Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings

"Fifty-three House Republicans have written President Barack Obama asking him to remove "safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings from that position.

The lawmakers accused Jennings of "pushing a pro-homosexual agenda" and said that Jennings's past writings exhibit a record that makes him unfit for the position.

"We respectfully request that you remove Kevin Jennings, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, from your Administration," the Republicans wrote. "It is clear that Mr. Jennings lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity." " The Hill

I hope that the people who signed this have actually read the publication in question instead of relying on gossip they way the media did with Rush Limbaugh. Just because liberals depend on smears, doesn't mean conservatives need to.

Let's have that conversation about racism

Today I've been browsing some left of left blogs--they are very angry at Obama. Are people calling them racists or realists? You know the answer. Progressives and Socialists never call themselves racists. (But conservatives do.)

So here's a piece from City Journal by Harry Stein about the Boys who cry racism.

"That conversation is long overdue, so let’s have at it. Let’s talk, for starters, about the shocking double standard in the way liberals and conservatives are allowed to deal with race and racism. Why is it okay for liberals to belittle Clarence Thomas endlessly as an Uncle Tom? And how does liberal cartoonist Ted Rall get away with calling Condoleezza Rice a “house nigga,” and his colleague Jeff Danziger with drawing her as a mammy in a caricature as cruelly demeaning as anything in Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer?

Let’s talk, too, about racial profiling—and start paying appropriate attention to the statistical evidence cited by Heather Mac Donald establishing that the disproportionate arrest and incarceration rates of minorities are explained not by racism but by disproportionate rates of criminality. Let’s talk about how American business has long been subject to blackmail by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in the name of social justice, and about the many other ways in which the regime of racial preferences has sowed division and corruption in this country. Let’s talk about how even after the Duke rape fiasco, the media continue to give credence to every racism charge; indeed, how just this week, vicious (and transparently phony) statements about race attributed to Rush Limbaugh uncritically disseminated by mainstream outlets helped sink Limbaugh’s bid for NFL ownership. And yes, let’s talk about white liberal bigotry, the bigotry of low expectations, and how it cripples and demeans those it supposedly aims to help. Exhibit A might be the recent call by the Tucson Unified School District to revamp its disciplinary system to cut down on the suspensions and expulsions of minority students (but not white ones) so that the numbers reveal “no ethnic/racial disparities.”

Are such conversations possible in contemporary America? With the liberals’ racism charge losing its power to intimidate and silence, there is at least some hope. Because finally, more and more of us are getting the message that it’s the fear of having these conversations that is truly racist."

I've also been listening to Robert Reich's speech at Berkeley Sept. 26, 2007 explaining what presidential candidates won't tell you. It's very enlightening, and I'm surprised how much he sounds like Glenn Beck, about corruption in government, in corporations, and in politicians, crazy foreign policy, why cap and trade will cost a lot of money, etc.--the villains just change. He also reminds listeners that Ben Bernanke has more power over the economy than Obama--I think Glenn has said that too. He urges the listeners to overcome cynicism and organize--the same plea that Beck leads with. But I don't think the Bush White House ever went on TV and condemned him.

What an honest President would say

This clip baffles me. Here is a Democrat actually describing Obamacare (before the fact, 2007, but after Hillarycare, 1993)--what someone would say if he were honest and honored the citizens. He seems to be joking as though it could never happen, and the audience is clapping--particularly when he said old people would need to die without treatment. What is going on here?



HT Roger's Rules

Reich is speaking at a Colloquium on Political Science at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007. You can listen to the entire speech at http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978463. "What are the candidates not going to tell you" was the assigned topic.

Noonan used to think he talked so purty

I never could understand why Peggy Noonan ignored his words and was enamored by his style instead. She was a speech writer--words were her trade--although one with hurt feelings. But she's apparently catching on. She never looked into the Marxist beliefs that gave birth to his fuzzy words. And now that she can't understand any of it, it's like a light bulb has gone off on.

"Every big idea that works is marked by simplicity, by clarity. You can understand it when you hear it, and you can explain it to people. Social Security: Retired workers receive a public pension to help them through old age. Medicare: People over 65 can receive taxpayer-funded health care. Welfare: If you have no money and cannot support yourself, we will help as you get back on your feet.

These things are clear. I understand them. You understand them. The president's health-care plan is not clear, and I mean that not only in the sense of "he hasn't told us his plan." I mean it in terms of the voodoo phrases, this gobbledygook, this secret language of government that no one understands—"single payer," "public option," "insurance marketplace exchange." No one understands what this stuff means, nobody normal.

And when normal people don't know what the words mean, they don't say to themselves, "I may not understand, but my trusty government surely does, and will treat me and mine with respect." They think, "I can't get what these people are talking about. They must be trying to get one past me. So I'll vote no." " Pull the plug on Obamacare

You know Peggy, you can be called a racist if you disagree with his plans, policies and politics. But words are your business, and you know that isn't the definition.

Worst recession since. . . Carter

But they don't say it that way, do they? Sometimes you hear, twenty-six years, or even "the 1930s." FDR is never blamed for the Great Depression even though it dragged out another 10 years after he took office. Presidents Obama and Reagan both inherited a recession. Reagan's was much worse because he also got inflation in the deal.

"At the end of World War II, from 1945 to 1946, there was a very sharp drop in U.S. output (12.1 percent) as the war economy began its transition to a civilian economy. The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982.

As can be seen in the accompanying chart, both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.

A situation in which the number of jobs available is falling is bad enough, but if inflation is also destroying purchasing power, the misery is compounded. In the 1960s, economist Arthur M. Okun created the Misery Index by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. In the 1976 presidential race, Jimmy Carter frequently attacked President Ford for allowing the Misery Index to reach 13.57, even though it was lower when Mr. Ford left office than what he had inherited from the Nixon years. Ironically, four years later, when President Carter was running against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index reached a record high of 21.98. Mr. Carter had no defense and lost the election. The Misery Index dropped by more than 10 points during the Reagan presidency, the single largest improvement during any president's tenure in the last half-century." Richard W. Rahn, Cato Institute

However, if you are the one unemployed, it's 100% not 10%, and if your retirement funds have been decimated, a 10,000 Dow will take a lot of years to make up what you've lost. And whether or not you voted for the current president, in your heart you know that raising taxes is not the way to grow the economy because it's never worked before. And if you know that, and still support him, then you really don't care that people are suffering.

Hate crimes legislation added to military appropriations bill

Devious. If it's held up, then the Dems can say the opposition was against adequate defense, or against gays. If it's worthy of consideration, why sneak it into an unrelated bill? Why does the politically correct definition of "hate" only cover certain groups? I think we know. Politics and power. Did it look like love when the Chicago teen was beaten to death with a railroad tie? Most blacks are killed and assaulted by blacks; most Mexicans by Mexicans; most Chinese by Chinese; most gays by gays; and most women--by men. Assault and murder are always crimes of the mind.

There is no excuse for violence. It is intolerable in all its forms and for all its reasons. Hate and bigotry are personal perceptions that are bred by ignorance and intolerance but they are not combated by somehow claiming that the murder of one person because you hate their religion, orientation, gender, color, accent or maybe even their politics, is any less heinous than the murder of another person for any other reason. Why should someone who kills a homosexual because of their orientation be punished with any less severity than someone who kills a homosexual for their money? Why should the killer of a married mother of two receive a softer sentence because someone killed her for her car, than someone who killed her because she was a lesbian?

Square pegs into round holes

What's more hateful than killing a born-alive child intended for the abortion slop bucket? But our own President who has promised to sign off on this hate legislation, believes that sort of hate is justified.

Obama labor appointee needs a hearing

Time to e-mail your senator. Here’s an appointment that needs some old fashioned, Obama-promised transparency. Craig Becker, Associate General Counsel to both the Service Employees International Union, the joined at the hip ACORN twin, and the American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations. Obama has appointed him to the 5 member National Labor Relations Board. According to an op ed in today’s WSJ, in a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, written when he was a UCLA professor, Mr. Becker argued for rewriting current union-election rules in favor of labor. And he suggested the NLRB could do this by regulatory fiat, without a vote of Congress. So it’s clear what he plans to do, and why Obama wants him on that board. More power for the executive branch, less for our elected Congress.

Acorn's Ally at the NLRB; Obama appoints an SEIU man with ties to Blago.

Mr. Labor Lobby Becker is very evasive about his role on Obama’s transition team and just which parts of executive orders he researched and authored while still in the employ of SEIU. He also has ties to Blagojevich. His open mindedness on labor issues will be about as wide and deep as Obama’s transparency--zilch, nada, zip.

We, Those People, Need to be Informed

Heritage Foundation assessment of HR 3200

Liberty Counsel assessment of HR 3200

Family Research Council Fellow Ken Blackwell Commentary

Cato Institute Analysis of Massachusetts’ Universal Health Care

God > life > choice > sex

As John C. Rankin explains "Genesis and the Declaration of Independence." If new ideas or challenging concepts fail to take root when the seeds are dropped among the weeds, don't bother to go there. He says Thomas Jefferson was a rationalist, a biblically literate man, and surrounded by biblically literate and orthodox Protestant Christians, who followed exactly the order of Genesis in writing the Declaration of Independence.

God = "Creator;"
life = "Life;"
choice = "Liberty;" and
sex = "the pursuit of happiness."

The Declaration begins with God as our Creator who endows us with unalienable rights. The first right is that of life, followed by liberty, which equals the language of choice or freedom. Then the language of the pursuit of happiness, along with that of "property" as set forth in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, equals the domain of sex.

Human sexuality in the order of creation is based on the joining of man and woman in marriage, whereupon they establish a new household. The Greek word for "household" is oikonomos, our root for the English word "economics" (same concept as the Hebrew word bayith). The household is the basis for property rights and economic productivity, which in total yields society’s power for the pursuit of happiness.

Rankin at his website, The Theological Education Institute (TEI) promotes his "vision for "first the Gospel, then politics..." and a passion for "the love of hard questions" is always in place; where "the biblical nature of a level playing field" for all debated issues to be equally heard is in place, confident that the truth will rise to the top."

In today's charged political climate, he is indeed refreshing.

Bullying, smearing and lying work

ESPN:

"Rush Limbaugh is expected to be dropped from a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams, according to three NFL sources.

Dave Checketts, chairman of the NHL's St. Louis Blues and the point man in the Limbaugh group attempting to buy the Rams, realizes he must remove the controversial conservative radio host from his potential role as a minority member in the group in order to get approval from other NFL owners, the sources said.

Three-quarters of the league's 32 owners would have to approve any sale to Limbaugh and his group. Earlier this week, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay predicted that Limbaugh's potential bid would be met by significant opposition. Several players have also voiced their displeasure with Limbaugh's potential ownership position, and NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith, who is black, urged players to speak out against Limbaugh's bid.

Ultimately, the sources said, Checketts must reconfigure his group and find another investor to make his bid more viable."

I wonder what the political slant is of the other owners.

Failure all around, but great words

Health care. The Obama fiasco. Why, to fix what's wrong, did he want to take over what was working?

"The whole Obama era to date has been wasted in a historic, amateurish botch of the health-care issue. This began as a crusade for social justice — to cover the uninsured, whose numbers were suitably exaggerated, as most of them are people changing jobs from one health-insuring employer to another, or foreigners resident in this country, legally or otherwise, or the indigent, who are eligible for Medicaid." Conrad Black, a fan of FDR which I am not, continues here.

This writer uses magnificent phrases and words that I can't resist parsing:

• the president moved crisply
  
• hackneyed bunk
  
• political capital is evaporating
  
• create an appetite
  
• festooned every bill with pendulous payoffs [my favorite]
  
• a monstrosity of patronage and logrolling
  
• 2/3 of the stimulus is for dispersal closer to elections
  
• unemployment is knocking at the door of 10 percent
  
• [cap and trade] was based on the unproved Al Gore science-fiction vision of the environment
  
• politically hazardous reconciliation process
  
• [proposed tax increases] subject of an indecent amount of dissembling
  
• end America’s long reign as the world’s wealthiest per capita large country
  
• locked arms to over-empower the failed regulators
  
• sat mute as suet puddings [my second favorite]
  
• criminalization of policy differences
  
• neutered by the trial lawyers
  
• suborned by the dead hand of organized labor
  
• legislators are bound hand and foot to different special interests
  
• fable about huge numbers of people building windmills
  
• the world’s love for weak or at least misguidedly diffident American leaders
  
• the world’s most odious and hostile regimes, including those of Putin, Ahmadinejad, Chávez, and the Myanmar colonels
  
• Afghanistan has become a waffle
  
• [Biden] wants to fight the cave-dwelling terrorists of Waziristan from off-shore
  
• the political scientists of Hollywood
  
• [Peggy Noonan] briefly pixilated by Obamamania
  
• more of the same, only worse

"This president has achieved less in his first nine months than any incoming president since Warren Harding. It is not too late, but it looks now like the people will vote again for change, with increasing desperation, next year and in 2012. If the country does not get leadership equal to the scale of its problems, as it did in 1860 and 1932, the decline of America will move from a slope to a fall. This emperor still has no clothes, and it is not racism to notice it."

Did you know 4.0

But turn off the music--it will drive you crazy and you don't need it.

HT Rob Darrow

Obama gets this one next

What do you mean he's not a museum or a library? Does that matter in awards?

Has Anita called yet?

We used to have real enemies like the Soviet Union and al-Qaeda, now it's Fox News. The White House has declared war on opinions and views other than their own. Gibbsy says he's watched many stories on Fox he found "not to be true." I e-mailed him and asked him to be specific, but it bounced. It's transparently clear the WH doesn't wants questions.



There are several parts--you can find them.

Cadillac insurance? Do you have it?

I used to. I worked for Ohio State University, and you just couldn't beat the benefits (salary wasn't great, though). Some I never was able to use (although they were added into my salary deductions). My husband used to say that the reason he went into business for himself was "the wife got tenure, the children left home and the cat died." My job with health benefits saved us a bundle--not on health care, but on insurance. As a partner in his former firm Feinknopf Macioce and Schappa, he was not eligible for the group plan, so his insurance was bought with before-tax dollars before I got on board at OSU--about $6,000 a year 20 years ago.

President Obama promised in September on numerous talk shows and venues that if you loved your health insurance plan nothing would change. Of course, HE LIED, as he has lied about a lot of things (Obama lied; insurance died). The so called "cadillac" option will penalize people who have them, private or job related, by taxing them out of existence. Here are two examples. First the rich guy who is paying $20,000 a year for his insurance out of his own pocket.

"Mitch Stabbe has one of these plans. He's a lawyer in Washington, D.C. Through his firm, he gets a plan that has an annual premium of more than $20,000, which he pays for himself. Stabbe is a partner, and is considered self-employed, so the firm doesn't contribute to his health coverage.

Stabbe says that when he factors in deductibles and co-payments, the family ends up spending close to $30,000 a year on health care. "That's a nice chunk of change," he says. He believes it's worth it, because otherwise the family would have huge medical costs.

Stabbe's 18-year-old son Bryan has Crohn's disease, a chronic illness that attacks the digestive system. Bryan takes a weekly oral medication, and every five to six weeks, gets an infusion of a drug called Remicade. Without insurance, the infusions alone would cost around $40,000 a year."

So maybe he's rich enough to afford the huge tax increase he'll have to pay, but last year, there were a lot of people who thought they were rich. Then the sub-prime melt down; then Bernie Maddof, etc.

Now here's the not so rich family--a secretary and her disabled husband who doesn't work. They have what I used to have--health care through a college.

"Rusty and Deb Lovell live in Concord, N.H. Rusty had to stop working about a year ago and gets Social Security disability payments. Deb earns a little over $30,000 a year as a secretary at a community college.

But her job also comes with something almost as valuable as her salary — employee health coverage from the state of New Hampshire. Deb's share of the premium cost is $60 a month. Yet when combined with what the state contributes, the total premium for her family coverage ranks in the top 4 percent of premiums in the country.

The plan is negotiated by the state employees union, and Deb says the coverage is "so important to us that we have often negotiated for keeping our insurance and foregone raises year after year."

For the Lovells, the benefit has been priceless. Eight years ago, Rusty was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia. . . Last year alone, Rusty's care cost more than $1 million. Because of their generous health insurance plan, the total cost for the Lovells came to $500 in co-payments. " Kaiser Health News

Remember, the basis for Obamacare is communal sharing, rationing of services and treatments, weighting care toward the younger members of the community instead of the elderly, with everybody being equal, and only using proven efficacious treatments. Obviously, it wouldn't be equal if the rich guy got to buy more than the state afforded a secretary, and they obviously aren't going to be able to offer Deb's insurance (top 4%) to everyone, so she'll have to be a good sport and not waste so much of health-care resources. The CBO says the government will be collecting $10 billion in "cadillac" revenue in just one year--that's why he can say it won't add to the deficit (HE LIES!). Remember, the taxes start a number of years before the changes take place, too.

I think there's a lot of college and university employees who are going to be surprised to be hit that that great leveling tax surcharge on their health insurance. A little pocket change left over is all they can hope for.

Blogger product endorsement

Alert the FTC--I'm about to do it again. Yesterday I bought an 8 oz. carton of Philadelphia spinach and artichoke cream cheese spread. Oh. My. Goodness. That's yummy. All gone.

New disclosure form

Medical journals are phasing in a standardized, more detailed disclosure form for their authors and researchers according to David Armstrong in the WSJ. And not just money, but possible personal biases--like religious and political affiliations.

"Editors of some of the world's top medical journals will soon begin to demand more stringent, uniform reporting of conflicts of interest by researchers.

The requirements will go beyond existing disclosure rules at many medical journals to include items such as financial relationships involving spouses, partners or minor children. Also required will be disclosure of nonfinancial conflicts, such as religious and political affiliations. Such disclosures are used in medical journals to alert readers to potential biases in research.

At least a dozen publications have agreed to use a new, standardized disclosure form, which will be phased in over the next several months."

I wonder how that will work? Comparing just the beliefs on abortion or euthanasia among Lutherans, Roman Catholics or Methodists, you’d see no hint that members of these groups agree on even some basics like when life begins or when it ends! Or if life even has value and worth after a certain age or disability, (see the President’s own health care czar, Ezekiel Emanuel). And politics? Is there really much difference between a Graham/Snowe and Reid/Pelosi?

Should an adopted child know the identity of his or her birth mother?

That was the title of a "forum" in the March 13, 1979 Family Circle magazine. Not much controversy about that today--the so-called "open adoption" trend has settled that for many people. Single mothers either abort or keep, depending on personal choice. So what were the points made in the bad old days of the so-called "closed" adoptions (and that's relatively new since many of these laws were put in place in the 1960s, replacing less formal agreements).

Ralph Maxfield, adult adoptee and adoptive parent: "I say absolutely not. Not all reunions follow the scripts for audience-pleasing TV specials. Many end in real-life pain and agony, as I well know. (Favored a medical and genetic information data bank to assist adoptees).

Betty Jean Lifton, journalist, authored "Twice Born; memoirs of an adopted daughter.": "We have the right to know who our birth parents are. To know your origins is a basic human need. Those who belittle this need usually know who their mothers and fathers are. They lack the empathy to understand what it's like to grow up surrounded by secrets, in ignorance of the genetic and social forces that brought you into existence."

Richard Zelinger, Children's Bureau of New Orleans: "An adoptee shouldn't know the identity of the birth parents unless there's a compelling necessity such as a serious medical problem. . . . it could destroy the adoption system. Adoptive parents would become mere custodians or at best foster parents."

Dr. Thomas Harris, author "I'm OK, you're OK.": I lean towards not telling adoptees. . . the seeking discourages them from dealing with their real problems. Many adoptees feel that knowing . . . will solve problems of personal identity and self-esteem."

Dr. William F. Reynolds, professor of psychology, author "The American Father.": "Adopted children have as much interest in their roots as other children. The inability to get accurate answers about his or her origins adds to a dangerous and unhealthy mystery that increases the child's rage and anxiety about having been given up in the first place. It's easier and healthier to deal with the truth than with phantoms. He's not seeking another mother, but his own identify."

My own view is closest to Dr. Reynolds. Except, why call people over 18 "children?" These are adults! Who cares what the reason is--medical or curiosity or genealogical hobby? No one asks me when I write for my birth certificate. Why is there one tiny subset of Americans who are denied the right to have their real birth certificate? Why should the state legislators and social workers of the early 60s still be allowed to control the lives of people 35-50 years old based on whatever pressure groups or academic theories were popular then? I think the Ohio law was passed in 1963 or 1964.

ELCA sexuality report on page 1 of New York Times

Tamar Lewin wrote the article, "Lutherans to decide whether to sanction homosexual unions" which appeared on page A1 and and A13 of the New York Times, a newspaper not known for its religious articles. Of course, that was October 1993; Ms. Lewin reported that the group had been studying the problem for four years, which would take it back to, let's see, 20 years ago, 1989. If you've been following the painful story, where the majority of the members of ELCA was nibbled and sniggled to death by a tiny minority who volunteer for these long battles, you know that the final decision was made this past August.

She also said "The draft statement does not specifically recommend that the church allow homosexual marriage. Instead, it asks the 5.6 million Lutherans, who will be deciding the church's position over the next two years, to consider whether the church should recommend lifelong abstinence for homosexuals, tolerate homosexuality or affirmatively bless unions between people of the same sex . . ." but that it didn't recommend the first choice because that might harm gay and lesbian people and their families. She also said the draft affirmed traditional marriage, which I don't think the later drafts did--not sure they even mentioned male and female, husband and wife.

Lutheran congregations are pulling out and reforming in a variety of organizations--
Word Alone, Lutheran Core and Lutheran Churches in Mission for Christ. Some Lutheran pastors and laypeople caught on very early creating these groups back in the early 90s. Some ALC congregations never joined ELCA back in 1988 merger with LCA and formed a small nationwide synod, and their numbers continue to grow and grow.

So if your church/denomination is going down this road, just get out now. Twenty years of talking, negotiating, compromising, and scripture twisting will get you where ELCA is now, divided and divorcing. The leadership of UALC (Upper Arlington Lutheran Church) has promised we will be leaving ELCA--but, as you can see, these things do take time.

Link to digitized article.

Maybe it's a little guilt about the Sami within their country

Facing mounting criticism for their noble choice: "Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to – I wouldn't say a safer world – but a world with less tension," Jagland said Tuesday."

Norway is a tiny country. It rates very high on all the social-cultural perks--usually at the top which liberals attribute to their confiscatory taxes and socialist government and not their shared gene pool. (I'm guessing if you examined Norwegian-Americans you'd get a similar result without socialsim.) I think they've even taken in a few dispossessed non-blonde, darker skinned people over the last 30 years, like Somalis and Vietnamese. Some have even decided to become members of the family (citizens)--but they were chosen for adoption. Illegal immigration and racial dust-ups aren't much of a problem there--so they can be smug when chosing peace prize winners who speak but don't do, because that's their way too. Unless of course, you look waaaay up north at the Sami culture within Norway's borders, a very ancient, indigenous, nomadic people who were living there centuries before the "Norwegians" and who prefer to ignore man made boundaries and move their herds across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. No, to those people (who have many dialects) they aren't so welcoming. Whether with good intentions or bad, as a result of all the efforts of the four countries in which they live, the Sami culture will soon be reduced to some pretty costumes in cultural museums and special representation in the various parliaments.