becoming more committed.

My guess is that this shift reflects resignation among those who oppose reform and growing frustration among those who support.

Further evidence that Australians are highly motivated to support marriage equality can be seen in the overwhelming response to recent parliamentary inquiries into the issue.

A Senate Inquiry received an astonishing 44,000 submissions in favour of marriage equality and a House of reps inquiry received an almost unbelievable 177,000 positive responses.

This makes legislation to allow same-sex marriages the most popular in our parliament's history, by a factor of ten.

What we are seeing here is the convergence of two emerging trends in Australia and across the western world.

Anti-gay discrimination is considered immoral, and is actively rejected even by conservative voters. Marriage equality is considered morally right, and is a highly motivating issue for millions of voters.

What this means for Tony Abbott is clear.

His hardline stance will guarantee the Greens will have the balance of power in the Senate.

Thanks to Julia Gillard's continued and clear opposition to equality, the protest vote against Tony Abbott will go straight to Christine Milne.

Abbott's intransigence will also make life very difficult for inner-city Liberals such as Kelly O'Dwyer, Malcolm Turnbull, and Teresa Gambaro, with their own electorate polling shows support for marriage equality running as high as 75%.

Unless Abbott allows a conscience vote the issue will plague these and other Liberals throughout the next election.

It will be raised at every meeting they attend. It will distract them from the issues they want to focus on. It will be used by those who criticise the Liberal Party for losing touch with its liberal roots and for not being "a broad church".

It will cost inner-city Liberals votes to the benefit of both the Greens and Labor, who will inevitably run pro-marriage equality candidates and will probably swap preferences.

I'm not questioning Tony Abbott's respect for his gay friends and love for his lesbian sister.

Neither am I asking Abbott to break his undertaking at the last election that he will continue to oppose marriage equality.

I'm simply warning the Coalition that it will make "the crowning glory of all mistakes" if it doesn't allow a conscience vote on marriage equality.

If Tony Abbott's plan is to increase the vote of the Greens at the next election then he should stick to his current course.

Alex Greenwich is the National Convener of Australian Marriage Equality and one of Samesame's 25 most influential gay and lesbian Australians. Alex recently married his partner Victor in Argentina, runs a banking recruitment firm, and graduated from UNSW with a Bachelor of arts in 2001.

The Al Capone Budget

2012-05-25T11:17:21+10:30

Tim Humphries compares the 2012 budget to a Bugs Bunny Racketeering Clip:

My earliest memory of political satire was watching Bugs Bunny's Racketeer Rabbit (1946). This cartoon first catalyzed my fascination and thinking on animation and the pop culture metaphors that can be used to describe Politics and Society in its current 'Nanny Statist' form.

Racketeer Rabbit if analysed syntactically, taking into account mise en scene and specific cultural references draws very specifically on the 'Al Capone Prohibition' era.

The parallels between Wayne Swan's recent tax and spend budget and this Looney Tunes take is too amusing to pass up.

KPMG projects in its Economic and Fiscal analysis a return to $1.5 Billion dollars of surplus by 2012-13 at about 0.1 percent of GDP. KPMG's report goes onto express these figures in percentages stating the deficit to be 3.0 percent of GDP.

If Wayne Swan is the Al Capone figure then the Australian people must be Bugs Bunny. The Australian people are noble creatures, who much like the cartoon just want to be left alone by the antics of the mobsters in the floor above!

Go with me on this. All of a sudden Swannie and his trigger happy sidekicks decide to spray bullets across their business opponents, hitting them with the hot lead of new "Carbon and Mining Taxes". Along with the much vaunted 1 cent business tax cut which was abandoned cynically for the current slice of class warfarism.

Despite all the shenangans, the trend line for unemployment remains relatively stable. However the iratic nature of this Al Capone Budget, diverts attention from the rob Peter to Pay Paul mentality putting real pain off until after that very important show down due sometime next year.

In all honesty, with a bit of luck, some real tax cuts and a more flexible industrial relations system, Australia could potentially have an unemployment figure with a "4" in front of it. As an aspirational entreprenuer I strongly hope we move in this direction.

On Personal Tax, Wayne 'Capone' Swan has been particularly disappointing. Raising the marginal tax thresholds to over $18,000 dollars will only trap the young in a cycle of low paying jobs to pay off student debts they can't actually pay!

This treadmill is silly and must stop discouraging people from drive, enterprise and ambition. The other massive slug is the increase in taxation on superannuation which rises from 15 cents in the dollar to 30 cents from July 1.

Then there's the big 'racket' in rumoured changes that would ramp up taxes on smokers, drinkers and even reports about taxing pork! If true, using the racketeer monopoly of government to bump some smokes, grog and a few legs of ham off the proverbial economic truck to slice and dice their economic picture, isn't just appallingly unhealthy, it also looks desperate!

Despite all the mean and nasty things the gangsters are doing to everyday Australians, I would point you toward the morning rays that seem to be poking through the clouds over at Poll Bludger.

If the 58-42 Coalition vote holds up, maybe Wayne 'Capone' Swan will go 'insane' just like the Boss of the cartoon and escape before the people get to him first.

What amused me most about my recent foray into the golden classics of Warner Brothers, was the overriding idea that Bugs Bunny always outsmarted his foes in the end. If the parallel between the Australian people and Bugs Bunny holds, “That’s all Folks” for the ALP can’t be far off.

Timothy W. Humphries is a contributor to Menzies House and the Australian Libertarian Society ‘Thoughts on Freedom Blog’ and writes from Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

An Analysis of Paul Howes' Latest Speech

2012-05-24T16:08:17+10:30

David Elson concludes that if Paul Howes articulates what the modern ALP believes, then Australians should hope they lose office and don't regain it for a very, very long time:

There’s a lot of talk that Paul Howes National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union is the new modern face of the Australian labour movement, bringing fresh ideas and an understanding of the economic realities facing Australia in the so called “Asian Century”.

Based on Paul Howes recent National Press Club Address these complimentary commentaries are unfounded. While there was one shining moment where Paul attempted to distance the Labor from the electorally toxic Greens the majority of his speech was pure unadulterated protectionism, unionism and economically illiterate justifications for extreme market interventions on the part of the federal government. Nothing we haven’t seen from our current Australian federal government.

Let’s take a look at some of his points and policy prescriptions:

In his introduction Paul echoes Wayne Swan’s stance attacking “billionaires and mega corporations” [as opposed to regular corporations?] who are plundering our public resources without giving anything back. Assuming he is referring to our states’ mineral resources this is clearly a-non-too-subtle attempt to drum up support for the new mining tax. The fact of the matter is Australian mining companies pay plenty of taxes already and that their royalty payments have been keeping our state government fiscally afloat for a number of years now. Attacking these companies with new taxes as China’s economic growth is slowing, and as the storm clouds of a second GFC gather on the horizon is most unwise indeed.

Paul also stated that the media alone couldn’t be blamed for the labour movements [ALPs?] current woes before going on to blame the media, even equating the Sydney Morning Herald’s 1891 hyperbole with current criticisms. He offered the following quote:

“Our greatest peril comes from the intrusion of the labour struggle into the field of politics – only the most extreme and violent men will control the situation.”

In hindsight the above appears oddly prophetic.

Paul provided statistics indicating the current and ongoing importance of China’s economy for Australia’s exports, however he then went on to equate Australia’s investment in the upcoming Olympics with the economic fallacy of big Government “picking winners” in a free market economy. Anyone familiar with the recent loses at Ford, the large staff reductions at Holden, the failure of Tim Flannery’s much vaunted hot rocks technology and the ongoing controversies surrounding Solyndra know that it is not so easy for a government driven bureaucracy to “pick winners” within our current globally competitive world.

Paul then continues on in a similarly economically illiterate manner, mistakenly stating that Australia has only now become a high cost country relative to our competitors (apparently due to the high Australian dollar), ignoring that our Asian neighbours and competitors have consistently had lower labour costs then Australia for decades if not longer. Paul then goes on to rule out “racing to the bottom” by apparently reforming our very restrictive workplace employment laws and conditions, this is where the biggest cognitive dissonance occurs in Paul’s partisan speech. Paul praises the market interventions of our Asian neighbours’ government into their local economics, while glossing over and at times blatantly ignoring that;

These countries often intervene to ensure that their cost of electricity is kept low in contrast with Australia which has implemented interventions to increase the cost of electricity.
The cost of labour in countries within the Asian region are often much less than that of Australia, even in those nations which are not developing nations (ie South Korea, Taiwan).
The organisation of labour is largely absent, despite the title of the dominate nation within the region:- The “People’s” Republic of China.
That unlike most western nations, the people of China, Malaysia, Singapore, and so forth do not have a welfare entitlement mentality and set aside savings to cater for themselves and their families, freeing up a lot of tax monies for investment in public expenditure which have a real return to the government and its people. It is no surprise that these countries are characterised by financial responsible governments with relatively low debt loads.

There was a short glimmer of hope though. A light that was as quickly extinguished as it appeared. Paul Howes criticised, with much validity the power of the big four banks within Australia’s financial system [although it should be stressed that it is this strength along with the Chinese driven resources boom that left us largely unaffected by the GFC], Paul correctly identified that it was lack of competition within the banking sector which had led to the current state of affairs. Sadly the most effective solution to this; relaxing key restrictions to entry and allowing large foreign banks entry to Australia’s market was not proposed, instead stipulating that the government needed to be more active in forcing these banks to follow the government line. One can only imagine what method he would use to accomplish this.

If this is what the next generation of ALP leaders believe, then following the next election we should hope that the ALP will be entering the political wilderness for a very long time.

The full text of Paul Howes’ speech can be found at: http://australianpolitics.com/2012/05/22/paul-howes-npc-address.html

David Elson is a senior public servant who has long taken an interest in the economic impact of Federal policies particularly those pertaining to environmental or social issues and in the cultures of Australia's Asian neighbours. He lives in Brisbane, Queensland with his Taiwanese wife and is an avid squash player.

Gillard's Carr is a clunker!

2012-05-24T08:12:33+10:30

ACCORDING TO CROCKER

Every theatrical troupe has a “prop-room.” Most are poorly lit, dusty, barn-like structures that smell of camphor with the usual rows of costumes, furniture, stage backdrops, weapons and probably a whoopie-cushion or two.

Labor’s prop-room differs from the vaudeville tradition concentrating instead on political props like butchers’ knives, stilettos, shivs, and other tools of choice for the metaphoric assassin.

Also in the gloom are rows of old, oak wardrobes, mostly collected on council clean-up days. They hold special treasures; some are declared “National Treasures” and some are marked “never to be opened”, Lionel Murphy's, for example.

These are Labor’s props of last resort. They are fond reveries of Labor’s past leaders—some dearly departed. Watkins: 1904, Fisher: 1910, Hughes: 1915, Scullin: 1929, Curtin: 1941, Ford: 1945 and Chifley: 1945.

In the “used often” row, beside the vintage wheelchairs, are popular relics thought to be physically alive—although politically dead. Whitlam: 1972, Hawke: 1983, Keating:

The resurrection of Bob (the builder) Carr is a departure from the crusty old has-beens like Comrades Whitlam, Hawke and Keating who are regularly wheeled out and propped up at various events to infer solidarity during times of Party disaster. It is peculiar how political parties believe the populace will be moved, swayed and awe inspired by losers booted from office, despised, even hated for their ineptitude and arrogance.

Bob’s once athletic figure of yore has plumped a tad, perhaps the result of excess crackling gorged from the porcine coffers of Macquarie Bank, likening the statesman to the waffling, blunderer, Mr. Magoo.

A stroke of Gillard’s pen saw Mr. Carr wheeled directly into the Senate and the caviar Ministry for Foreign Affairs, all without electorate approval. Expedience sidestepped debate on his record of unresolved bungles and his abrupt, political abdication

Carr smugly views himself as an intellectual extraordinaire. Good at American history, bad at NSW administration as the reprehensible Orange Grove affair established. Still awaiting clarification: the resignation of Diane Beamer, and five colleagues: the unsafe rail bridges deception: 17 deaths at Campbelltown and Camden Hospital. That, and more smothered by cover-up and spin. Bob amassed a staff of 31 media minders—all practitioners of spin.

Carr quit politics in 2005 and with a haughty wave of the hand, dismissed his electorate of a decade saying, With malice to none and charity to all. Commendable words considering he murdered the ‘second home’ market in NSW and boldly purchased a house in New Zealand’s South Island getaway, for $330,000, avoiding over $10,000 in taxes because New Zealand had no stamp duty.

Perhaps ego driven, Carr exposed himself, never imagining he would again be in the political firing line when allowing parts of his private diary to be published in Labor Council historian Marilyn Dodkin’s book. Bob’s entries identify him as an, ‘obsessive poll-driven populist, often delighted at the media's superficiality.’

Touted by the sympathetic media as a brilliant political coup, Carr’s installation in early March to an imploding Labor Party was called a masterstroke that would kneecap the Abbott mob and halt the Party’s journey down the dunny.

However, “Bob the party doctor,” the messiah delivered to heal Labor’s woes has fallen short. While parting the political waters he blundered into the same cesspool of incompetence he fled in August 2005.

Carr’s “intellect” as applied to the handling of his foreign affairs duties must be questioned. With only one day on the job he managed to peeve Papua New Guinea with a frivolous comment. In a previous blog Carr wrote: The Dalai Lama is more a cunning monk than a holy man, I told an audience of 300 government students at the University of Sydney. Diplomatic indeed!

Following Carr’s first private meeting with Chinese leaders, he publicly blabbed details to the media causing an incident. When a young Brazilian was tasered and died in Sydney Carr sent condolences to parents via the Brazilian ambassador—the man had been reported as an orphan. Nice one Bob!

Jumping in with two feet he said, The Taliban didn't need to be included in security discussions about Afghanistan. A loose cannon on the deck, I'd say! Furthermore, commenting on the James Ashby lawsuit Carr saw fit to tweet, this Ashby seems more rehearsed than a kabuki actor. Taxpayers’ will pay lots for that prejudicial blunder.

Bob’s job description seems to be minister for everything as his frequency before cameras would indicate. It’s difficult to know if in his roll as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bob is proffering Party policy beneficial to Australia or worldly matters according to the ideology of failed state premier.

Bob’s political comeback exhibits the skill of a huffing and puffing, punch-drunk boxer. Labor’s hope for a messiah is just one more bungle. Gillard’s Carr is a real lemon!

Thought for the week: The French, Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, means, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

EU Orders UK To Allow Prisoners To Vote

2012-05-23T15:55:57+10:30

Following on from Andy's post about the loss of sovereignty, we read the following in Europe:

European judges on Tuesday upheld a ruling that a blanket ban on allowing inmates to vote was unlawful, meaning tens of thousands of criminals in Britain will be able to have a say in elections.

The ruling represents a direct rebuttal of Parliament, which last year voted overwhelming to maintain the 140-year ban.

However, leaked legal advice last year revealed that the UK would face little sanction if it simply ignored the ruling.

MPs said the ruling was a “test” for the Government and it was time for Mr Cameron, who has said the thought of giving prisoners the vote made him “sick”, to stand up to Europe...

Last February, MPs backed a motion opposing the European judgment by 234 to 22.

The UN’s Blueprint for the Establishment of an Eco-Socialist New World Order

2012-05-23T15:41:15+10:30

Andy Semple discusses the diasterous consequences of signing the UN Covenant on Environment & Development:

This isn’t a conspiracy theory - since 1995, the United Nations has been drafting an environmental constitution for the world that is intended to supersede all existing sovereign country laws. The fourth edition was issued to UN member states on September 22nd, 2010. The document’s working title is "Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development" and you can read all 242 pages of it here.

This document is intended to become a permanent binding treaty and it would establish an incredibly repressive system of “global governance”. This "covenant", as it is being called, claims authority over the entire global environment and everything that affects it. Considering the fact that everything that we do affects the environment in some way would mean that this document would become the highest form of law for all human activity.

This is potentially one of the greatest threats to Australia’s sovereignty that I have ever seen and the Australian people need to be warned about it.

Essentially what this proposed environmental covenant does is it takes the sustainable development principles underlying Agenda 21 and turns them into global constitutional law.

All parties to this new constitution would be forced to turn their nations into centrally-planned societies where all decisions about everything are evaluated within the framework of sustainable development.

If the Australia became a party to this treaty, Australia would become a nirvana for eco-bureaucrats. All decisions about what you eat, about what you wear, about where you live and work, about how big a family you can have and about what activities you could engage in on a daily basis would be dictated by the mandates in the global constitution.

You will never read the words “global government” because the people who drafted the covenant know it would set off alarm bells so instead they use the politically correct term of “governance”.

On page 36, we are told that:

“Governance is the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). It also can be defined as the rational organization of society in order to achieve the objectives emerging from its common concerns emerging from material, economic, historical and cultural foundations and needs. Governance includes the creation and the functioning of institutions and of norms at various levels from the local to the global."

The foreword to the third edition (page 14) outlines the blueprint for an international agreement to be adopted by all the members of the UN:

"The Draft Covenant is a blueprint for an international framework (or umbrella) agreement consolidating and developing existing legal principles related to environment and development. The intention is that it will remain a “living document” until – as is the hope and expectation of those who have been involved in the project – it is adopted as a basis for multilateral negotiations."

The covenant originally focused almost entirely on the environment but the more recent editions have seen an increased focus on the Social and Economic Pillars:

"Special care was taken to update it with respect to the ‘social and economic pillars’ and thereby avoid falling into the trap of concentrating solely on the ‘environmental pillar’."

In the preamble (page 34) we’re told that a “Global Partnership” is necessary in order to “achieve sustainable development:”

"Sharing the belief that humanity currently stands at a decisive point in history, which calls for a global partnership to achieve sustainable development;”

Remember, “sustainable development” is the politically correct term for poverty, as that’s precisely what the UN and it’s band of supporters like the WWF actually want. Sadly, our own Australian government is beginning to preach the same nonsense that we should all live “sustainable lifestyles.”

There is more, a lot more and if you have a few moments please examine the current 4^thedition. I know it isn’t pleasant reading, but you need to be informed about what the ecotard elites have planned for our country and for your family.

Their aims are clear:

To extend the powers of government;

To massively raise existing taxes and introduce new taxes (aka Carbon Tax);

To weaken if not completely destroy the capitalist system;

To curtail personal freedom;

To massively redistribute income both domestically and internationally;

To bring ever-closer the advent of an eco-socialist New World Order.

Originally published at Andy's Rant, and reproduced with permission. You can follow Andy on twitter

Lessons from Europe

2012-05-23T15:04:26+10:30

Senator Cory Bernard discusses the current global economic situation and the lessons for Australia from the current events in Europe:

The growing European financial crisis has been as predictable as it has been mismanaged. That the entitlement mentality and successive governments living beyond their taxpayer funded means could never be sustained was obvious to anyone with half a modicum of common sense and economic understanding.

Historically, the way for sovereign nations to overcome their poor fiscal management was to default on their debts, create inflation or devalue their currency. Monetary union put paid to currency flexibility and default has been largely avoided at the cost of hundreds of billions of Euros from the European Central Bank. There are many who believe that these billions are only delaying the inevitable – a breakup of the European experiment as we know it.

The logic behind such conclusions is rather compelling. It is simply unfeasible for monetary union to be maintained while individual nations are not bound by similar budgetary requirements. Eurocrats say that this is why the national budgets of EU members should be run from the centralised authority in Brussels. Truly a case of ‘the only way to solve the problems of centralisation is to have more of it’. It is the same reasoning used by those who seem to think the only way to solve a debt crisis is to actually borrow more money!

Personally, I think it’s inevitable that nations like Greece will break away from monetary union. They will seek to return to the Drachma as the only way to resurrect their moribund and debt laden economy. This may also involve defaulting on the hundreds of billions of dollars in outstanding bonds issued to many European banks. This will naturally have implications for the European banking system, much of which is now underwritten by governments.

It may also encourage other nations to pursue a similar path. Portugal and Ireland are two notable candidates. So too are Italy and Spain, although the implications of such a decision by either of these two large economies would be far greater than the others combined.

While Europe is many thousands of kilometres away from Australia, we will not be immune to the financial upheaval expected to take place there. A great deal of our bank funding has come from Europe. This flow of funds, and that historically sourced from the United States, will be increasingly difficult to obtain. This will result in higher funding costs and credit finance becoming increasingly difficult to obtain.

Click here to keep reading

Senator Cory Bernardi is the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition and a Senator for South Australia.

Hasten Slowly

2012-05-23T12:19:05+10:30

David Russell no-doubt controversially argues that it might be time for the Coalition to change tack and lay off attacking Labor:

There are many who so thoroughly dislike the Gillard Labor Government (or, perhaps, just the Australian Labor Party, per se) who will not like the following viewpoint. But it may still have validity.

The issue is the simmering determination of many key MPs in the federal Liberal-National Coalition to seize the reins of power at the earliest possible moment. They view the performance of the Gillard administration with such distaste and disdain that they are inclined to take any possible advantage to end its rule prematurely.

They believe fervently that they would be doing the nation a favour to rid us of Labor and it is hard not to disagree. Quality governance and the Gillard track record are oxymoronic terms.

Yet, patience is so often such a wonderful virtue.

Imagine if the Coalition maintained a steady pressure on the government but took a substantial step back from constantly conveying a climate of crisis about its performance. The sky would not fall in and life would go on pretty much as normal.

Would Labor’s chances of winning the next election be substantially enhanced by such a strategy? There are no guarantees but such is the visceral antipathy to Julia Gillard that it is very difficult to imagine a revival. Would a Rudd return restore Labor’s electoral prospects? Hardly likely given the advertising ammunition available to the Coalition from the trouncing of Rudd’s most recent leadership bid. No-one else in Labor’s wings appears to stand a snowflake’s chance in hell.

So, what spoils are at stake?

On its present course, the Coalition seems likely to go to the polls perceived as a carping critic whose greatest claim to fame is that the other guys are so bad, we look good by contrast. Yes, it will work given just how appallingly Labor is governing. But the risk is that the electorate will not see that as deserving of a strong mandate. The corollary is a Coalition administration with sufficient numbers for one or maybe two terms.

Time is running out for the Coalition to demonstrate its positive side (it does have one, doesn’t it?) and to canvass a detailed program of reform capable of attracting a major mandate in its own right. Such a result could generate a vote of confidence that would have the Coalition in office for three terms with a good chance of a fourth.

Certainly the opinion polls suggest Labor will be decimated regardless. But if the electorate decides the Coalition is demonstrating a similar lack of positive values as Labor has been doing it may well decide to cast a pox on both their houses. And three short years in office may suddenly seem like fool’s gold and the squandering of a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

There IS a difference between not giving a sucker an even break and keeping one’s foot on an opponents’ throat to the extent that it is like washboarding. Aussies have never liked bullies.

David M. Russell is a professional communicator with a passion for good governance. His personal blog can be found at davidmrussell.wordpress.com.