SIDELINING PUBLIC BROADCASTING

I find it bitterly ironic that the people now tubthumping about the prospect of TVNZ being privatised are the very people who had nothing to say about the ludicrous 'hybrid' model that Labour imposed on TVNZ.

Labour's astonishingly inept view that TVNZ could somehow meet public service obligations while at the same delivering a commercial dividend to the Government was always doomed to failure.

And I'm not personally being wise after the event. I said so at the time. Indeed so did many other people including former TVNZ chairman Ian Fraser. He urged that the Labour Government turn TV1 into a purely public service channel along the lines of the BBC in the United Kingdom and ABC in Australia.

Sadly his advice was not heeded. It was apparent that Labour's ideological tunnel vision would eventually be TVNZ's downfall and it would appear that we were are now fast approaching that point.

Its a pity that the critics of the Minister of Broadcasting's plans for TVNZ didn't display the same kind of opposition to Labour's ludicrous approach to public broadcasting. While Jonathan Coleman is now deservedly fielding flak the same can't be said for former Minister of Broadcasting Steve Maharey who got treated with kids gloves by the likes of The Standard and Tumeke's Martyn Bradbury.

Jonathan Coleman is suggesting that public service broadcasting be ghettoised on the digital channels TVNZ6 and possibly TVNZ7. TV1 and TV2 would supposedly continue to deliver the lowest common demoninator rubbish we are all too familiar with now.

Effectively Coleman is seeking to sideline public service television to the periphery which, not coincidentally, is what the Rupert Murdoch's of this world want. Murdoch is deliberately portraying public television as a 'niche provider'. Murdoch wants private media corporations like his to dominate the media affairs of countries like the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

This is an attack on media freedom and political diversity.

In Britain the BBC has caved into pressure from Murdoch and cuts its budget by some 600 million pounds as well as reducing its presence on the internet. This is a direct response to Murdoch complaining that the BBC was adversely impacting on his profit margins. Rather than allowing a possible Conservative Government make even more unpalatable cuts, the BBC has, grudgingly, made cuts itself.

Murdoch has opened a second front in his home country of Australia.

In language reminiscent of our Minister of Broadcasting columnist Mark Day writing in the Murdoch-owned The Australian has declared the public service broadcasting model to be 'broken'. He has commented:

It is time we had a full debate about the role of the ABC. It was established in a vastly different media landscape as a taxpayer-funded entity designed to, in part, fill in the market niches not served by the commercial sector. Now, thanks to pay-TV and the digital revolution, those niches are hotly contested.

Day concludes;

Politically, it is probably impossible to flog it off, but the government has in the recent past got out of businesses such as banking, telecommunications and airlines. Does it really need to be in media?

If you think Mark Day is bad, then The Australian's foreign editor Greg Sheridan is in a league of his own. On one of his many trips to the United States to see Rupert he wrote:

'The US is the greatest possible argument for media deregulation. Every morning, I flick between Fox, CNN and MSNBC as I eat my cereal … why did it take so long for pay TV to get to Australia? …'

Sheridan has displayed the same sort of antipathy towards noted journalist and prominent Murdoch critic John Pilger displayed here by writers on The Standard and, ironically, by TVNZ's own Gordon Harcourt. Sheridan has, bizarrely, blamed 'Pilgerist Chomskyism' for 'ideologically fuelling the followers of Osama bin Lenin, sorry Laden.'

Like TVNZ, ABC is vulnerable to attack from Murdoch because it is funded directly by the government - rather than through a licence fee as is the BBC - and therefore more vulnerable to the pernicious effects of Murdoch's lackeys lobbying government ministers and officials.

Martin Hirst on his Ethical Martini blog also makes the point that the campaign against public service broadcasting is a global phenomenon. Hirst, who is a lecturer in public communications at the Auckland University of Technology, writes:

'The media industry is in trouble and public service broadcasters are actually doing OK. We tend to trust them more; they’re reliable; they’re staffed by people who care about good journalism; and they don’t have greedy shareholders sucking the life out of them.

Now the greedy slugs and layabouts want a slice of our pie too.

We need to tell them to “piss off” in no uncertain terms.'

In 1983 the world's media was dominated by some 50 media corporations By 2002 that number had rapidly declined to just nine. Rupert Murdoch thinks that eventually just three media corporations, including his own, will dominate the world's media.

So it's more urgent than ever to actively defend public broadcasting. Here in New Zealand the Broadcasting Minister is seeking to portray himself as a defender of the public broadcasting ethos. But his desire to fence public broadcasting off in a niche wilderness betrays that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The fact that Coleman has no idea of how TVNZ6 would be funded suggests that what we would end up with is a TVNZ6 that won't look much different from what we have now. Labour's Broadcasting spokesman Brendon Burns got it right when he said that Coleman was just looking for a 'face saving measure.'

And, of course we may sell see TV2 sold off to the highest bidder, if not TV1 as well. No doubt Rupert Murdoch will be first in line to lay an offer on the government's table.

Read more...

WORLD PEOPLE'S CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

With the industrialised countries failing to come to grips with climate change - as the debacle of Copenhagen demonstrated = a World People's Conference is to be held in Bolivia from April 20-22.

Sixteen working groups are presently developing draft documents on such issues as the structural causes of climate change , the dangers of carbon markets and action strategies. These will be discussed by the conference as a whole.

Bolivia is expecting over 5,000 activists environmentalists and scientists to travel to the country to attend the three day conference in the city of Cochabamba.

The Cochabamba conference, called for by the Bolivian Presdent Evo Morales, is presented as an alternative to the views expressed by the large industrial powers at the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen last December, which failed to support a reduction in toxic emissions that are causing a dangerous rise in global temperatures.

More information on the conference can be found here.

Read more...

GREEK UNIONS SHOW HOW IT IS DONE

In Greece yesterday skirmishes broke out between riot police and protesters as unions and workers stepped up their resistance to the austerity measures that the Greek Government, under pressure from the European Union, is attempting to impose.

Riot police used tear gas to force back protesters.

There have been two general strikes this week involving hundreds of thousands of workers. Not surprisingly workers have no intention to accept the burden of an economic crisis they are not responsible for.

Protesters have chanted 'Make the bosses pay”'and 'Where has all the money gone?'

The Greek Government is attempting to impose the same kind of 'structural reforms' that were imposed on African, Asian and South American countries in the 1980s with such devastating consequences for ordinary people.

Thursday's strike was called by Greece's main private sector union, GSEE, and its public sector sister union, ADEDY, which together represent half of the country's five million workers.

GSEE leader Yiannis Panagopoulos told the Associated Press: 'They are trying to make workers pay the price for this crisis,'

While the Greek union leaders show no reluctance to flex their industrial muscle when the jobs and living standards of workers are under threat, the same cannot be said for New Zealand's private and state sector unions. They have failed to put up any resistance to the Government's austerity measures and the growing job losses. Indeed they have actively colluded with the Government to ensure that redundancies are processed with a minimum of fuss and bother.

The Public Service Association's dismally limp response to the Government's austerity drive into the state sector mirrors the lack of any resistance shown by union 'leaders' in the private sector.

The PSA has simply raised the white flag and surrendered. The casualties will be the workers who lose their jobs - you won't see any PSA officials taking the long walk to Work and Income.

According to the hopeless Brenda Pilott, the national secretary of the PSA, it will be monitoring the impact of the jobs cuts. She has made no mention of actually resisting the cuts. This is simply a betrayal of the basic interests of her members.

Just as pathetic has been Labour's Darren Hughes call for Grey Power to protest the proposed cuts to the travel discount available to SuperGold card users.

Hughes, just like the Labour Party, is simply grandstanding on easy issues while all the time failing to speak out and act for workers when it really matters most.

Not only is it time to seek to create truly democratic and fighting unions but we also need to demand answers as to why the union bureaucracy continues to channel considerable amounts of money and organisational resources to a Labour Party that has shown by its own policies and actions that it is aggressively anti-working class.

Read more...

PSA OFFICIALS REFUSE TO FIGHT JOB CUTS

The Government's austerity drive is now targeting the state sector, despite the fact that John Key and the National party said during the 2008 election campaign that would be no major reforms to the state sector during its first term.

This promise has gone the same way as John Key's promise not to increase GST.

Both Stephen Joyce and Anne Tolley have announced cuts in education funding although neither minister will own up to wielding the big axe.

Joyce is claiming he's just improving the tertiary system but his so-called 'improvements' will see a swathe of course scrapped because they are deemed to have too high a failure rate and there will be more job losses.

Similarly, fresh from taking the axe to community education, Tolley wants to see the $25 million cut from the education sector by 2012.

So how many jobs are to go? The Government is claiming it has no figures on possible job losses but its hardly believable that they have not been provided reports from officials.

Already some 3000 jobs have gone in the public sector since National came to power. These job losses have met with no resistance from the union bureaucrats in the Public Service Association (PSA). They have done absolutely nothing.

And the PSA officialdom are threatening to carry on doing absolutely nothing in response to Tolley's demand for $10 million worth of savings this next financial year.

Brenda Pilot, the national secretary of the PSA, has clearly been reading Andrew Little's How To Be A Really Dismal Union Official.

Pilot's response to Tolley's demands? She and the PSA are 'going to be keeping a close eye on any impact the cost cutting has on the delivery of education services.' I'm sure that this will have Tolley shaking in her high heels.

So Pilot has unilaterally decided that job losses are inevitable and she's just going to sit on her bottom and let it happen with the minimum of fuss and bother.

Pilot and the PSA are, once again, betraying the very people who pay their big fat salaries.

A proper fighting union - which the PSA isn't - would be organising state sector workers with a clear message to the government that the PSA intends to resist not only the new round of cuts but the attack on the public sector generally.

Read more...

IS MARK SAINSBURY THE NEW DAVID HARTNELL?

You might recall a TVNZ promo from two years or so ago which featured Mark Sainsbury explaining to an unseen interviewer what his job was as the host of Close Up.

It ran something along the lines that it was his task to ask the hard questions and get the answers.

His moustache bristling, Sainsbury informed us that in an one on one interview situation politicians could not escape his deadly journalistic scrutiny.

Which, in reality, is a little like being interviewed by Krusty the Clown. And I'm probably insulting Krusty.

Even by Sainsbury's own low standards, last nights Close Up must rank as one of TVNZ's more desperate moments.

The world and the country are gripped by the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, bringing with it high levels of unemployment and social deprivation, yet Sainsbury and Close Up have other ideas about what is relevant and important.

Sainsbury clearly spends his times scrutinising the entertainment and celebrity news for 'inspiration'. Indeed few politicians ever appear on Close Up these days to undergo the 'Sainsbury experience' - which I imagine is a little like swimming in custard.

Moustache opened the show with a bit of the old 'wink, wink - say no more'. The silly and meaningless relationship soap opera presently occurring between an Australian cricketer and his girlfriend was deemed so important that Sainsbury needed the views of two people to explain what it all meant. So he hauled in some Australian gossip journalist and former New Zealand cricketer John Morrison.

What do think of it all?' asked Sainsbury of Morrison. Clearly Sainsbury was struggling to come to grips with this complex issue.

Morrison managed to get in an off colour remark about the physical appearance of the woman in question - Laura Bingle - but Sainsbury just shrugged it off. It looks like blatant sexism has just got the green light from Close Up.

Sainsbury then moved on to the next crucial issue of the day - an interview with the guy who fronts the Beaurepaires Tyres television commercials. This is not the first time TVNZ have done a story on Vince Martin and this one went over the same old dross again.

But it was great advertising for Beaurepaires which just might have been the point of this lunacy. Was this advertising masquerading as 'news'? Given that TVNZ plays fast and loose with just about everything else I wouldn't be surprised if TVNZ are now dropping 'paid stories' into Close Up.

Finally we were subjected to a song by a former Australian Idol winner, Guy Sebastian, This was an opportunity for Sainsbury to ask the question that only he could think needs answering - what has happened to New Zealand's idols? All two of them.

Is Mark Sainsbury the new David 'my lips are aealed' Hartnell? Or is he David Hartnell in disguise - that would explain the moustache. Has anyone seem Sainsbury and Hartnell in the same room?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Close Up is a disgrace and an insult to our intelligence.

Read more...

FABIAN FOLLY

I imagine that most people who read this blog have heard of the Fabian Society. Some though might have assumed that it had gone out of existence. It certainly would be an easy mistake to make. Given the historic failure of reformism it would entirely understandable if people assumed that the members of the Fabian Society had decided to call it a day and had all gone home.

But the Fabian Society is still around and, here in New Zealand, it has its own website and, among other things, runs lectures and seminars. These days though any references to socialism have been quietly dropped. It was all a sham anyway so at least they have come clean and admitted that they have no interest in transforming capitalism - just tinkering with it.

The Fabian Society was first established in England in 1894 and branches were quickly established in New Zealand in both Christchurch and Dunedin.

Interestingly it was one of the founders of the Fabian Society, Sidney Webb, who wrote the original clause 4 of the British Labour Party which talks about the 'the common ownership of the means of production.'

It was Tony Blair who pushed to have this explicitly socialist clause dropped in favour of the present clause which makes no mention of the socialisation of the means of production and instead talks about Blair's 'shared set of progressive values'.

The New Zealand Fabian Society, although is describes itself as 'independent' acts largely as a think tank for the Labour Party. The current president of the New Zealand branch of the Fabians is Mike Smith, a former general secretary of the Labour Party, He is a regular writer for the Labour-aligned blog The Standard and never a critical word about Labour ever features in his writings.

Historically Fabianism has favoured small incremental changes in the direction of 'socialism'. The New Zealand Fabian Society website has reworked this to mean 'gradual, reformist social democracy, applying progressive values to contemporary issues.' Whatever that means. Clearly though it was inspired by Tony Blair.

The fact that Mike Smith was a committed supporter and defender of the neoliberalism of the last Labour Government should alert the reader that the 'progressive politics' of the Fabian Society are dodgy to say the least.

Speaking about British Fabianism Leon Trotsky described it as an attempt to save capitalism from the working class. He wrote;

"..throughout the whole history of the British Labour movement there has been pressure by the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat through the agency of radicals, intellectuals, drawing-room and church socialists and Owenites who reject the class struggle and advocate the principle of social solidarity, preach collaboration with the bourgeoisie, bridle, enfeeble and politically debase the proletariat".

In a recent posting on Public Address Mike Smith make its clear that the Fabian Society's 'progressive values ' are just about different policies to run the capitalist economy. These policies will be implemented and administered by people like, well, Mike Smith.

There is no place at all for the working class in the Fabian scenario. We are simply pieces on a chess board to be pushed around by more 'enlightened' politicians and business people.

Mike Smith and the Fabian Society are holding a series of nationwide lectures and seminars this month to discuss ways to create a more 'resilient economy'. You can bet that they won't be discussing such things as bringing back into public ownership such utilities as Telecom or the entire electricity industry. You can bet they won't be talking about nationalising the banking and finance sector. They won't even be talking about progressive taxation.

None of the speakers that Fabian Society have got all lined up are socialist - in fact they come from the business sector which about sums up the state of play in the Fabian society.

One of the speakers is John Walley, the CEO of the Manufacturers and Exporters Federation.

Another speaker is Selwyn Pellett who is described as a 'hi tech entrepreneur'. Earlier this year he was praising Goff's views on taxation and monetary reform.

The Fabian Society might be determined to show it is business friendly but it is also demonstrating the same anti-working class attitudes that the last Labour Government displayed and acted upon.

There is nothing new on offer from the Fabian Society. All it wants is a reinvented neoliberalism.

Read more...

ANOTHER BLOW FOR HENDO

This week our mate Dave surprisingly took up an option to buy back one of the five properties he sold to the Christchurch City Council for $17 million.

Option dates for the other four properties will be coming up in the not too distant future.

Of course whether the financially besieged Hendo can actually find the money to purchase the property is another story altogether. However it'll take some three to four months for all the necessary paperwork to be done so he has squeezed out some time before he has to show us the colour of his money.

Don't hold your breath.

The fly in the ointment for Hendo is that the Christchurch City Council can withdraw from any settlement if they are not convinced that Hendo can complete the development. Of course we can fully expect Mayor Sideshow Bob to cut his mate a fair bit of slack.

Regardless, thanks to the stupidity and cronyism of Mayor Sideshow Bob and councillors like Sue Wells and Barry Corbett, the ratepayers of Christchurch are now entangled in the murky affairs of Hendo. Was this what Sue Wells had in mind when she described the bailout of Henderson as 'a very good deal.'?

However the inexorable slide of Hendo toward financial oblivion appears to be gathering pace again, despite the many and varied attempts of 'the urban visionary' to halt the landside that threatens to engulf him.

Yesterday his flagship company, Property Ventures, was put into receivership by Allied Farmers.

Property Ventures, among other things, owned Five Mile Holdings which planned to build a self -contained village near Queenstown but went into receivership in 2008 laving a big hole in the ground.

Allied Farmers, of course, took over Hanover Finance last year.

One of Hanover's loans was some $42 million to Five Mile Holdings -a loan guaranteed by Property Ventures.

According to Allied, this loan is racking up an incredible $23,000 a day in interest.

The poor people who invested their money in Hanover are trapped in a financial nightmare and tales of financial hardship have become common. Some Hanover investors have been forced to sell their homes.

True to form, Hendo is entirely unconcerned about the grief he has helped cause.

He has declared that the receivership of Property Ventures is 'a quite pointless exercise' because it owns nothing.

But Hendo's arrogance knows no bounds and he has hinted that Allied Farmers are just engaged in a PR exercise.

He told The Press: 'I guess given Allied's position right now they do need to be doing something in regard to the loan book they inherited from Hanover.'

Given the fact that he wasted some $42 million in digging a big hole near Queenstown, is it unreasonable to expect Hendo to show some contrition? Apparently it is.

Read more...

IN SEARCH OF THE LABOUR LEFT

Some of you might have seen Leigh Hart's Mysterious Planet which TV1 have slotted away in an unattractive 9.30pm slot on a Friday night.

It's been described as a 'mockumentary' series and its basically Hart gently spoofing shows like Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World which went in search of mysterious phenomena like UFO's and the Loch Ness Monster.

Hart's series got me thinking about another mysterious phenomenon that has been talked about a lot but never actually seen. We don't have to go to Scotland or the Himalayas though in pursuit of this mystery because its right here on our own doorstep.

I'm talking about the 'left wing' of the Labour Party. The Labour left. Fact or fiction? Does it really exist or is it just a load of the proverbial?

Is there a loose network - or even an organised one - of Labour MPs, out there somewhere that meet in secret places and talk the 's' word? Or is it merely the creation of lazy journalists who just repeat what their colleagues say?

So, armed with a magnifying glass, my bullshit meter, a camera and a Moro bar, I went in search of the Labour left. If I didn't actually see it for myself I at least hoped to find conclusive evidence of its existence - I didn't really expect to find a copy of Capital but I was hopeful of finding something by Keynes.

Could I track down such a creature among the rubble of social democracy or would all those strange screeches and grunts just turn out to be mad Mike 'Free Trade' Moore doing Winston Churchill impersonations?

I mean, I keep hearing the 'Labour left' mentioned on the television news and keeping reading about it in the newspapers. I've heard it mentioned year after year after while Labour Government's have enthusiastically implemented right wing neoliberal economic policies. If there is a Labour left it certainly has been asleep at the wheel.

I've heard TV1's Guyon Espiner discuss the Labour left quite earnestly, as has his colleague Francesca Mold. I've heard TV3's John Campbell talking about it as well. They talk as if they have actually seen this creature. What do they know that I don't ?

I say - show me the evidence!

Where are the photos? The documents? And, sorry, passing off Steve Maharey's ''Third Way' as evidence of the existence of the Labour left cuts no ice with me. I've had the photos examined and they are just Roger Douglas in a gorilla suit.

In the UK a new electoral alliance called the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) are advocating such policies as bringing public services and utilities back into public ownership as well as implementing a progressive tax system on wealthy corporations and individuals.

My three readers will recall that I promised to rejoin the Labour Party if Phil Goff adopted a similar policy manifesto here. Phil hasn't taken me up on my offer.

This manifesto though seemed to be a good starting point for my search. Perhaps I could find a group of Labour MPS with a similar economic platform here.

So I checked out the websites and the articles and the press releases. I came up with nothing.

Undeterred, I rang a member of the Labour Party that I know (one that still talks to me anyway) and asked if he could point me in the right direction in my search for the elusive Labour left. He couldn't help me but he was keen to tell me that John Key was a bastard and everything would be fine once Labour was re-elected. He also asked if I could bring him a new pack of crayons the next time I visited.

I read on the back of a Weetbix box that MPs Clare Curran and Phil Twyford possibly knew something about the Labour Left so I went in search of their articles and blogs. Once again I turned up nothing. In fact Clare and Phil don't seem particularly unhappy with Phil Goff's right wing economic policies. Anyone who could describe these two MPs as left wing is clearly not taking their medication.

It then occurred to me that when the media talks about the Labour left perhaps they weren't talking about various Labour MPs but something that exists outside the Labour Party among its supporters and commentators. Perhaps I had been looking for socialist politics in all the wrong places.

I tried some of the usual suspects.

Perhaps Russell Brown, President of the Auckland Labour Milieu Club, was part of the Labour left? I had my doubts though. After all this is the same Russell Brown who kept on telling us that 'violence is not ok' but didn't seem particularly bothered about the economic violence that his beloved Helen Clark was waging on the community. I wasn't surprised when my bullshit meter went into overdrive the closer I got to little Russell. Yes, he is still the most irritating and patronising Labourite in the country.

Perhaps commentator Chris Trotter was a member of the Labour left. After all TV1's Paul Henry has described him as New Zealand's top 'left wing commentator' and Henry is not someone who makes rash and thoughtless comments.

Perhaps Chris has been using his newspaper columns as a platform to articulate an alternative left wing manifesto for Labour.

Er, no.

But, then again, Chris thinks socialism is a 'continual process' so perhaps he doesn't think we have to worry about little details like economic policy. Its apparently all about the journey and not the destination. It's kind of like reading a book only to find that the last chapter has been ripped out. And, hey, if you don't like the previous chapters then you can just write them again and remove all those pesky elements you don't like. Eventually you end up disappearing up your own rear end. It's called the Edward Bernstein syndrome.

In the end I didn't find the Labour left but I did find a collection of MPs and Labour apparatchiks who, despite the veneer of 'progressive' politics, actually don't have a problem with neoliberal economics. They are just unhappy that its not them who are running the show.

I say all this because Labour Party and its apparatchiks are in the process of 'rebranding' Labour again. Labour's new slogan is, believe it or not, 'for the many, not the few'.

The obvious problem here is that Phil Goff wishes to continue pursuing policies that will benefit the few at the expense of the many. That's what he's been doing for the past twenty five years. The hypocrisy and opportunism is blatant.

The Labour Party can come up as many snappy slogans as it likes and run websites called Red Alert but none of them - from Goff downwards - can deny the roles they have played in implementing and defending the neoliberalism of the Labour Party. They are guilty people.

They cannot pretend to be friends and allies of working people when their recent history has been about implementing and supporting economic policies that have made New Zealand one of the most unequal societies in the world and produced a level of poverty that is nothing short of obscene.

Many of us, of course, weren't prepared to go down this road of betrayal dressed up as compromise, complicity dressed up as pragmatism.

In my own case I jumped the Labour ship in 1985 when I was President of the Labour Club at the University of Canterbury. I had just been nominated by Geoffrey Palmer for the Labour Youth Council but I already had had a gutsful of what Roger Douglas was doing - and what David Lange was allowing him to do.

Many of these people - who are now talking about 'for the many. not the few' were also in the Labour Party at that time and have spent the last twenty five years as committed supporters of the policies of greed and division. All they were ever interested in was climbing the party ladder. I never heard them protesting when Labour put GST up to 12.5 percent with no compensation in terns of an increase in benefits, etc.

So what is the difference between the left and right? Well, many an university essay has been written on this subject but, I think, the left always seeks greater equality and the right always creates greater inequality. I borrowed this definition from the Italian political philosopher Norberto Bobbio because I think its a good definition to be guided by right now.

The Labour Party bears the responsibility for creating an unprecedented level of economic inequality in this country and it wants to pursue exactly the same policies if it ever gets re-elected.

Yet these very same Labour MPs are now travelling around the country in a red bus declaring their opposition to a proposed rise in GST. Someone should bail them up and demand to know why they continue to support neoliberal economic policies . Someone should tell them no one is going to be convinced by Labour jumping on single issue bandwagons.

The debate about the future of progressive politics in this country cannot be allowed to be dictated by the guilty people who pursued the policies that inflicted such economic inequality and hardship on our community. They deserve to be run out of town.

Read more...