Heard any good jokes lately? This headline was making the internet rounds yesterday:
"Sen. Conrad: Extend All Tax Cuts; Time to Get 'Serious' About Deficit."
It's easy to see the humor in that. It's almost like saying you're serious about saving money but don't want to put any more pennies into the piggy bank. But here's what isn't so funny: Most reporters and politicians agree that Kent Conrad is "serious."
So-called "deficit hawks" like Conrad, Erskine Bowles, and Alan Simpson aren't just unserious. They're radicals. Their positions are an extreme departure from the philosophy of government that's guided American policy for a century. They're promoting an upward redistribution of wealth that would change the shape of our society forever. They're want to weaken a social contract that's existed since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and dismantle the economic principles we've had since Teddy Roosevelt.
You can call it a joke if you want. But, to paraphrase Elvis Costello, it's got "a punchline you can feel."
Roger Hickey and I pointed out on Wednesday that most Americans (including most Republicans) oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits. They want the payroll tax cap lifted instead, which is a fiscally sound approach. But the Republican leadership would rather cut benefits than inconvenience the wealthy, and Democrats like Conrad agree. So the "serious" position in Washington is to split the difference between them.
What happens if you recommend the solution that most people (including most Republicans) want? People say you're an "extremist." No, seriously. And nothing you can do will change that. You can point out that Social Security is self funded and they'll roll their eyes. You can have the most qualified actuary in the nation prove that your solution works, and they'll never even acknowledge that your solution exists. (Peter Orszag and Alice Rivlin have both practiced this form of rebuttal by non-acknowledgement -- which seems to be the public policy equivalent of an Amish shunning.)
If all that makes you a little exasperated, they'll observe that you're not just an extremist, you're a shrill extremist. Which, of course, proves you're not "serious."
Consider this snippet of media repartee, captured by the always-serious Digby, about the Bowles/Simpson "deficit reduction" proposal:
JIM LEHRER: Well, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, said, this is -- just right off the top, is unacceptable, right?
LORI MONTGOMERY (Washington Post): Simply unacceptable, that's exactly what she said.
There's an interesting dynamic developing ... Many of the members, except for the most liberal members, the champions of Social Security, are very reluctant to outright criticize this thing ...
They're calling it a serious effort, something that they have to respect ... It's like, you know: This is a serious plan .. these very extreme reactions are coming from the far end of the party, of each party. I think that there is a middle ground that is going to try to massage this thing, and -- and could bring this whole debate back to life...
In this clip a prominent journalist is saying that it's "serious" to solve the deficit problem by cutting a program that doesn't contribute to the deficit. She's lauding "serious" people for finding the "middle ground" -- between what the public doesn't want and what it really, really doesn't want. And she's marginalizing anyone who thinks otherwise as "extreme," "liberal", and from the "far end" of the party. (Remember: Most Republicans polled don't like this idea either.).
Then there's Jon Cowan of Third Way, who writes: "It's now time to put up or shut up, in short to lead or leave. This (the Erskine/Bowles proposal) is the first real leadership test for both parties in a divided capitol: will they embrace the Fiscal Commission recommendations, or cop out and pick the plan apart?"
Leaving aside the misstatement of fact -- the Bowles/Simpson proposal doesn't come from the "Fiscal Commission," a group that would never endorse such extreme positions -- let's consider the nature of this "leadership test." As the perpetually unserious Paul Krugman observes, this proposal "represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans." This drain on middle-class income to benefit the wealthy is the through-line that links Bowles and Simpson to Conrad and the other so-called "deficit hawks." Jon Cowan's position is that this upward redistribution of wealth doesn't even warrant public debate, and that politicians who submit to it without protest have passed a "leadership test."
Now, as it happens I've met Jon Cowan. He's a very nice, very bright guy. But this is another example of the unserious nature of "serious" thinking in Washington. Pols must "put up or shut up" -- but it's not the public who decides what gets "put up." And if you speak up for what most people (including most Republicans) want, that's a "cop out." You're "picking the plan apart." C'mon now: Do you want to be a leader or a decision-dodging nitpicker?
I'm gonna have to go with "nitpicker." If that's the new term for representing the people's wishes and acting in their best interests, I'd say we need a lot more nitpickers in Washington.
None of this is really "serious." It's play-acting, dress-up. It's like wearing daddy's overlarge clothes and repeating how-mommy-talks-in-the-office words that sound important, even though you don't know what they mean. We're talking tough, we're making the hard decisions, we're rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. Except we're not doing any of those things. This radical position is becoming the new Washington consensus. Going along with the crowd is easy, comfortable, and convenient.
The problem isn't Lori Montgomery or Jon Cowan. They're probably driven by the best of motives: the desire to work together, to collaborate, to go beyond rigid ideological boundaries to solve problems. But collaboration and bipartisanship are means, not ends. They're ways of getting things done, not the things themselves. When a culture prizes the method more it does the results, it's gone astray.
The "unserious" truth is this: Simpson and Bowles, like Conrad, would accelerate an upward restribution of wealth that's already rolling ahead like a freight train. They'd pay for it by taking money out of the pockets of soldiers, lower- and middle-income college students, and the elderly. That's a debate we need to have, and it's not a "leadership test" to run from it.
So, you want to hear an old joke? A drunk goes into a restaurant and orders a cup of coffee and a bun. The waiter says "I'm sorry, sir, we're all out of buns." The drunk thinks for a second and says, "Okay, I'll have a cup of tea and a bun." The waiter says "Sorry, we're out of buns." The drunk says "Fine, I'll have a glass of orange juice and a bun." After a few more exchanges like this the waiter loses his temper: "How many times do I have to tell you we're out of buns? No buns! No buns! No buns!"
The drunk says "Jeez, pal, if you're going to get so upset I'll just have the bun."
These so-called "deficit hawks" are the drunk, the public is the waiter, and the "bun" is any policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of middle- and lower-income people. No matter how many times voters say that's not on the menu, they're going to keep ordering it. And they may very well get it.
But seriously, folks.
______________________________________
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
As a member of a class of French aristocrats that most Americans would mistake for characters in a faintly Francophobic Monty Python sketch, Christine de Védrines should be forgiven for making unusual choices. An anxious heiress to a centuries-old fortune, she, along with much of her immediate and extended family, entrusted their fortunes and fates to a charismatic gentleman with a penchant for conspiracy theories. The result? For Christine, routine, cultish beatings; for the others, brainwashing, isolation and bankruptcy. It's an uncomfortably fascinating story; vivid and salacious to the point of doubt, and so incredibly specific that it can barely be considered cautionary.
Barely. Somewhere in or around Washington, D.C, a teenager, similarly anxious and also (allegedly!) destined for immense wealth, has been appealing for help with his millions on the Internet. He too is drawn to a charismatic leader with deeply sociopathic tendencies.
On Reddit recently, he asked this:
"What would you do with one billion USD or even several hundred million? I need your help reddit!!"
Then, as if to excuse himself, "I'm 19."
The anonymous heir's story goes something like this: He's a precocious teen who dropped out of college in a fit of entrepreneurship. He has never needed to worry about money, though his family's only conspicuous Rich People habit is apparently constant travel. Soon, though, his life will change. He stands to inherit up to a billion dollars from his grandfather, an Indian infrastructure magnate.
His first order of business after grasping his looming reality? To consult with Reddit, the often fascinating, occasionally disappointing and aggressively nerdy nerve center of the internet. True to form, the users' first responses were jokes:
• "Bring back Firefly….. " (responses include "This guy is our only hope" and "Ctrl-F firefly, upvote.")
• "Two chicks at the same time."
• "So I need to send you my contact information so you can move it out of the country?" (Which elicited the worrying response from the heir, "why move it out?")
When they're not joking around, though, Reddit users have been known to lapse into state of extreme earnestness. A few posters offered surprisingly thorough screeds for and against the concept of charity, and one allegedly similarly endowed user even posted some first-hand advice:
Dude, first off, beware beware BEWARE. Be extremely wary. To put it bluntly, you come across as idealistic and naive. These are not objectively bad qualities to possess, but they absolutely can be if they result in you putting trust in people who do not deserve it. If you do end up possessing such an enormous amount of money, a certain number of people you meet will be looking to take advantage of you, and these people will almost certainly be much more adept than you in financial and legal matters. Please please please do both me and yourself a favor and watch out.
That so many of Reddit's users took the original poster's request seriously and responded with well-intentioned, if not always practical, suggestions is nearly as surprising as the poster's decision to turn to Reddit in the first place. So we are all money managers now, I think?
I reached out to the original poster, who didn't want to be identified and cut our correspondence short. ("I would like to remain anon," he wrote, followed by silence. So: no confirming his story.) No matter—he left a trail of largely convincing and occasionally bizarre responses in his own thread. They paint a queasy portrait. But it's a familiar portrait! Let's call it "Young Money: A Study in Self Awareness." (It's a watercolor.)
On being a self-made man:
"I am currently, trying to build myself on my own. Doing good so far. I am a Young Entrepreneur, have received funding for a start up on my own through my current network. I originally thought that people would judge me by my age and not take me seriously but I was wrong, and I am glad."
On travel:
"USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Spain, France, Germany, UK, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, South Africa, Taiwan, China, Italy, India, Japan, Egypt, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, if I remember any more I'll let you know."
On philanthropy:
"Actually, I was thinking of putting some money to actually make an ad that if you click, you do in fact get the product it says you will get for free. But you will have to be lucky to get to the ad. I hate all of the internet ads that say, click here to get a free ipod, when I know I never will…."
On bootstraps:
"I was a Dishwasher for a year!"
On priorities:
"my parents believe in me. None of us care about money. Neither do I."
On modesty:
"I have fun doing business. Hence, I dropped out of college, and on my own got a job as Head of Enterprise Business development and built a network on my own that includes the CIO of NASA, CTO of Lockheed Martin, various venture capitalists and other executives."
On hopes:
"My ultimate goal is to help me people make their good ideas into a reality."
On requests for startup cash:
"will reach back out to you."
And finally, on trust:
"Wow!!! I met this guy at an airport from Nigeria. He asked me to do business with him and wanted money. And I looked his name up on google and scam is what pops up first!"
Oh dear.
He seems like a nice guy with pure intentions. He also seems (suspiciously?) like a composite character, created by someone who's had more than a few brushes with young wealth: He's assured, naive, and articulates his insecurities about personal success as matter-of-fact fits of heavily caveated boasting. But again, he seems like a well-meaning guy, and his postings suggest that he is less concerned about doing the COOLEST STUFF EVER than he is about determining what duties will come with his new wealth, and how to fulfill them.
We'll probably never know if he follows Reddit's best or worst advice, or if he just goes through with his own stated plans, or if, you know, he's real. But he's off to a bad start. He hasn't acted on the only piece of indisputably good advice in the entire, thousand comment thread:
"To have already advertised yourself on the internet like this is opening yourself up to trouble. If I were you, the first thing I would do would be to delete this post."
John Herrman writes about tech for Gizmodo, SmartPlanet, PopMech and anywhere else that will have him. He spends slightly less time on Reddit than the above suggests.
bench craft company reviewsThis is also exciting news, as TrueType fonts are superior to SVG fonts in two very important ways: the files sizes are dramatically smaller (an especially important factor on mobile devices), and the rendering quality is much higher. ...
Sun TV News has been green-lit by the CRTC after a long war with the regulator and critics who are opposed to the 24-7 news-and-opinion channel nicknamed “Fox News North.” The CRTC had previously refused to grant the Quebecor property a ...
Return to OregonLive later today for more from The Oregonian on the terrorist arrest.
bench craft company reviewsThis is also exciting news, as TrueType fonts are superior to SVG fonts in two very important ways: the files sizes are dramatically smaller (an especially important factor on mobile devices), and the rendering quality is much higher. ...
Sun TV News has been green-lit by the CRTC after a long war with the regulator and critics who are opposed to the 24-7 news-and-opinion channel nicknamed “Fox News North.” The CRTC had previously refused to grant the Quebecor property a ...
Return to OregonLive later today for more from The Oregonian on the terrorist arrest.
bench craft company reviews Heard any good jokes lately? This headline was making the internet rounds yesterday:
"Sen. Conrad: Extend All Tax Cuts; Time to Get 'Serious' About Deficit."
It's easy to see the humor in that. It's almost like saying you're serious about saving money but don't want to put any more pennies into the piggy bank. But here's what isn't so funny: Most reporters and politicians agree that Kent Conrad is "serious."
So-called "deficit hawks" like Conrad, Erskine Bowles, and Alan Simpson aren't just unserious. They're radicals. Their positions are an extreme departure from the philosophy of government that's guided American policy for a century. They're promoting an upward redistribution of wealth that would change the shape of our society forever. They're want to weaken a social contract that's existed since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and dismantle the economic principles we've had since Teddy Roosevelt.
You can call it a joke if you want. But, to paraphrase Elvis Costello, it's got "a punchline you can feel."
Roger Hickey and I pointed out on Wednesday that most Americans (including most Republicans) oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits. They want the payroll tax cap lifted instead, which is a fiscally sound approach. But the Republican leadership would rather cut benefits than inconvenience the wealthy, and Democrats like Conrad agree. So the "serious" position in Washington is to split the difference between them.
What happens if you recommend the solution that most people (including most Republicans) want? People say you're an "extremist." No, seriously. And nothing you can do will change that. You can point out that Social Security is self funded and they'll roll their eyes. You can have the most qualified actuary in the nation prove that your solution works, and they'll never even acknowledge that your solution exists. (Peter Orszag and Alice Rivlin have both practiced this form of rebuttal by non-acknowledgement -- which seems to be the public policy equivalent of an Amish shunning.)
If all that makes you a little exasperated, they'll observe that you're not just an extremist, you're a shrill extremist. Which, of course, proves you're not "serious."
Consider this snippet of media repartee, captured by the always-serious Digby, about the Bowles/Simpson "deficit reduction" proposal:
JIM LEHRER: Well, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, said, this is -- just right off the top, is unacceptable, right?
LORI MONTGOMERY (Washington Post): Simply unacceptable, that's exactly what she said.
There's an interesting dynamic developing ... Many of the members, except for the most liberal members, the champions of Social Security, are very reluctant to outright criticize this thing ...
They're calling it a serious effort, something that they have to respect ... It's like, you know: This is a serious plan .. these very extreme reactions are coming from the far end of the party, of each party. I think that there is a middle ground that is going to try to massage this thing, and -- and could bring this whole debate back to life...
In this clip a prominent journalist is saying that it's "serious" to solve the deficit problem by cutting a program that doesn't contribute to the deficit. She's lauding "serious" people for finding the "middle ground" -- between what the public doesn't want and what it really, really doesn't want. And she's marginalizing anyone who thinks otherwise as "extreme," "liberal", and from the "far end" of the party. (Remember: Most Republicans polled don't like this idea either.).
Then there's Jon Cowan of Third Way, who writes: "It's now time to put up or shut up, in short to lead or leave. This (the Erskine/Bowles proposal) is the first real leadership test for both parties in a divided capitol: will they embrace the Fiscal Commission recommendations, or cop out and pick the plan apart?"
Leaving aside the misstatement of fact -- the Bowles/Simpson proposal doesn't come from the "Fiscal Commission," a group that would never endorse such extreme positions -- let's consider the nature of this "leadership test." As the perpetually unserious Paul Krugman observes, this proposal "represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans." This drain on middle-class income to benefit the wealthy is the through-line that links Bowles and Simpson to Conrad and the other so-called "deficit hawks." Jon Cowan's position is that this upward redistribution of wealth doesn't even warrant public debate, and that politicians who submit to it without protest have passed a "leadership test."
Now, as it happens I've met Jon Cowan. He's a very nice, very bright guy. But this is another example of the unserious nature of "serious" thinking in Washington. Pols must "put up or shut up" -- but it's not the public who decides what gets "put up." And if you speak up for what most people (including most Republicans) want, that's a "cop out." You're "picking the plan apart." C'mon now: Do you want to be a leader or a decision-dodging nitpicker?
I'm gonna have to go with "nitpicker." If that's the new term for representing the people's wishes and acting in their best interests, I'd say we need a lot more nitpickers in Washington.
None of this is really "serious." It's play-acting, dress-up. It's like wearing daddy's overlarge clothes and repeating how-mommy-talks-in-the-office words that sound important, even though you don't know what they mean. We're talking tough, we're making the hard decisions, we're rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. Except we're not doing any of those things. This radical position is becoming the new Washington consensus. Going along with the crowd is easy, comfortable, and convenient.
The problem isn't Lori Montgomery or Jon Cowan. They're probably driven by the best of motives: the desire to work together, to collaborate, to go beyond rigid ideological boundaries to solve problems. But collaboration and bipartisanship are means, not ends. They're ways of getting things done, not the things themselves. When a culture prizes the method more it does the results, it's gone astray.
The "unserious" truth is this: Simpson and Bowles, like Conrad, would accelerate an upward restribution of wealth that's already rolling ahead like a freight train. They'd pay for it by taking money out of the pockets of soldiers, lower- and middle-income college students, and the elderly. That's a debate we need to have, and it's not a "leadership test" to run from it.
So, you want to hear an old joke? A drunk goes into a restaurant and orders a cup of coffee and a bun. The waiter says "I'm sorry, sir, we're all out of buns." The drunk thinks for a second and says, "Okay, I'll have a cup of tea and a bun." The waiter says "Sorry, we're out of buns." The drunk says "Fine, I'll have a glass of orange juice and a bun." After a few more exchanges like this the waiter loses his temper: "How many times do I have to tell you we're out of buns? No buns! No buns! No buns!"
The drunk says "Jeez, pal, if you're going to get so upset I'll just have the bun."
These so-called "deficit hawks" are the drunk, the public is the waiter, and the "bun" is any policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of middle- and lower-income people. No matter how many times voters say that's not on the menu, they're going to keep ordering it. And they may very well get it.
But seriously, folks.
______________________________________
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
As a member of a class of French aristocrats that most Americans would mistake for characters in a faintly Francophobic Monty Python sketch, Christine de Védrines should be forgiven for making unusual choices. An anxious heiress to a centuries-old fortune, she, along with much of her immediate and extended family, entrusted their fortunes and fates to a charismatic gentleman with a penchant for conspiracy theories. The result? For Christine, routine, cultish beatings; for the others, brainwashing, isolation and bankruptcy. It's an uncomfortably fascinating story; vivid and salacious to the point of doubt, and so incredibly specific that it can barely be considered cautionary.
Barely. Somewhere in or around Washington, D.C, a teenager, similarly anxious and also (allegedly!) destined for immense wealth, has been appealing for help with his millions on the Internet. He too is drawn to a charismatic leader with deeply sociopathic tendencies.
On Reddit recently, he asked this:
"What would you do with one billion USD or even several hundred million? I need your help reddit!!"
Then, as if to excuse himself, "I'm 19."
The anonymous heir's story goes something like this: He's a precocious teen who dropped out of college in a fit of entrepreneurship. He has never needed to worry about money, though his family's only conspicuous Rich People habit is apparently constant travel. Soon, though, his life will change. He stands to inherit up to a billion dollars from his grandfather, an Indian infrastructure magnate.
His first order of business after grasping his looming reality? To consult with Reddit, the often fascinating, occasionally disappointing and aggressively nerdy nerve center of the internet. True to form, the users' first responses were jokes:
• "Bring back Firefly….. " (responses include "This guy is our only hope" and "Ctrl-F firefly, upvote.")
• "Two chicks at the same time."
• "So I need to send you my contact information so you can move it out of the country?" (Which elicited the worrying response from the heir, "why move it out?")
When they're not joking around, though, Reddit users have been known to lapse into state of extreme earnestness. A few posters offered surprisingly thorough screeds for and against the concept of charity, and one allegedly similarly endowed user even posted some first-hand advice:
Dude, first off, beware beware BEWARE. Be extremely wary. To put it bluntly, you come across as idealistic and naive. These are not objectively bad qualities to possess, but they absolutely can be if they result in you putting trust in people who do not deserve it. If you do end up possessing such an enormous amount of money, a certain number of people you meet will be looking to take advantage of you, and these people will almost certainly be much more adept than you in financial and legal matters. Please please please do both me and yourself a favor and watch out.
That so many of Reddit's users took the original poster's request seriously and responded with well-intentioned, if not always practical, suggestions is nearly as surprising as the poster's decision to turn to Reddit in the first place. So we are all money managers now, I think?
I reached out to the original poster, who didn't want to be identified and cut our correspondence short. ("I would like to remain anon," he wrote, followed by silence. So: no confirming his story.) No matter—he left a trail of largely convincing and occasionally bizarre responses in his own thread. They paint a queasy portrait. But it's a familiar portrait! Let's call it "Young Money: A Study in Self Awareness." (It's a watercolor.)
On being a self-made man:
"I am currently, trying to build myself on my own. Doing good so far. I am a Young Entrepreneur, have received funding for a start up on my own through my current network. I originally thought that people would judge me by my age and not take me seriously but I was wrong, and I am glad."
On travel:
"USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Spain, France, Germany, UK, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, South Africa, Taiwan, China, Italy, India, Japan, Egypt, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, if I remember any more I'll let you know."
On philanthropy:
"Actually, I was thinking of putting some money to actually make an ad that if you click, you do in fact get the product it says you will get for free. But you will have to be lucky to get to the ad. I hate all of the internet ads that say, click here to get a free ipod, when I know I never will…."
On bootstraps:
"I was a Dishwasher for a year!"
On priorities:
"my parents believe in me. None of us care about money. Neither do I."
On modesty:
"I have fun doing business. Hence, I dropped out of college, and on my own got a job as Head of Enterprise Business development and built a network on my own that includes the CIO of NASA, CTO of Lockheed Martin, various venture capitalists and other executives."
On hopes:
"My ultimate goal is to help me people make their good ideas into a reality."
On requests for startup cash:
"will reach back out to you."
And finally, on trust:
"Wow!!! I met this guy at an airport from Nigeria. He asked me to do business with him and wanted money. And I looked his name up on google and scam is what pops up first!"
Oh dear.
He seems like a nice guy with pure intentions. He also seems (suspiciously?) like a composite character, created by someone who's had more than a few brushes with young wealth: He's assured, naive, and articulates his insecurities about personal success as matter-of-fact fits of heavily caveated boasting. But again, he seems like a well-meaning guy, and his postings suggest that he is less concerned about doing the COOLEST STUFF EVER than he is about determining what duties will come with his new wealth, and how to fulfill them.
We'll probably never know if he follows Reddit's best or worst advice, or if he just goes through with his own stated plans, or if, you know, he's real. But he's off to a bad start. He hasn't acted on the only piece of indisputably good advice in the entire, thousand comment thread:
"To have already advertised yourself on the internet like this is opening yourself up to trouble. If I were you, the first thing I would do would be to delete this post."
John Herrman writes about tech for Gizmodo, SmartPlanet, PopMech and anywhere else that will have him. He spends slightly less time on Reddit than the above suggests.
bench craft company reviewsThis is also exciting news, as TrueType fonts are superior to SVG fonts in two very important ways: the files sizes are dramatically smaller (an especially important factor on mobile devices), and the rendering quality is much higher. ...
Sun TV News has been green-lit by the CRTC after a long war with the regulator and critics who are opposed to the 24-7 news-and-opinion channel nicknamed “Fox News North.” The CRTC had previously refused to grant the Quebecor property a ...
Return to OregonLive later today for more from The Oregonian on the terrorist arrest.
bench craft company reviewsThis is also exciting news, as TrueType fonts are superior to SVG fonts in two very important ways: the files sizes are dramatically smaller (an especially important factor on mobile devices), and the rendering quality is much higher. ...
Sun TV News has been green-lit by the CRTC after a long war with the regulator and critics who are opposed to the 24-7 news-and-opinion channel nicknamed “Fox News North.” The CRTC had previously refused to grant the Quebecor property a ...
Return to OregonLive later today for more from The Oregonian on the terrorist arrest.
bench craft company reviews
