Monthly Archives: July 2021

Concerns have been raised over the impact a new Sainsbury's store could have on a 'nationally protected view' and the viability of a Nottinghamshire market town.

The proposed store in Southwell is expected to be accessed via a new junction off Park Lane, off Nottingham Road.

However, Councillor Peter Harris, who represents Southwell for the Liberal Democrats on Newark and Sherwood District Council, said the location was in an "inappropriate area" in light of the "sight lines" of the Southwell Minster.

There are concerns to do with the potential impact on the "nationally protected view" from the green open space between the Minster and Nottingham Trent University's Brackenhurst campus.

"It's very unusual to have an open space right into the town you can take from Brackenhurst without going on any road, going into the town centre. It's a protected view," said Councillor Harris.

He contests the idea the new Sainsbury's will be a "convenience" store.

"The town centre of the town is fairly unusual in the number of shops it retains, given we have got two bakers, two butchers, we have a Saturday market," said Councillor Harris, who also sits on Southwell Town Council.

"This is not a convenience store, they say it is - it's a large supermarket. This will potentially drain economic vitality of the town.

"People come to the town because of its vibrant town centre. A large store like this could drain economic activity from the town."

Up to 40 new jobs are expected to be created at the Sainsbury's which is expected to include an in-store Argos click and collect service.

As many as 109 car parking spaces are intended to serve the store.

Councillor Malcolm Brock, who represents Southwell on Newark and Sherwood District Council for the Liberal Democrats, said: "There are two sides of the presentation.

"It's non-designated land at present, they are going to have to make a convincing business case - that is the basic premise for the planning application.

"On the plus side, obviously there are economic pluses, it would add a competitive element to the retail scene of Southwell.

"They have presented to the town council, they are going through the process of public consultation, which is to be commended."

Councillor Brock, who sits on the planning committees of the district council and Southwell Town Council, said he'd spoken with local residents about the plans and opinion seemed to be split down the middle

"They are evenly balanced at present, there are comments in favour, there are comments [of objection]. It really is even-steven," he said.

The supermarket is proposed to be built on fields on land surrounded by hedges.

The site is said to be on the corner of Park Lane, off Nottingham Road, and near a local rugby club.

Councillor Brock expects a planning application to be submitted to the district council in September.

A spokesman for Sainsbury's said the firm plans to expand its "Neighbourhood Hub Store concept".

He said: "Our Neighbourhood Hub stores are a food-led extension of our renowned convenience offer and are set up to serve more comprehensive shopping missions thanks to their unique size and location.

"The brand-new store would generate new jobs for the community, whilst also substantially improving food choice for local people.

"Our proposed Neighbourhood-Hub store would incorporate a number of sustainability elements to ensure that it was a store built for the future, which is a part of our wider strategy to become a Net Zero business by 2040.

"Our plans for the store have been sensitively designed to ensure the store would be well screened by both the natural topography of the land and the retention and enhancement of the established tree line around the site.

"We are committed to serving, supporting and investing in Southwell and would welcome the views of the local community on our proposals so that we can deliver the best possible store."

Originally posted here:

Concern Sainsbury's could 'drain economic vitality' of Southwell and impact 'nationally protected view' - Nottinghamshire Live

Bury Council has narrowly backed a much-delayed masterplan for building new homes and creating jobs which will release thousands of acres of green belt land for housing and industry.

At a dramatic meeting of the full council, the Labour controlled council voted 26 to 24 in favour of backing the controversial Places For Everyone plan, which sets out a long term plan for what land in Bury can be freed up for different kinds of development over the next 16 years.

All opposition councillors voted against the plans, citing grave concerns about the release of 1,700 hectares of green belt areas for housing and industry in the Elton reservoir, Walshaw and Simister areas.

26 of 27 Labour councillors voted in favour, with one, Karen Leach, who represents Radcliffe East, voting against, making the margin in favour the narrowest it could be.

We're testing a new site:This content is coming soon

Places For Everyone has been formed by nine out of the ten Greater Manchesters borough councils..

The document replaces the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF), which was abandoned last year after it failed to win the support of Stockport council.

The plans for Bury, which remain similar to the previous draft of the GMSF, include a massive housing project at Elton reservoir where 3,500 homes are planned.

Key to that development would be a strategic north-south spine road connecting Bury and Bolton Road (A58) to Bury Road.

Another huge housing allocation is at Walshaw where the plans include 1,250 new homes.

A third housing allocation is in the Simister/Bowlee area where there is provision for 1,550 new homes.

The plan also includes the Northern Gateway employment site which will be created in the Pilsworth/Heywood area.

The plan claims that development could create up to 20,000 new jobs.

During a lengthy debate, Burys council leader, Eamonn OBrien, proposed the plan.

He said: Do we want to act responsibly and submit a plan or throw out those responsibilities and recklessly lurch this council towards a government power grab and a developer free for all.

Do we want to play politics, deceive our residents, perpetuate lies, advocate for non-existent alternatives and play to a crowd.

Or to be honest about the tough decisions that need to be made for the benefit of the borough.

He said the plan would deliver green affordable homes and guarantee new infrastructure.

He said that opposition calls for Bury to form its own local plan would be far worse in protecting the green belt.

He cited Stockport Council, who have abandoned the plan.

He said: That is the route they have chosen. Can anyone say they are better off?

Are they having parades in the street celebrating that the green belt is safe?

No, they are now battling for where at least 5,000 extra homes will need to go on more green belt.

Opposition Conservative leader, Nick Jones, said: The planning is utterly humiliating for this borough.

It makes depressing reading. I would like to thank the residents across this borough who came together to voice their views on this awful plan.

The pressure group Bury Folk created a ground movement of more than 10,000 people which has challenged this shambolic Labour council.

There are alternative approaches. Bury is lacking a local plan, nothing since 1997. The plan lacks vision for our borough.

Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Powell, said: This is the wrong plan.

To propose destroying so much of our precious countryside on the basis of outdated figures is so wrong.

Presently our six townships are surrounded by countryside which makes Bury such a great place to live.

The plans proposes to take over 1,700 hectares of green belt and build on it.

We dont need to do this, there is enough brownfield land.

Why has Labour put its hand up and said build on our green belt when it simply does not need to.

At the end of the debate Conservative Cllr Yvonne Wright was prevented from speaking by the Mayor Cllr Tim Pickstone as the debate had heard from four other Conservatives.

She was admonished by the Mayor for an outburst while voting when she shouted Labour will never be forgiven for voting in favour of the plan.

Places For Everyone will now enter a period of public consultation from August 9.

Read more here:

Council narrowly backs development masterplan amid opposition to the release of green belt land - Manchester Evening News

Big changes are afoot for Southwestern Universitys award-winning Center for Career and Professional Development (CCPD). Earlier this summer, Assistant Director of Internship and Employment Development Dana Luna and Internship and Employment Developer Austin Painchaud 13the staff who focus on connecting students with on- and off-campus internshipsmoved from the CCPD to the Center for Integrative Learning to consolidate all high-impact experiences (i.e., internships, study abroad, undergraduate research, and community-engaged learning) within one office. Daniel Orozco, who was director of career services since 2013, is retiring from Southwestern effective July 30; a national search for a new director will launch soon. Now, Southwestern announces that the CPPD is transitioning from the division of Student Life to the Office of Alumni and Parent Relations (OAPR) within the Office of University Relations. The latest move reflects Southwesterns commitment to helping current students navigate the changing employment landscape. The transition will allow the CCPD to better leverage the community of 16,000 alumni, 2,400 current parents, and thousands of friends who can support students and young alumni in their career exploration and development.

Integrating the CCPD with the OAPR is part of President Laura Skandera Trombley and the Board of Trustees vision for the institution, as outlined in the 20212026 Tactical Plan: to distinguish Southwestern as a top liberal-arts university in the nation. The collaboration between career services and alumni and parent relations will create more robust programming focused on student training and employment while harnessing the professional expertise of Southwesterns close-knit alumni community. The transition also aligns with SUs Paideia approach to education, which connects students to interdisciplinary knowledge, to each other, and to the world. The ultimate goal will be to place more than 99% of Southwestern graduates in jobs or graduate and fellowship programs within six months of receiving their degree. It is our ethical and moral obligation as an institution, both individually and collectively, to prepare 100% of our students for meaningful careers after Southwestern University, says Vice President for University Relations Paul Secord. We are committed to raising the bar for what effective career readiness and professional development look like at a liberal-arts university.

Ranked #1 in Texas and #3 in the U.S. for Best Career Services by The Princeton Review, the CCPD has partnered often with the OAPR in years past. Together, they created PirateConnect, Southwesterns online mentoring and networking platform, which has empowered current students to land jobs and further their professional development through opportunities provided by alumni. The two offices have also collaborated with the Center for Integrative Learning on Bridges, a project marketplace fueled by Southwestern alumni, parents, and friends who are offering meaningful short-term projects that students and recent graduates can engage in virtually; the expansion of the Alumni Network Mentoring Program; and Career Treks, a program in which SU student groups travel to various organizations to engage with employers behind the scenes.

Under the auspices of the OAPR and University Relations, the CCPD will pursue the following goals:

Planned initiatives include improving opportunities for job shadowing, internships, and jobs; helping students prepare and apply for graduate school and funding opportunities to support graduate education; recruiting students for the I-CORPS Program, which supports the professional development of first-generation college students, Pell-eligible students, and students from underrepresented populations; partnering with Southwestern faculty and staff to host conversations about work and life design; expanding the annual SOAR Summit, SUs professional-development academy for sophomores, to include a track specifically focused on supporting graduating seniors; and developing a Career Opportunity Fund to aid students who cannot afford the expenses related to career exploration and the job search.

For more information on the award-winning services provided by the CCPD, please visit southwestern.edu/center-for-career-and-professional-development.

Continue reading here:

Southwestern University's Center for Career and Professional Development Moves to the Office of University Relations Southwestern University -...

Why Justin Trudeau? Why? Why are you going to put us through another election, only two years after the last one?

Everyone now knows the writ will be dropping soon, likely in mid-August, for an end-of-September, very-early-October election, as Trudeau and his ministers have been exhibiting an abundance of writ-dropping behaviours lately.

Remember the old Hinterland Whos Who?

The red-capped Liberal displays its full vote-enticing colours as it struts through its territory, dropping funding announcements and promises.

Political pundit conventional wisdom says that the Liberals are likely to squeak out a majority, maybe, but oh those margins are slim. The theory is that Canadians are feeling fairly optimistic right now, as we finally can see the end of the pandemic, and things return normal. As the economy opens up and business picks up, people may well feel inclined to reward Trudeau and his Liberals with votes.

At least that appears to be what hes gambling on. But he could also very well end up with another minority.

Lets check in with our buddy Angus Reid. The polling organization has the Liberals with a very slim two point lead in the polls, 33 per cent to 31 for the Conservative Party of Canada. The NDP has 20 per cent support, the Bloc Quebecois 7 per cent, and other/independent 6 per cent. The Green Party has 3 per cent support and look for that to go down further as there is great unrest in Green land. A confidence vote to oust leader Annamie Paul was abruptly cancelled last week with no explanation, and the battle has now gone to the courts. Not a great position heading into a campaign.

A separate poll by Leger and the Association for Canadian Studies has the Liberals at 34 per cent of decided voerrs and the CPC at 29 per cent. The NDP are at 22 per cent in that poll.

On the plus side for the Liberals, they continue to be more competitive in Ontario and Quebec, where like it or not, most Canadian elections are decided. Thats just a fact. The Liberals lead by four points in Ontario and lead the Bloc in Quebec by three points. And the CPC has only 16 per cent support in Quebec.

As for the leaders themselves, the report is negative. While the country continues to give Trudeau a decent score on his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, he is falling short in other areas and his disapproval rating sits at 40 per cent. Far from the heady days of 2015, the sunny days of Trudeaus popularity, people are now a little more meh on the man. Most will say he has been somewhat of a disappointment. But on the other hand, those same people arent likely to vote Conservative.

And the CPC leader Erin OToole has his own problems with an unfavourable rating of 58 per cent. That number just wont budge for him. Canadians have now had a chance to get to know him and the majority still dont like what they see.

That plays to Trudeaus favour of course. What doesnt is the high ratings garnered by NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh. His favourability ratings are positive, something only he and Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet can claim.

But all in all, the picture looks very similar to the 2019 election, and my bet is another Liberal minority.

Which again begs the question, why Justin? Why?

Original post:

GUEST VIEW: A federal election most likley to produce the same results as two years ago - Smithers Interior News

The site off London Road is currently used for car, lorry and coach parking and was earmarked for student accommodation with some parking retained and enhanced access to Hotham Park.

However, at the onset of the pandemic, the successful bidder withdrew from the scheme and later offered less money for the site. This was then rejected by the council.

Councillors have now agreed to remarket the site.

The decision was taken as an urgent item during Arun District Councils economic committee on Monday (July 26) and this was met with criticism from some members.

Opposition leader Dr James Walsh (Lib Dem, Beach) said: Im at a loss to understand why its an urgent matter. It has been around for months, it could have been put on the agenda beforehand.

Nothing has changed in the last 24 hours or even seven days. Why has it suddenly been put as an urgent item without any notice to members?

Matt Stanley (Lib Dem, Marine) also questioned the urgency of the issue.

Economic committee chair Andy Cooper (Con, Angmering and Findon) said that, if the lorry park had not been marked as an urgent item, the next opportunity to discuss it would be in October.

He said: We need to move things forward, this council needs to move forward with items like this. I have deemed it necessary to bring this forward to expedite time.

Grant Roberts (Con, Arundel and Walberton) said that, without marketing the land, it was not possible to find out its worth.

He said: Since the site has not been actively marketed, this council is not able to receive any funding or formal offers and gain an indication of the value, or potential value, of land.

At a time when finances have been stretched, I think its important that this council explores options. This is a sensible approach and should not be controversial.

Its not a good decision in my mind to sit around for three months and think about what we can do.

Tony Dixon (Ind, Aldwick East) called the last-minute agenda item a political ambush and claimed it left him with only two minutes to think about it.

He said: This is piecemeal development, which the Conservative Party have been speaking against for the last two years. I support the idea of letting different sites go forward at different paces but of course there is some hypocrisy involved here.

We as a council have to generate income for the future. We need to develop commercial strategies we cant go on milking the taxpayer forever. Of course, selling off the family silver puts a little bit of money in the pot but, once youve sold land, its gone forever.

Mr Dixon raised the suggestion of the council developing the land itself for housing and said the matter required deeper consideration.

In response, David Edwards (Con, Felpham East) said: I dont see this as selling it off, because were not going to sell it off. We dont know, thats why were testing the market.

If the best thing for this council is to sell this land to a developer to build 400 homes, we wont know that until weve tested the market.

Council officers said the London Road site will be marketed for any and all potential uses, but this was criticised as too wide by several committee members.

Dr Walsh said: Its an open market brief, therefore this could come in for housing, office use, student accommodation, entertainment- indeed for any purpose whatsoever. Is that the intention?

I think thats an extraordinarily wide and open brief to market a piece of land. We ought to have some idea what this council wants to do.

Richard Bower (Con, East Preston) said he supported an open-ended brief and this view was shared by Mr Cooper who said options for use should be kept as wide as possible.

Shaun Gunner (Con, Rustington East), leader of the council, criticised the previous Liberal Democrat administration for declining an offer to develop student housing. He said: The previous administration was going to sell this for student accommodation and declined the opportunity to do so. Their preference is clearly that they dont want students in Bognor whereas weve had a more open-ended brief.

But Mr Stanley said the cabinet decision not to take that scheme forward was based on an officer recommendation.

The economic committee agreed to market the site with no fixed use with six votes for the proposal and four against.

The rest is here:

Bognor Regis car park site to be remarketed to explore options - Bognor Regis Observer

A 51-year-old farmer and teacher who wears a traditional Andean palm-straw hat took office as Perus president on July 28, 2021, after a bitterly contested election.

Pedro Castillo was virtually unknown in national politics when he eked out surprise victories in both the first and second rounds of the 2021 Peruvian presidential election. His right-wing opponent, Keiko Fujimori daughter of former Peruvian dictator Alberto Fujimori disputed the result of the June 7 runoff, alleging fraud. It took six weeks to confirm Castillos win.

Castillo has never held national office, and his leftist party does not have a majority in Congress. Peru faces many struggles: Castillo will be its fifth president in as many years, and Peru has among the worlds highest COVID-19 death rates.

In an interview with The Conversation, the Peruvian historian Cecilia Mndez Gastelumendi suggests Castillos unconventional background could work to his benefit but says he has enemies, too and they are already gunning for him.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Castillo has four identities. Together, they make him a very unusual president.

Castillo is a peasant farmer from a northern region of Peru called Cajamarca. There are very important gold mines there, but the people are impoverished. One of Castillos campaign slogans is, There shouldnt be poor people in a wealthy country.

As a candidate, he stuck to his rural identity. He did not start dressing like a city person. He likes to be portrayed with his hat and sandals, working the land.

Castillos second identity is as a primary school teacher. That is an important role in poor parts of Peru, because they dont have enough schools or teachers. He is also a union organizer. In 2017, he led a major national teachers strike.

Finally, Castillo is associated with the ronderos peasant patrollers. Peasant patrols, or rondas, were established in Cajamarca in the 1970s to defend against cattle-rustling and by the 1980s most rural areas of Peru had them to protect communities from the Shining Paths Marxist insurgency.

This background makes Castillo very representative of certain sectors of Peru that have not been recognized in its political system.

Thats just the view from Lima. He is not an outsider where he comes from.

Castillo was a longtime, hardcore member of a center-right political party called Per Posible. To run for president, Castillo left Per Posible because it dissolved after becoming associated with the corruption of former president Alejandro Toledo.

He registered to run with a Marxist-Leninist party called Per Libre, though he has no real relationship with the party or its radical history. It was a strategic alliance.

In the first stage of the race, when Castillo seemed to have no chance at all to win the presidency, he campaigned as both a leftist and a conservative.

For example, his campaign slogan No poor people in a wealthy country targeted inequality, and he promised to push for a new Constitution to replace Perus Fujimori dictatorship-era Constitution. That is a leftist priority. He talked a lot about el pueblo the people and how education and health care should be a right in Peru, not a business. You know COVID-19 hit Peru terribly.

But Castillo was revealed on video saying anti-LGBTQ things, and he openly opposed gay marriage and abortion. He mentioned foreigners coming to steal from Peruvians presumably referring to Venezuelans. There are 1 million Venezuelan migrants in Peru, and its very popular to appeal to anti-Venezuelan feelings.

He is also a religious person. He is Catholic, married to an evangelical.

So Castillo is not a liberal hes a leftist with a social agenda.

Early in the presidential race, that was the case. And many people on the left didnt vote for Castillo in the first round of the election, because of his conservative side. There is a liberal left in Peru, which supports gay rights and abortion.

Castillo moderated before the second-round election. He had to, if he wanted to win.

When he made it to the presidential runoff, the mainstream left had to choose between Castillo and Keiko Fujimori, who has been accused of money laundering. The liberal left got behind Castillo with some conditions. He had to adapt, and of late he has shown himself to be more open on gender issues.

Castillo cannot impose a radical program. His party does not have the majority in Congress. So he has had to make alliances. He has just assembled a coalition of parties from the center and the liberal left, plus the radical left of his party. Even so, he doesnt have a majority of votes in Congress.

Still, he is feared in Lima. Castillo is the first president in Perus modern history without any connection with professional elites, military elites or economic elites. These groups are used to having influence over politics to making phone calls to convince the president of this or that. They fear they cant do that with Castillo.

And right now, he has a 53% approval rate. So he has that going for him.

That depends on many factors, but perhaps two are most important.

First, internal tensions. Castillos partys discourse is far more radical than his. Its leaders are inspired by Cuba and revolutionary regimes some of them authoritarian, not democratic. They will push Castillo toward more rigid positions. He has to reconcile this with the more centrist legislators who have become his congressional allies now.

The other problem is Castillos enemies on the right. As the campaign showed, they are dead set against him. Right-wing media outlets portrayed him as a communist who would steal peoples business and savings, like what happened in Cuba or Venezuela, and implied that he will bring Peru into chaos and poverty.

He won anyway. He won narrowly, by 44,000 votes, but he won.

Now the right will almost surely try to remove him from office.

There is a vague 19th-century clause in the Peruvian Constitution that says the presidency can be vacated for moral and physical incapacity. In recent years, politicians like Keiko Fujimori and her allies have been using this clause to impeach any president they dont like. Thats why Peru had four presidents in five years even before Castillo.

The past five years have shown that the reason for vacating the office doesnt matter. To remove a president in Peru, you just need the votes in Congress.

Editors note: Because this story was mistakenly published prematurely, it has been updated to more accurately convey Castillos changing stance on LGBTQ rights, the ideology of his party and the criminal investigation into Keiko Fujimori. The headline was also changed.

Read the rest here:

Peru has a new president, its fifth in five years who is Pedro Castillo? - The Conversation US

The most common, notable characteristic of leaders debates is that they influence the outcome of elections hardly at all.

There are the obvious exceptions Kennedy-Nixon, Mulroney-Turner, MacLellan-clock but those are few and far between.

Yet, its the exceptions that stick in the mind and cause us to imbue political debates with a power few have attained the power to move votes.

We, the unrecovered political junkies, are drawn to the debate in anticipation of the exceptional a moment, a line, a performance with the power to change everything, or at least the course, if not the outcome, of the election. We are disappointed more often than not.

The political operatives coaching the leaders of Nova Scotias three major political parties for Wednesday evenings debate (6 p.m. on CBC), while fully aware of the unremarkable norm, prepare their guys for the exceptions.

Parties running behind want their leader to land a line on the favourite that will stop him in his tracks and elevate the audiences opinion of he who threw the well-aimed political dart.

Brian Mulroney did just that to John Turner in 1984.

Neophyte PM Turner sputtered a pathetic defence I had no option for paying off the patronage debts prime minister Trudeau (the original) left behind when he pirouetted out of 24 Sussex for the final time.

Mulroneys memorable retort you had an option, sir (you could have said no) put Turner on his heels, made him look weak and subservient to his larger-than-life predecessor. It catapulted Mulroneys Tories to a massive majority.

Frontrunners are prepped to parry opponents more predictable thrusts and nudge the debate toward a level of excitement that in this high-summer campaign would send all but the most hopelessly hooked back to the barbecue.

The three parties with a chance of winning the election chances ranging from strong to slim know where they stand with the electorate and the debate could offer some hints about where that is. Frontrunners, for example, dont start fights. Fierce partisan attacks generally betray desperation. That kind of stuff.

The campaigns one-third over, but its still too early to risk all with big, sudden moves that could frighten away voters. Big risks carry the potential for a big political payoff, or a campaign-killing backlash.

So, if youre tuning in hoping for some political bloodletting, stick around for the full 90 minutes because you never know, but the odds are better than even that this will be mostly a bloodless event.

And the controversy swirling around Robyn Ingrahams cancelled Liberal candidacy is the wildcard that could change the tone and tenor of the debate, and maybe the election.

Another reason to stick around is that theres always a chance of something completely unexpected, like the several (most claim seven, it felt longer) seconds of silence that live on in infamy for some, and Nova Scotian political folklore for most.

During the 1998 leaders debate, then-premier Russell MacLellan stuck assiduously, and disastrously, to the rules. Because of those rules, MacLellan didnt respond to a question from PC leader John Hamm. The camera stayed trained on MacLellan who remained speechless. Whether it was seven seconds or seven minutes, it felt like an eternity.

MacLellan, effectively, lost the debate to the clock and his Liberal government nearly lost the election to the NDP.

MacLellans deer-in-the-headlights moment is an extreme example of how non-verbal cues can leave an indelible image with the voters long after everything thats said is forgotten.

In other words, appearances matter.

The famous Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960 the first televised presidential debates are generally cited as the best example.

Nixon appeared with a heavy five-oclock shadow and sweated uncomfortably under the hot TV lights, while Kennedy, the handsome young senator from Massachusetts, appeared calm, cool and in control.

The verbal vs. non-verbal divide was wide that night. TV viewers reportedly felt Kennedy won, while those who tuned in on radio gave the debate to Nixon.

In this latest debate, each of the leaders Liberal Iain Rankin, Tory Tim Houston, and New Democrat Gary Burrill will arrive for the debate with their partys pitch perfected, their platforms etched in their memories and a few attack lines and deflections prepared.

The format of the debate allows for give-and-take among the three, so a good-old-fashioned political donnybrook isnt outside the realm of possibility. Some of us harbour a deep, secret until now desire to see and hear exactly that.

History, however, suggests a more orderly affair, but it will have its moments, and they, along with the simple fact that one of the three men will lead Nova Scotias next government, are reason enough to take it in.

Read the original post:

JIM VIBERT: Decisive debates are few and far between | Saltwire - SaltWire Network