Conflict of interest

Politicians work hard to project the image that they always strive to fulfill the needs of the people and the community they represent. But is this always so?

There is no doubt room for argument about what effectively represents a community whose views are, lets say, less than uniform. But this is a mere quibble when we look at some of the conflicts of interest they face in fulfilling this image.

The most obvious is that of parliamentarian remuneration,. While there is always a 'misalignment' between the community and its representatives, here at least, there is a credible argument that 'you get what you pay for'. As many have argued that given what we get, we should be paying more.

But it is hard to think of a case where politicians interests are less aligned with the people they represent than with our pollies' travel expense claims. These are a veritable cesspool of iniquity. There are all too many cases where the peoples' representatives seem to only represent themselves. From their profligate travel-style one would think they lived on a different planet, totally out of touch with their constituency.

When brought to our attention, we all rail at the magnitude and mindlessness of such excess. What in the remotest corner of her brain would have concocted the notion that spending $5,000 for a helicopter to travel half an hour to a Liberal fund-raiser was reasonable, let alone acceptable to the people she represents? It is non-sense. It cannot be justified! And we all know it. Lest you think I am being one-sided, consider our recent past PM claiming expenses for her partner's jaunt around Victoria promoting hair-care goods.

There are of course more subtle abuses where an MP will sort of 'tack on' a claimable event to what is in large-part un-claimable. While this is generally accepted by MPs, and a compliant media I add, as 'fair', we, the public, see it as a rort.  It would not be acceptable to our employers so, as employers of these MPs, it is not acceptable to us.

"a total failure of our political class, in the face of a clear conflict of interest, to set proper standards of behaviour"

It does not matter one iota that when caught the MP pays it back. It does not matter that there is a bit of a penalty when a mis-claim has been identified. The public, the people these MPs are meant to represent are outraged. We don't accept such egregious conduct as a simple 'error of judgment' from those we select to represent us.

The lack of scrutiny, the lack of clarity, and the lack of visibility of MPs' expenses is a serious issue. It demonstrates a total failure of our political class, in the face of a clear conflict of interest, to set proper standards of behaviour. No corporate entity would accept an open-ended expense system. Commercial operations clearly define the scope of claims, the means of travel allowed, and set and review budgets. Indeed where expenditure by a company has been seen to benefit an individual it is a 'Fringe benefit' which is taxable.

Expense claims must be Reasonable and Accountable

I guess this is just a rant unless I add a few suggestions. So here goes.

All politician expense claims must be reasonable and accountable.

'Reasonable' simply means a claim must be consistent with accepted norms within commercial and non-commercial enterprises. This is just the 'sniff' test. Many travel claims, by our MPs certainly fail this 'sniff' test. If an MP has some doubt about what is reasonable, they should submit an application for pre-approval (see below).

A suggested set of guidelines for what constitutes 'reasonable' is provided below;

What constitutes 'reasonable' travel claims?

MP will be reimbursed for travel expenses when directly connected with their role as a member of parliament

Actual costs incurred for air or road travel subject to; -

- travel by most direct route

- travel at lowest cost

- travel with approved carrier

- Business class (but not first class)

Actual out of pocket costs with supporting receipts subject to a per day limit of $1000, or $700 per day if claimed on a per diem basis when no receipts are required

Spouse/partner/family can accompany but any additional costs to be paid by MP

Where only a part of a trip is claimable as being a necessary part of MPs role, the reimbursement for carrier costs will be pro-rated for the proportion of travel which is claimable. The out-of-pocket costs will be for those full days which qualify as claimable Any claims which would breach these rules must be submitted and pre-approved in writing

Accountability requires all claims to be managed formally by an independent body and for the public interest they should be visible. If the MP's work on behalf of their constituents then they should 'report ' to their constituency. What better way to shine a light on the excesses than to publish all claims on a website.

A suggested set of rules for accountability are provided below;

How to ensure accountability for travel claims

Expense claim policy to be fully documented and provided to MPs.

All claims must be submitted on the appropriate form together with supporting receipts and be signed by the MP within 30 days of costs being incurred. MPs can submit 'pre-approval' requests for a future claim, if they seek certainty that a claim will not be rejected. Such requests for pre-approval are processed as normal claims and if approved a pre-approval authorisation is provided

All claims to be vetted against the policy by the nominated department (Finance?) and rejections notified to the MP

All approved AND rejected claims,are to be published on a web-site to provide full visibility to the electorate

Its about time!

Unfortunately, like a bad dream the looseness of MP travel expense policy keeps coming back. Indeed past and current PMs seem to rely on our short memories. The media change focus to the next drama and we are easily distracted. Screaming headlines earlier this week have been replaced by the ALP annual conference. The ALP's proposed turn-back of asylum seeker policies drowning out the cacophony of 'helicopter-gate'. So the circus moves on. 

But lets face it. Unless we address the vagaries in the current policies, the next travel rort drama is just around the corner. It is not only about time to address these policies, it is long overdue.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

Interviewing:Boxing or Surgery?

(This is an excerpt from earlier post titled "Raising the standard of public broadcasting" . I have posted it in response to some Twitter interaction.)

Journalistic aggression

With all the encouragement from their supporters, and indeed their colleagues, it is not surprising that many a journalist has taken taken a pugnacious stance against those 'on the other side'. Interviewing is perceived by many a journalist, as a 'blood sport'. Journos and their audience each baying for the 'gotcha moment', seeking that telling bead of sweat on the brow, or even the odd broken glass. These are hailed as measures of success and receive general acclaim from journalists and the twitterati alike. 

Indeed some of these aggressive interviews have become icons of reportage, heralded long after their normal use-by date. Consider the Alberici interview on Lateline with the Hizb ut Tahrir representative, or Sarah Ferguson's interview on ABC 730 report with Joe Hockey on budget night.

Boxing or Surgery?

I have always found this rather distasteful for a couple of reasons. Primarily, our journalists, are the first line of our public discourse, a demonstration of how professionals deal with each other even when they may have differing views. By their large audience our media set the standard for all our behaviour. Aggressive questioning, clearly intended to attack the individual, interrupting them while they are talking, talking over them, or signs of enjoyment of another's discomfort, does not set a good example.  It is not how we want people to treat each other.

And secondly, it is also counter-productive.When a journalist takes an aggressive attitude, the interviewee, usually a politician, will 'clam up'. When they reluctantly appear for battle, they become guarded, mechanical, limiting their discourse and offering less information. Often they will avoid the interviewer altogether. The consequence is we are all the losers.

Journalism, professional journalism, should be about content not about style. The professional journalist should be more surgeon than boxer. With good knowledge of the topic and a quick wit they should be able to cut through the defensive shields of even the most capable politician. 

If a politician refuses to answer a question, that is his prerogative. You can ask a couple of times, but if he doesn't answer he has certainly demonstrated his unwillingness to do so, and he has shown this to the whole viewing audience. If a politician makes long-winded answers and you cannot get your questions in, that is also his prerogative. Again he has demonstrated his unwillingness to converse, in other than sloganese, to the viewing public.

PBS Newshour as the paragon

Whereas 'Gotcha journalism has become fashionable, especially on our public broadcaster, great journalists rarely have had to resort to overt emotions or aggressive questioning. The Frost/Nixon interviews come immediately to mind, but there are many others.

PBS Newshour, televised each day on SBS is the template I wish would be followed by all our Australian news media, and especially our public broadcaster. Its success is founded on the editorial guidelines (see table below) created by Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, the creators of the program.

PBS Newhour Editorial guidelines

(also called MacNeil / Lehrer journalism.)

"Do nothing I cannot defend."

"Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me."

"Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."

"Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am."

"Assume the same about all people on whom I report."

"Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise."

"Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything."

"Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions."

"No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously."

"And finally, I am not in the entertainment business."

Some characteristics stand out; -

• Strong debate on topics of political and general interest
• all journalists top of their game ( regular presenters include Gwen Ifill, Judy Woodruff, Hari Sreenivasan, Margaret Warner, Jeffrey Brown, Paul Solman
• all interviews focused on a topic, interviewers always polite, questions however are sharpened to clearly highlight every aspects of the topic
• most interviews have the journalist as an independent moderator with two interviewees representing each side of the argument

This last point is perhaps the most pertinent and should be used more often in Australia.

SkyNews does do this quite often, but could do more. Our ABC mostly fails to do this. If the ABC went out of its way to ensure both sides of an argument were presented by articulate and knowledgeable advocates, a lot of the criticism of the ABC for bias, would be dissipated.

How do we fare?

How do I rate our Australian networks and shows? Let me stick my neck out. No doubt you will tell me where you disagree.

As far as networks are concerned I think PBS Newshour is Gold, SkyNews is Silver and our own ABC is bronze.

With regard to News debate I believe SkyNews' Sunday Agenda comes closest to the high quality professional interviewing of the PBS Newshour. A straightforward panel discussion with pollies and journos asking questions, sometimes very probing questions, and sufficient time to subvert the 'pollie-waffle' escape.

SBS' Dateline and Four Corners do a creditable job on specific topics, but often strongly advocate for one side of an argument without adequately presenting the alternate view.

These are weekly programs, the dailies don't fare as well. Sky News' PM Agenda, ABC's AM and PM radio prgrams do a creditable job. Sky's PM Agenda goes out of it s way to have two advocates in debate format. ABC's 730 Report and Lateline rarely do this and often take adversarial, and patronising approach in their interviews.

I know I have left many out, but these are my regulars, and prefer not to comment on those I do not follow.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

The 'Industrial Peace' Racket

"Houston we have a problem"

For those too young to remember "Houston we have a problem"* were the first, somewhat understated, words of astronauts in space alerting 'head-office' when some malfunction was identified. Those of us of the right maturity have these indelibly forged into our psyche as heralding a potentially serious problem.

Indeed I believe we have a problem.

Watching and listening to the media circus over the last week, one is left with varying views of Bill Shorten's appearance at the Trade Union Royal Commission (TURC).

He was caught with "multiple smoking guns",  and "should resign", or that the whole TURC is a Liberal, or more accurately, "Tony Abbot witch hunt" and labour leaders are being "victimised". Indeed many a shrill defender of Shorten's honour has gone out of his way to get some sort of hot quote about the wonderful Unions and the hateful Tony Abbott.

I guess this is the norm for today's media frenzies, but what can we poor mugs take away from this. 

Firstly, whether the intentions of the LNP, or Tony Abbott, if you prefer, in establishing the TURC was political, is irrelevant, as its success will ultimately be judged only when it has run its course. Those criticising so volubly today seem to have other motivations themselves.

Further, the late declaration of a political donation, as noted by many is not uncommon. The focus on this aspect of his testimony by many journos and Labour defenders is simply to deflect from Shorten's failures. 

But it was not a political donation at all. More likely it was some sort of 'fringe benefit' as a by-product of an EBA deal. This of course presents the real problem. 

"The AWU has been seen as a moderate Union which has worked in harmony with business for the betterment of both workers and employers". So its supporters would say. But, if the AWU, as a matter of course, accepted payments from companies as part of an EBA negotiation then we have a problem.

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

We are all familiar with extortion or protection rackets, often associated with the Mafia, whereby henchmen would demand property owners pay to ensure their premises were protected from thugs. If payment was not made their property was vandalised or burnt down and perhaps the owners would be bashed for good measure, by the very same thugs demanding money. It only took a few brave souls to decline these 'protection services' and receive their punishment to ensure others would fall in line and make their regular payments.

Do you notice any similarity with the apparent modus operandum of the AWU in their negotiation of EBA's with employers?

As per Shorten's testimony, the AWU negotiates, a perhaps unstated but implied, 'industrial peace' in return for benefits, not only for the workers but for a financial return to the Union itself!

This payment to the Union is in effect a benefit to the Union bosses who use these funds either for advancing their Union as it competes for members against other Unions, or for, let's call it 'private purposes'. Such as those derived, for example by the likes of Williamson, Thompson, Jackson and let me include Shorten.

If the employer fails to comply, there is an implied 'menace' of a strike or a boycott or in the case of some of the more thuggish unions, sabotage and well.. thuggery.

In the same way as the property owners faced with extortion learnt to pay, employers faced with the threat of labour strife have learnt to pay. It is easier.

A Union should never accept employer payments

There is a legitimate role for Unions in working on behalf of their members to improve working conditions. But when a Union accepts any payment directly from an employer in any form it is not just a 'conflict of interest', it is a crime. It is akin to 'demanding money with menaces', it is eliciting a 'bribe', it is 'extortion'.

Where is the media?

I am surprised that almost all media has avoided calling the Union's role in accepting direct payment from employers a crime.

Houston this is the problem: Not only do we have rampant extortion in operation within our industrial relations system, but our media seem to find it acceptable!

* I have been advised I misquoted - see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Houston,_we_have_a_problem. 


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

ABC, A Biased Commentator

In days of Yore all was well

I have been a viewer and listener of our ABC for more decades than I care to remember. My earliest recollections are of an organisation with a quiet, professional and detached tone. It had universal admiration from those, admittedly relatively small proportion of the population, who viewed and listened. I too was an advocate, and would readily defend its critics.

The general criticism at the time was that it was not for everyone. That it catered for only a small proportion of Australians, that its audience reach was inadequate for the cost and so on. Despite these criticisms it was held in high regard as a professional broadcasting organisation. While politicians would on occasions attack some aspect of a report that was not in their favour, Australians of all political persuasions accepted the ABC provided a balanced view on political subjects. It earned the accolade 'Auntie', as if reflecting the wise counsel of a near relative.

Times have changed

Alas, those days seem so long ago. Sometime over the past decade, or two, this respect for 'Auntie', as an unbiased presenter and commentator, has been sadly tarnished. For many longer term viewers it is all too apparent that the organisation has not maintained its own professional code for unbiased reporting.

Journalists as a group are already left-leaning, but the current 'crop' employed by the ABC are even more so. As a consequence there is a left-of-centre bias evident in many of its political programs and even the News. Sometimes it is overt, but more often it is nuanced. It can be simply selecting stories which present only the Leftist view of an argument, or displaying personal bias by an aggressive tone or  disdainful expression.There are many many examples, that I could cite. Just consider the relatively recent decision to air a series of interviews with Keating and failing to do the same for Albrechtsen's "John Howard Defined" even when the latter was offered to the ABC. How can you justify one and not the other?

Not suprisingly, in recent years there have been many accusations of bias leveled at the ABC. Here are just a few -

SMH - "Sarah Ferguson breached ABC bias guidelines"
IPA - "Independent report reveals ABC biased against fossil fuels"
JoNova - "Three times as many Australians think the ABC has a pro-Labor bias"

The ABC counters these with its 'complaints statistics', indicating that it receives about the same number of complaints that it is too 'right-leaning' as 'left-leaning'. However with the advent of Sky News pay TV channels, with its 'right-leaning' political and news broadcasts, the ABC's right-leaning audience has switched channels, leaving the remaining 10% of Australians who still watch the ABC generally left-of-centre. So its complaints statistics only speak for its left-of centre audience, and its use as a defence against bias is fallacious.

What can the ABC board do to counter bias?

Despite a professional code of ethics that mandates balanced reporting, our public broadcaster, our ABC, does not have one 'right-of-centre', 'conservative', host in any of its many political and news programs.

How can this encourage open debate of left-right politics? How can this represent a society that, by its vote in elections, is roughly equally divided between a left and right-leaning electorate?

It cannot and ABC's management and its board of directors, is failing in its duty to Australian society. It is also failing its duty as professional journalists to give fair and equal voice to all points of view and to allow arguments to stand on their merits.

I call on the ABC board to take the first step. Appoint a right leaning host to a political program. There are many who would do an admirable job; Janet Albrechtsen, Paul Murray, Chris Kenny, Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson, to name a few regulars from SkyNews.

You are not serving Australia by failing to appoint journalists who would provide balance to the organisation. Come on, what would you lose?


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

How to stop radicalisation?

Over the past year the world has been confronted with outrageous acts of violence against innocents in the the name of Islam. Whether in Iraq and Syria by ISIL, or by Boko Haram in Africa or by so called 'lone wolf ' adherents in Paris or Toronto or Sydney.

With the capture of Ramadi highlighting recent setbacks in our war against ISIL, and the magentic influence of the 'death-cult' on misguided youth in the west, we are once again trying to understand the causes , the mindset , the process of radicalization and how to combat it.

There is no shortage of words on the subject. So you don't need too much from me. But I won't let that won't stop me , and who knows where another insight may lead.

The Jihadist strategy

What is it that motivates the instigators of these crimes? No, I don't mean the perpetrators, I think we should focus on the instigators. Those who provide the underlying 'philosophy', the rationale behind the attacks, and what they aim to achieve.
I am not sure if this strategy was actually contrived, or more likely gradually evolved, but its modus operandi can be broken into three elements;

• A well defined objective
• An underlying philosophy to provide the moral justification
• A process for action and draw adherents

The Objective 
The ultimate aim seems to be to regain the power enjoyed by Islam in the glorious past, the golden age of Islam during the Middle Ages when caliphates ruled much of the world.

The Underlying Philosophy
Islamic extremism, which for clarity I would like to call 'Jihadism', is based on the Wahhabist interpretation of the Koran. This 'radical' interpretation is used as a tool to provide cohesion to the adherents. It is far easier to control a large disparate group if you have an underlying philosophy and what better than a deep-seated belief system based on religion. Religion has often been used to control large groups very successfully.
It helps that this interpretation is fundamentalist in form. It hearkens back to the origins of Islam, when Mohammed himself spread the word by the sword. This literal interpretation is familiar to all Muslims. In the same way that modern day Christians do not follow a literal interpretation of the gospel, most modern day Muslims reject the literal interpretation of the Koran. However a significant minority even in the secular West will find it compelling.

The Process
The means by which the above elements combine to create the seemingly unstoppable growth of Jihadism is a complex process. I realise that the following components fo this process will require refinement given further input. Nevertheless I think it is worthwhile to note these as a starting point.

1. Spread the word - Teach the radical interpretation of Islam as far and wide as possible, from Madrassas and Mosques.
2. Recruit - Target and enlist, the weak-minded, uneducated, disfranchised, rebellious, envious, angry, frustrated youth, wherever they are in the world. Use social media to raise awareness of successes. Promote a culture requiring adherents to sacrifice to the common cause and recognise 'martyrs' as heroes of the Jihad,'struggle' .
3. Provide the means and weapons for violent acts against the identified enemies of Islam, America, Israel, Jews, infidel, crusaders, Kaffir.
4. Execute the plans - whether singly or in groups. Every event that occurs is amplified by the press, and used to show that the sacrifice of a 'martyr' has yielded success. Success in these terms is simply gaining the attention of the world. Power is the motive and it is gained as soon as an act occurs, irrespective of the target or irrespective of the success.
5. Exploit the reaction of the West to these attacks to enlist those who may have been on the fringes. This is made easier when extremist elements make unwarranted attacks on innocent Muslims. 
6. Escalate -
1. Phase 1.Start with sporadic terror attacks by random groups. This is happening in the west, Thailand, Philipiines, Russia 
2. Phase 2. When the numbers warrant, terror groups join up to create a rebel army which fights a guerrilla war to undermine the current governments. This is happening in Nigeria, soon Cameroon,Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
3. In phase 3, as the strength of the fighting force is sufficient to take control of a region declare it a caliphate. This is what has happened in Iraq/Syria where we have the first such Jihadist so called state ISIL. 

This process has yielded an ever increasing army of Jihadistss carrying out their evil mission around the world.

The vicious cycle ; Reaction creates recruits

There is little doubt that this strategy has been working. It is hard to deny the unrelenting increase in Jihadism over the past 3 decades.

There are a number of potential reasons for this rise.

Increasing world affluence and ease of travel has opened up rapid migration both legal and illegal, across the globe. This has spread Islamic culture to many countries, where the struggle for survival and success leaves areas of poverty and discrimination. Such enclaves are fertile grounds for radicalization.

In many predominantly Muslim countries Jihadist insurgencies break down law and order, causing mass displacement, refugees, poverty. These are again ideal grounds for radicalization of unemployed, disenchanted youth.

While these and other demographic causes no doubt contribute to the rise, it is apparent that the reaction to counter acts of terror is also exploited to generate more recruits.

This vicious cycle seems to operate for any of the common reactions to a terror attack; Mass media attention, Increased police presence, and discrimination against Muslims.

Mass media attention, irrespective of how negative it may be towards them, empowers Jihadists, and provides a justification for 'fringe' Jihadists to take up the cause. Most often the perpetrator's name and photo, indeed his whole life become the focus of public discourse. He has gained notoriety. This is attractive to many, who for diverse reasons, feel estranged from their communities and question their significance in the world.

Increased police presence and counter terrorism actions provide further evidence of the 'power' of the Jihadist to influence state affairs. In the same way as mass media attention this is a positive effect for those fringe Jihadists who have identified with the sense of belonging offered by the recruiters.

Discriminating against all Muslims, though strongly discouraged by the vast majority of leaders, is an inevitable reaction to terrorism that is stated clearly to be in Islam's name. The reactions of Muslims to unfair discrimination is mostly benign , but borderline radicals can be tipped over the edge.

It seems that the most common and sensible reactions to acts of terror by Jihadists can be used by recruiters to create more Jihadists.

What we can do?

The response in Western states has varied from strong policing and law enforcement, including the enactment of terror laws, to attempts at analysis and in particular 'self -analysis'. What makes the terrorist and what is wrong with our society that a 'normal', 'average' teenager or fellow countryman would turn jihadist?
This is also reflected in the population with some suggesting 'I will ride with you' and others declaring a verbal war on all Muslims.

Law enforcement has been very successful. With an extensive intelligence network to track jihadists a great majority of terror plots have been discovered before they were executed. This however has not stopped the occasional terror plot succeeding, nor has it stopped the growth in recruitment to terror. Indeed the recent case of ISIL, where large numbers of jihadists have 'broken cover' and joined the fight in Syria and Iraq. For many, ISIL has become a turning point as it presents the re-birth of the caliphate, long promised and now 'achieved'.

Given our current efforts are failing, we do need to look afresh, and see if we can break the Jihadist cycle that threatens our Western civilization.

I don't pretend I have a solution, just some observations on what our society can do to fight this insidious evil.

• Always protect Western values; freedom of speech, rights of individuals, respect for the law, respect for each other. This includes vigorously enforcing the law especially when it relates to these values
• Always distinguish between Islam and violent Islam and ideally consistently call it 'Jihadism'. We respect freedom of religion as long as it does not promote Jihadism. 
• Call out the instigators, perpetrators and supporters of violence as Jihadists. This includes criticizing religious or other leaders who equivocate about terrorist violence. There is NO justification for violence against innocents NO matter the circumstances.
• Strengthen and enforce hate speech laws sufficiently to ensure recruitment to Jihad is effectively banned. Enforce the laws against hate speech, even if it occurs in a place of worship. (If required law enforcement should record all sermons by Imams and rabbis and Priests). 
• Strengthen and enforce immigration laws to prevent non-citizen advocates of Jihadism to enter or re-enter the country. Strip citizenship from dual-citizen Jihadists deport them or do not allow them to re-enter the country. If they have decided to join the other side during a conflict that is their choice, but by doing so they have given up the privilege to be citizens. Jihadists who have only Australian citizenship should be charged and face the consequences within Australia.
• Encourage moderate Muslims to speak out and give them a voice in the media. Break down animosity against Muslims with cross cultural events. Perhaps a 'Muslims against Jihad' rally or just 'Australians against Jihadism' march in which moderate Muslims can stand, united with the rest of our society against extremism.

Doing nothing is not an option

An open society always considers and considers and considers. Looking for reasons and self analyzing instead of acting. However the threat we face today will not wait. Jihadism is at our doorsteps and doing nothing is not an option. Moreover despite our best efforts to date, it is growing. So we need to manage our instinctive responses, clearly explain our revised policies and then enforce them rigorously. Clarity of purpose is often the weakness that sabotages what would otherwise be a successful policy.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved