Turkey’s candidature for the European Union is maybe the most controversial and consequently well-analyzed of any in the history of the organization. The topics of the debate are familiar: human rights abuses, overly uppermost military, and the impact of Islam on the one hand, contrary to strategic partner, valid candidate, and the advantages of including a Muslim democracy on the other. The interaction among these factors will define Turkey’s progress toward membership over the next several years.
Notwithstanding, in theory the EU defines membership eligibility rested on a set of impartial criteria that do not take diplomatic issues into account. As Turkey has already been accepted as a part of Europe, it should be practicable to evaluate its performance as compared with these criteria and to the status of other EU candidates, past and actual, at major points in the accession process.
The economic aspects of the entry of Turkey to the European Union are of great significance and need special attention. The given paper aims to provide a short overview of Turkey’s economy and to highlight the major problems concerning GDP, agriculture, manufacturing, inflation and currency issues.
Turkey is regarded to have a less middle-income economy. Its per capita is correspondingly small contrasted to the EU. The GDP per capita in conditions of Purchasing Power (PPS) was in 2003 at 28.5% of the EU-25 medium, corresponding to the level of Bulgaria and Romania. Valued in current prices in 2003, the GDP of Turkey was comparable to about 2% of the GDP of EU-25 or just half of the ten Member States.
Turkey is distinguished by large provincial disparities which widely follow a West-East pattern. The richest areas are concentrated in the western part of the country while the poorest ones are at the eastern frontier. The richest province Kocaeli, an essential manufacturing location, has a GDP per capita of more than 90% above the national average (46% of the EU-25 average). At the other edge of the gradation, the poorest regions Agri and Van have only around one third of the national GDP per capita (8% of the EU-25 average).
These profits disparities are displayed in the sectoral structure of the areas. The richer areas have significant shares of production and occupation in manufacturing and assistance whereas in most of the other territories agriculture is the most essential derivation of income and employment.
In the late decades some macroeconomic and commercial crises took place in the country, more recently in 1994, end-1999 and early-2001. They have caused to high volatility in aggregate financial activity and interfered with the overall step of growth. Since 2001, more advances have been made in stabilizing the economy and addressing the main reasons of these crises in the last decades. This is especially visible in the resumed enlargement path and the sharply lessened inflation. Nevertheless, this stabilization process is not yet full and some imbalances, such as the broadening external shortage remain to be amended. Further accomplishment of structural reforms would not only help to escaping stabilization crisis, but also let Turkey to attain or even lift its growth potential.
Even though Turkey’s population is appropriately large, its GDP represents just over 2% of the EU-25 GDP. As a result, the favourable economic impacts of Turkey’s membership in the EU are likely to be disproportional, for instance small for the EU-25 as a whole and much bigger for Turkey. The results on the EU will very much depend on the manner the Turkish economy will be able to manage its arrangement for membership.
The admittance of Turkey would display economic defiance, and implicitly chances to all parties included. Overall, EU Member States’ economies would advance from the admittance of Turkey, albeit only minorly. An advance of growth in Turkey should present a positive influence to EU-25 exports
Turkey would advance considerably from its admittance to the EU. Admittance should boost Turkey’s development basically via enlarged trade, higher contribution due to higher FDI, inflows, and higher productivity development due to a change in the sectoral arrangement of output and the accomplishment of structural renovations in line with the more competitive EU internal market setting.
Agriculture is the basic significance to Turkey, both in social and economic conditions. About half of Turkey’s territory of some 79 million hectares is occupied with agriculture, which is hardly ever in line with the EU 27 average (48%). Turkish admittance would be therefore add about 39 million hectares to the EU’s agricultural territory. This would show 23% of the EU-25 agricultural area. In 2003 roughly one third of the labour force was occupied in agriculture, and in the same year the sector showed 12.2% of GDP.
The climatic and geographical conditions across the country allow a broad sphere of various farming activities, and Turkey is a main world producer of (in no especial order) cereals, cotton, tobacco, fruit and vegetables, nuts, sugar beet and sheep and goat meat. Roughly 50% of Turkey’s agricultural territory is given to arable crops (of which about 20% is fallow land and 20% irrigated), 25% to constant grasslands and pastures and 2.5% to constant crops (Cakmak E.H., 1998). There are important regional contrasts in production patterns.
The farm structure in Turkey demonstrates similarities with several of the new member countries and with Bulgaria and Romania. In relation to the 2001 census there are about 3 million agricultural investments in Turkey (contrasted to almost 13 million in the EU-25), most of which are family farms engaging family labour. This is down from about 4 million investments in 1991. Numbers for the average size of investments propose that investments are small by EU levels (6 hectares on midpoint contrasted to an EU-25 midpoint of 13 hectares). These figures are numbers of investments and medium size is however not in line with the whole territory. The reasons for this discrepancy are not comprehensible, but they may stem from the exclusion of collective or unused land or defects in the statistical terms.
Maintenance and semi-maintenance farming is an essential characteristic of Turkish agriculture, as is the case in certain areas of the current EU and in Bulgaria and Romania. These farms are typically marked by productivity being low and only a small part of production being marketed. They are hard to reach with usual market and price course, but are decisive for the income defense and life of the most of the country population in Turkey. Turkish admittance would add over 80 million supplemental consumers to the EU-25 total of 452 million, nevertheless with a per capita buying potency substantially power than the EU-25 average.
A compared to earlier acceding state Turkey is bigger, more inhabited and poorer. It is also more argued in market terms than most. The competition of its agriculture and agri-food forms is, in general, less on average than in the EU.
A correct assessment as to what degree the existent CAP system could manage with an accession by Turkey and its connection for financial reserves would need a deeper examination, at least as thorough as the one that made in the case of the new Member Countries.
source
The Real Economy
How many times have you seen negative headlines? They are the mantra we hear from the media virtually everyday. "High gas prices are expected to spark inflation and could drive this economy to a halt." "Consumers are doubting economic future." "The sky is falling." That last one was actually from Chicken Little, or Al Gore on the environment, or something like that. Any way, the news isn't good, but the economy keeps on chugging along at excellent levels.
The media may have an incentive for the economy to decline. According to most scholars who monitor journalists, the vast majority of those in media (approximately 80%) describe themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal." That percentage may be higher than the entire delegation to the Democratic National Convention from Massachusetts. If they keep saying it is bad long enough, and we believe it, people might vote their liberal friends to office. Stranger things have happened.
Also, when is the last time people bought a newspaper because of good news? "The Economy is Great" or "Everything is Fine" rarely catches a person's attention. Imagine the little kid with suspenders and cap running through the streets in an old black & white film with a newspaper, yelling "Extra, Extra, prosperity breaks out everywhere!" It should happen, but it rarely actually does, although we seem to celebrate the economy every day in the real world.
Speaking of the real world, the place most journalists don't appear to live in, but where I make a living, I find a very different economy.
I find more optimism about the future than any time in the last twenty years.
I find more employers hiring more employees than I have seen in years.
I am finding a record number of businesses expanding rather than laying people off.
In other words, I find a pretty solid economy. I prefer my economy and it seems more realistic than the one promoted by the media and I hope Americans don't drink the poisoned Kool-Aid the media is handing out. Let the media remain scared in an effort to sell newspapers or even change government. Let's you and I stay in the real world.
The inability of the media to stay in the real world has led to its massive decline. The heavily hierarchical media structure that drove information for decades (from the media down to the consumer) was overtaken by the surprising popularity of talk radio in the 80's and 90s (a forum where real people could express their views) and is being obliterated by the Internet which is now overwhelmingly being driven by the audience rather than the "media elite."
The next time you hear so-called "bad news" about the economy, take a positive step. Consider investing in something new, maybe contemplate the hiring of an employee, or see what you can do to add to this impressive economy noted for record growth. Let the journalists continue to live in their private little world, with its personal agendas, no matter how depressing it may be. But by all means, don't join them. Be real, like the economy.
The media may have an incentive for the economy to decline. According to most scholars who monitor journalists, the vast majority of those in media (approximately 80%) describe themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal." That percentage may be higher than the entire delegation to the Democratic National Convention from Massachusetts. If they keep saying it is bad long enough, and we believe it, people might vote their liberal friends to office. Stranger things have happened.
Also, when is the last time people bought a newspaper because of good news? "The Economy is Great" or "Everything is Fine" rarely catches a person's attention. Imagine the little kid with suspenders and cap running through the streets in an old black & white film with a newspaper, yelling "Extra, Extra, prosperity breaks out everywhere!" It should happen, but it rarely actually does, although we seem to celebrate the economy every day in the real world.
Speaking of the real world, the place most journalists don't appear to live in, but where I make a living, I find a very different economy.
I find more optimism about the future than any time in the last twenty years.
I find more employers hiring more employees than I have seen in years.
I am finding a record number of businesses expanding rather than laying people off.
In other words, I find a pretty solid economy. I prefer my economy and it seems more realistic than the one promoted by the media and I hope Americans don't drink the poisoned Kool-Aid the media is handing out. Let the media remain scared in an effort to sell newspapers or even change government. Let's you and I stay in the real world.
The inability of the media to stay in the real world has led to its massive decline. The heavily hierarchical media structure that drove information for decades (from the media down to the consumer) was overtaken by the surprising popularity of talk radio in the 80's and 90s (a forum where real people could express their views) and is being obliterated by the Internet which is now overwhelmingly being driven by the audience rather than the "media elite."
The next time you hear so-called "bad news" about the economy, take a positive step. Consider investing in something new, maybe contemplate the hiring of an employee, or see what you can do to add to this impressive economy noted for record growth. Let the journalists continue to live in their private little world, with its personal agendas, no matter how depressing it may be. But by all means, don't join them. Be real, like the economy.
Propane Gas Prices
So you thought the fuel in the white container attached to your barbecue grill is some cheap fuel? You were wrong! Propane is a versatile fuel and it does not come cheap. Today there is a rising demand for propane across many sectors, such as residential and commercial, petrochemicals, farming, transportation, and several other industries.
Propane is extracted from natural gas or refinery gas streams, and its prices vary according to the customer, the season and the region. Propane is produced as a by-product in oil refineries and from natural gas plants. Since propane is produced as a by-product, propane demands cannot be adjusted when there is a demand for propane. Propane can also be bought from the international energy market via pipeline or sea tankers. Propane imports account for about 10 percent of the propane used in the US.
There are several factors that effect propane prices. Some factors are common to petroleum products, while others are specifically related to propane. Propane prices are affected by crude and natural gas prices. However, crude oil seems to be a big determiner of propane costs, since propane primarily competes with crude-oil based fuels in the market. As with any other item, propane prices are influenced by the demand-supply balance. The proximity of supply also determines the price of propane, and customers placed farthest from the major supply are likely to pay more.
The markets are also another big determiner of propane prices. Propane serves different markets, from producing petrochemicals to crop drying in farms, each with its own characteristics and needs. Propane prices in these markets are usually influenced by factors such as the prices of competing fuels, the distance propane travels to reach the user, and the volume of use. Residential demand, for example, is dependent on the weather, and so propane prices usually peak during winters. Today the residential and the commercial sector accounts for about 45 percent of all propane used in the US.
The petrochemical industry uses about 38 percent of the propane in the US. Propane is used by the industry to make plastic, cosmetics, alcohol, fibers and other commodities. With a rise in the prices of propane, the petrochemicals industry can easily switch over to other raw materials. Such a wider choice of this industry is a major driver for propane prices. Moreover, even within the petrochemical industry the demand is regional, because of the high concentration of petrochemical plants in the Gulf Coast region.
Propane is extracted from natural gas or refinery gas streams, and its prices vary according to the customer, the season and the region. Propane is produced as a by-product in oil refineries and from natural gas plants. Since propane is produced as a by-product, propane demands cannot be adjusted when there is a demand for propane. Propane can also be bought from the international energy market via pipeline or sea tankers. Propane imports account for about 10 percent of the propane used in the US.
There are several factors that effect propane prices. Some factors are common to petroleum products, while others are specifically related to propane. Propane prices are affected by crude and natural gas prices. However, crude oil seems to be a big determiner of propane costs, since propane primarily competes with crude-oil based fuels in the market. As with any other item, propane prices are influenced by the demand-supply balance. The proximity of supply also determines the price of propane, and customers placed farthest from the major supply are likely to pay more.
The markets are also another big determiner of propane prices. Propane serves different markets, from producing petrochemicals to crop drying in farms, each with its own characteristics and needs. Propane prices in these markets are usually influenced by factors such as the prices of competing fuels, the distance propane travels to reach the user, and the volume of use. Residential demand, for example, is dependent on the weather, and so propane prices usually peak during winters. Today the residential and the commercial sector accounts for about 45 percent of all propane used in the US.
The petrochemical industry uses about 38 percent of the propane in the US. Propane is used by the industry to make plastic, cosmetics, alcohol, fibers and other commodities. With a rise in the prices of propane, the petrochemicals industry can easily switch over to other raw materials. Such a wider choice of this industry is a major driver for propane prices. Moreover, even within the petrochemical industry the demand is regional, because of the high concentration of petrochemical plants in the Gulf Coast region.
And You Think Conservatives Are Intolerant?
Check out this doozie of a story on the hostility raised toward conservatives in a college graduate-level classroom in (you guessed it) Massachusetts. Now I thought it was supposed to be conservatives that squelched free expression and exchange of ideas? I thought it was supposed to be conservatives that acted like the Gestapo?
Care to guess the topic generating all the hypocrisy by the liberals in the classroom? Gay marriage. By the way, this guy's writing is hysterical....
Me vs. World - WillingtonWorld (hat tip: The Corner)
Care to guess the topic generating all the hypocrisy by the liberals in the classroom? Gay marriage. By the way, this guy's writing is hysterical....
Me vs. World - WillingtonWorld (hat tip: The Corner)
Born In Iraq, Raised In America
I just came upon this awesome story. The blogger is a US Army journalist who just got back from serving in Iraq. He wrote the story of a young Iraqi boy who came to America in the 1990s, then decides he has to give something back and signs up to go to war in his former homeland. A must read.
Born In Iraq, Raised In America -- InIraqFor365
http://desert-smink.blogspot.com/2005/02/homeless-vet.html
Born In Iraq, Raised In America -- InIraqFor365
http://desert-smink.blogspot.com/2005/02/homeless-vet.html
More on Barney Frank and Easongate
A week ago today, my post on Barney Frank challenging a ludicrous claim by CNN's Eason Jordan helped generate a lot of attention for this blog. Most of the big conservative blogs Instapundit, Roger Simon, Hugh Hewitt, Little Green Footballs and others linked us.
Well, now it's my turn to tip my hat to a number of great bloggers who have been doing a great job covering this story, including one of my favorites. Dirty Harry links to a Michelle Malkin who contacted Barney Frank about the incident. She writes
Powerline (the only major conservative blog which has not yet linked us) weighs in here, here, here and here, that last post announcing he debut of the blog Easongate.
Hugh, Dirty Harry and Powerline all provide further links to a variety of thoughtful posts on the topic.
Well, now it's my turn to tip my hat to a number of great bloggers who have been doing a great job covering this story, including one of my favorites. Dirty Harry links to a Michelle Malkin who contacted Barney Frank about the incident. She writes
Dirty Harry has more on "Easongate" here, here, here and here, linking to another favorite blogger Roger Simon. Hugh Hewitt is also all over it: here, here, here and here.
I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.
After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.
Rep. Frank has not yet heard back from Jordan.
Powerline (the only major conservative blog which has not yet linked us) weighs in here, here, here and here, that last post announcing he debut of the blog Easongate.
Hugh, Dirty Harry and Powerline all provide further links to a variety of thoughtful posts on the topic.
European & gay activist attitudes toward Republicans--judging without knowledge
In a comment to my post on Chris Matthews keynoting the LCR convention, one critic wrote
Indeed, I know countless gay men and lesbians who have served on committees (and in party offices) in states as diverse as Virginia, California, Nevada, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana and Florida. To be sure, some have received a cold shoulder from social conservative party activists, but other leaders have welcomed them.
In reading that comment, I was reminded yet again how many who criticize the GOP have never attended a GOP gathering -- or even talked to a gay Republican active in the party.
This attitude reminds me of the negative attitude so many Europeans have towards Americans in general and our nation's conservative leaders in particular. Some on the left (especially in the MSM) act as if European opposition to an American president is a new thing, coming with the supposed "unilateral" foreign policy of President George W. Bush. Twenty years ago, "sophisticated" Europeans held similar feelings about our then president. Living in Europe during the late 1980s, I witnessed first hand the narrow-minded opposition to Ronald Reagan among many such Europeans.
When I was Eurailing/backpacking across the continent during the last year of the Gipper's second term, I stayed at the Youth Hostel in Verona, Italy. At dinner one night, I struck up a conversation with the guy sitting next to me. I introduced myself in Italian, but when I recognized his accent, I spoke to him in German. Unable to recognize my accent, he asked where I was from. As soon as he learned that I was American, this German young man began to attack our Ron, ascribing sinister motives to the American people for electing him twice (both times, I might add, with a majority of the popular vote). He assumed that because I was educated, spoke three languages (and a smattering of a fourth), lived in France (which I did at the time) and studied at the Sorbonne that I would have to oppose America's Great Communicator.
Well, for nearly an hour, in good German, I defended the greatest American president of my lifetime. When I noted why people elected him--he appealed to our best hopes offering a positive vision of our nation and what we could accomplish--this German man insisted that I had it wrong. Yep, a German was telling me that I got it wrong about why my fellow citizens twice elected the Gipper -- and why I cast my first vote for president for that great (and good) man.
This man acknowledged that he had never previously talked to an American who had voted for our fortieth president. He had never visited the United States. He hadn't even read American newspapers. But, he "knew" all about my fellow citizens--and our political concerns. He said he was stunned that an American (in near flawless German) could so articulately defend the man he -- and so many of his peers -- reviled.
I don't know if this man changed his attitude toward Americans who supported the Gipper. He never showed up when we were supposed to meet to see a production of "AIDA" at the Arena the following day. But, at least, in talking to me, he confronted an American who challenged his narrow view of our great land -- and its most popular president of the second half of the twentieth century.
Like this European who claimed to know so much about Americans and their political choices, so many gay activists (and their allies on the left) claim to know everything there is to know about Republicans -- and their attitudes toward gays. They hold that the GOP wants to exclude us and attack us. Yes, there are some within the party who were rather we weren't there. And some who are as obsessed with gays as Michael Moore and Barbara Boxer are with President Bush. And yet, when I was more active in the party, I experienced exactly the same thing that my blog-league noted in a post earlier today, "people I've interacted with in the GOP could care less that I'm gay. They care if I'm a productive person, active in the party, and willing to work hard."
It's unfortunate that these negative stereotypes of Republicans persist in certain gay circles---just as negative stereotypes of American conservatives persist in many elite European circles. And just as the reality of Americans differs from European stereotypes, the reality of our party's treatment of individual gays differs from the stereotypes of many gay activists, including some who call themselves Republicans. It's too bad that the nation's largest gay and lesbian Republican organization with a full-time Washington office has not been promoting the inclusive reality of the GOP to the gay community.
Well, this will be one Republican event where you will at least have a seat at the table. . . . Any other Republican events would exclude you from even cleaning the table.These words reminded me of the countless sweeping generalizations about Republican attitudes toward gays I hear (or read on the web) on an almost daily basis. Most gay critics of the GOP assume that the Republican Party excludes gays. And yet, while several state parties (Texas and North Carolina come to mind) have excluded Log Cabin from setting up a booth at their state conventions, I have not yet read (nor heard) of a state party which has prevented individual gay men and lesbians from attending GOP events or serving on state (or local) party committees.
Indeed, I know countless gay men and lesbians who have served on committees (and in party offices) in states as diverse as Virginia, California, Nevada, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana and Florida. To be sure, some have received a cold shoulder from social conservative party activists, but other leaders have welcomed them.
In reading that comment, I was reminded yet again how many who criticize the GOP have never attended a GOP gathering -- or even talked to a gay Republican active in the party.
This attitude reminds me of the negative attitude so many Europeans have towards Americans in general and our nation's conservative leaders in particular. Some on the left (especially in the MSM) act as if European opposition to an American president is a new thing, coming with the supposed "unilateral" foreign policy of President George W. Bush. Twenty years ago, "sophisticated" Europeans held similar feelings about our then president. Living in Europe during the late 1980s, I witnessed first hand the narrow-minded opposition to Ronald Reagan among many such Europeans.
When I was Eurailing/backpacking across the continent during the last year of the Gipper's second term, I stayed at the Youth Hostel in Verona, Italy. At dinner one night, I struck up a conversation with the guy sitting next to me. I introduced myself in Italian, but when I recognized his accent, I spoke to him in German. Unable to recognize my accent, he asked where I was from. As soon as he learned that I was American, this German young man began to attack our Ron, ascribing sinister motives to the American people for electing him twice (both times, I might add, with a majority of the popular vote). He assumed that because I was educated, spoke three languages (and a smattering of a fourth), lived in France (which I did at the time) and studied at the Sorbonne that I would have to oppose America's Great Communicator.
Well, for nearly an hour, in good German, I defended the greatest American president of my lifetime. When I noted why people elected him--he appealed to our best hopes offering a positive vision of our nation and what we could accomplish--this German man insisted that I had it wrong. Yep, a German was telling me that I got it wrong about why my fellow citizens twice elected the Gipper -- and why I cast my first vote for president for that great (and good) man.
This man acknowledged that he had never previously talked to an American who had voted for our fortieth president. He had never visited the United States. He hadn't even read American newspapers. But, he "knew" all about my fellow citizens--and our political concerns. He said he was stunned that an American (in near flawless German) could so articulately defend the man he -- and so many of his peers -- reviled.
I don't know if this man changed his attitude toward Americans who supported the Gipper. He never showed up when we were supposed to meet to see a production of "AIDA" at the Arena the following day. But, at least, in talking to me, he confronted an American who challenged his narrow view of our great land -- and its most popular president of the second half of the twentieth century.
Like this European who claimed to know so much about Americans and their political choices, so many gay activists (and their allies on the left) claim to know everything there is to know about Republicans -- and their attitudes toward gays. They hold that the GOP wants to exclude us and attack us. Yes, there are some within the party who were rather we weren't there. And some who are as obsessed with gays as Michael Moore and Barbara Boxer are with President Bush. And yet, when I was more active in the party, I experienced exactly the same thing that my blog-league noted in a post earlier today, "people I've interacted with in the GOP could care less that I'm gay. They care if I'm a productive person, active in the party, and willing to work hard."
It's unfortunate that these negative stereotypes of Republicans persist in certain gay circles---just as negative stereotypes of American conservatives persist in many elite European circles. And just as the reality of Americans differs from European stereotypes, the reality of our party's treatment of individual gays differs from the stereotypes of many gay activists, including some who call themselves Republicans. It's too bad that the nation's largest gay and lesbian Republican organization with a full-time Washington office has not been promoting the inclusive reality of the GOP to the gay community.
Bush Approval Rating -- 57%
Oh the horrible wails that must becoming from the Senate offices of Edward Kennedy....
Bush shows highest ratings in a year - USA Today (via Polipundit)
Bush shows highest ratings in a year - USA Today (via Polipundit)
Advocate Profile of Bob Kabel
Thanks to Ted (ChargingRhino) for reminding me about this profile on Bob Kabel in the Feb. 15 issue of the Advocate. I had actually planned to do a series of postings about the 2/15 Advocate. Best laid plans...as they say.
From the Kabel profile.... here's a good exchange showing the automatic bias of the Advocate, contrasted with the real life experience of Kabel.
An experience that I share with Kabel, by the way.... I've been treated more hatefully by fellow gays for being Republican than by fellow Republicans for being gay. Frankly, people I've interacted with in the GOP could care less that I'm gay. They care if I'm a productive person, active in the party, and willing to work hard.
From the Kabel profile.... here's a good exchange showing the automatic bias of the Advocate, contrasted with the real life experience of Kabel.
Will other party chiefs work against you?
I don’t anticipate any problem. From decades of experience I can tell you that in the ranks of the hundreds of party leaders all over the country, there is a remarkable openness to understanding the lives of gay people. Gay people have a job to do in educating and reaching out to them. I think a lot of what we saw in 2004 was a result of our failure to do that enough.
An experience that I share with Kabel, by the way.... I've been treated more hatefully by fellow gays for being Republican than by fellow Republicans for being gay. Frankly, people I've interacted with in the GOP could care less that I'm gay. They care if I'm a productive person, active in the party, and willing to work hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)