Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Open Letter from a Listener to Robbie Osman about the KPFA Board Elections
Longtime listener and activist responds to Robbie Osman's endorsement of the Independents for Community Radio slate in the KPFA Local Station Board Elections. "The thing that makes me saddest is your use of the word democracy, in contraposing those who support democracy and those who supposedly oppose it. The reason this saddens me is that it strikes me as deliberately dishonest, which was something that I did not expect from you."
Dear Robbie,
I have been in touch with you before, I am a devoted fan of your program, which moves me to tears and grins more often than any other show. I like your taste, your style, your politics (external) and your presentation. Thus I write to you in sadness reacting to the column you wrote about the current LSB elections.
The thing that makes me saddest is your use of the word democracy, in contraposing those who support democracy and those who supposedly oppose it. The reason this saddens me is that it strikes me as deliberately dishonest, which was something that I did not expect from you.
We are of the same generation, and "fought in the same wars." My particular vantage point, and after getting my preparatory education in high school (civil rights and antiwar agitation in some rural settings), a trip through the south in 1963, and then, my ultimate stroke of fortune, arriving at Cal as a 17 year old freshman in 1964, getting elected to the Executive Committee of the Free Speech Movement and getting arrested, I "graduated" to working full time in the peace movement, from 1965-1972.
I learned a lot about democracy, organizations, and specifically coalitions of the left, which KPFA is one of. What I learned was this. Democracy is an easy word to throw around, and a complex and precious commodity that has to be well understood and not used as a stick to beat people with. I saw meetings where some organizations represented had many (in some cases thousands) of members given one vote, and a group representing four people given an equal one vote. I have seen organizations that seemed to have no substance or activities demand their voting rights, and organizations that seemed to be made up of members of the same disciplined political group showing up to claim a voice under a smorgasbord of names. At the Convention for New Politics in 1968 I saw the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party handed two votes, and the same allocated to dozens of organizations that seemed to have nothing but members of the Socialist Worker's Party given two votes each.
I have also seen meetings of coalitions, where each constituent group given a vote each, only to have a large crowd of people we had never seen before come to a meeting, demand that "the people" be given votes, sometimes under the slogan of "the people who do the work should vote!!" Sometimes this group would come through the door in one column, led by people who I knew to be members of one or another sect. By "empowering" the "people" or "those who do the work" what would happen would be, inevitably, that those who actually represented organizations who wanted to participate in and support some mass action would realize that they had been effectively disempowered, and they would often not be seen again.
Another thing is evident. I am a KPFA listener, and have been since 1964 except when I was living in Chicago or NYC. Since I moved up to Eugene 11 years ago, one of my happiest days was when I figured out (OK, I'm a techno-geezer) how to listen to KPFA on my computer. I want to tell you, my tastes are very broad. Many, many kinds of music (well, OK, there are only two kinds, the good stuff and the other stuff) fill me with joy, and I also enjoy many of the talk type shows, from Carolyn Casey to Guns and Butter to the science and health stuff to the political. Particularly the latter. I even used to listen to Charles Amerkhanian (sp?) and the "weird music program" that once triggered the repeater station in the Russian River to shut down since the machine interpreted the "music" as being static. I've listened to Over the Edge, Beedleumbum, Avoctja, The Woman Dread, Hard Knock, Bach and Bossa Nova, and on and on. I have also listened to Flashpoints. Dennis does very good radio. Sometimes. He often has great guests, and even if his personality gets in the way sometimes, he often does a good job of getting important stuff across. But when I hear someone using the KPFA airwaves to attack the station management and other programmers on the air, I think it is time to reach for a 2x4. You want to know what drives people away from the station? The nasty, dishonest and really cowardly use of OUR airwaves to fight for power at the station. As much fun as listening to your mom and dad screaming at each other.
And screaming at each other has become a big thing at KPFA. It has always been true, as I'm sure you know better than I, that if you assemble any three KPFA people (listeners, volunteers, paid staff, whatever) you get four factions, at least two of them having principled differences about something. But never before the last few years has it seemed that any one group was making a concerted effort to take over the station, to turn it from a coalition to a monopoly of one faction. I have never heard consistent pushing of one or another organization (International "We Have All The" ANSWER in particular) over the airwaves. I have never heard denunciations of the station over the air. "Apartheid Radio?" Really? And of course those so attacked would not use the airwaves to fight back, because they have no intention of having a hand grenade fight in their own house. But some people don't seem to care.
I have read descriptions and transcripts of some of the meetings of the LSB (and for that matter, Pacifica's Board). I remember one technique that showed up over and over in the Anti-war movement back in the day. A group, with a firm intention of taking over a coalition and tapping it for its mailing and financial support lists, and turning it into a platform for one party and a recruiting pool for same, comes into a coalition with several front groups and itself. It then proceeds to turn the meetings into hell on earth, every meeting features personal denunciations, charging people with racism, being pawns of the Democratic Party, being responsible for the suppression of the anarchists of Catalonia or some such relevant question. Those who came to the meeting to try to fight the war and who are not there under discipline or who have weak stomachs think, "I really want to go to another of THESE meetings? I have a four star headache and I feel like throwing up." This goes on, and escalates, until enough people leave that the sect can pack a meeting and remove all the officers, replacing them with their own people. Hurrah, hurrah, another triumph for democracy, right?
You know better than this Robbie, and you know where this is going. Democracy is not the same as letting a small group of crazies who have nothing better to do run people out of a meeting. Some of the folks you are supporting want to have Amy Goodman investigated by Pacifica for covering up Bush's complicity in 9/11. Now I happen to think that elements in the government had a great deal to do with the assassinations of the 1960s, and in 9/11. But I would rather not hear about it 24/7. Now and then is fine. There are other things to talk about.
As to Aileen and her news style, while Stewart and Colbert, who I love, are wonderful, and Maddow is OK (I think her smirk makes her far less effective, not at pleasing the converted, but in converting those we might want to reach), a clear editorial position is perfectly appropriate for them. They are offering opinion, and are clear that that is what it is. A news broadcast that tells you rather than shows you, that tells you what your opinion should be rather than sharing information and showing you the respect to let you draw your own conclusions, is a newscast that is very pleasing. To the converted. It doesn't change anyone's mind. It is far too often the case that some of our most dedicated people think that the listeners, and especially the potential listeners, come to the radio with the skulls empty. All you have to do is open the top, and pour in your ideas, because of course these people can't have any of their own. All it does... well, you know. You hear someone trying to sell you something, you stop listening.
I'm sorry to have to write this to you, I will remain a dedicated fan of yours, and of KPFA's. But please, don't think you are championing democracy. You aren't.
Jack
I have been in touch with you before, I am a devoted fan of your program, which moves me to tears and grins more often than any other show. I like your taste, your style, your politics (external) and your presentation. Thus I write to you in sadness reacting to the column you wrote about the current LSB elections.
The thing that makes me saddest is your use of the word democracy, in contraposing those who support democracy and those who supposedly oppose it. The reason this saddens me is that it strikes me as deliberately dishonest, which was something that I did not expect from you.
We are of the same generation, and "fought in the same wars." My particular vantage point, and after getting my preparatory education in high school (civil rights and antiwar agitation in some rural settings), a trip through the south in 1963, and then, my ultimate stroke of fortune, arriving at Cal as a 17 year old freshman in 1964, getting elected to the Executive Committee of the Free Speech Movement and getting arrested, I "graduated" to working full time in the peace movement, from 1965-1972.
I learned a lot about democracy, organizations, and specifically coalitions of the left, which KPFA is one of. What I learned was this. Democracy is an easy word to throw around, and a complex and precious commodity that has to be well understood and not used as a stick to beat people with. I saw meetings where some organizations represented had many (in some cases thousands) of members given one vote, and a group representing four people given an equal one vote. I have seen organizations that seemed to have no substance or activities demand their voting rights, and organizations that seemed to be made up of members of the same disciplined political group showing up to claim a voice under a smorgasbord of names. At the Convention for New Politics in 1968 I saw the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party handed two votes, and the same allocated to dozens of organizations that seemed to have nothing but members of the Socialist Worker's Party given two votes each.
I have also seen meetings of coalitions, where each constituent group given a vote each, only to have a large crowd of people we had never seen before come to a meeting, demand that "the people" be given votes, sometimes under the slogan of "the people who do the work should vote!!" Sometimes this group would come through the door in one column, led by people who I knew to be members of one or another sect. By "empowering" the "people" or "those who do the work" what would happen would be, inevitably, that those who actually represented organizations who wanted to participate in and support some mass action would realize that they had been effectively disempowered, and they would often not be seen again.
Another thing is evident. I am a KPFA listener, and have been since 1964 except when I was living in Chicago or NYC. Since I moved up to Eugene 11 years ago, one of my happiest days was when I figured out (OK, I'm a techno-geezer) how to listen to KPFA on my computer. I want to tell you, my tastes are very broad. Many, many kinds of music (well, OK, there are only two kinds, the good stuff and the other stuff) fill me with joy, and I also enjoy many of the talk type shows, from Carolyn Casey to Guns and Butter to the science and health stuff to the political. Particularly the latter. I even used to listen to Charles Amerkhanian (sp?) and the "weird music program" that once triggered the repeater station in the Russian River to shut down since the machine interpreted the "music" as being static. I've listened to Over the Edge, Beedleumbum, Avoctja, The Woman Dread, Hard Knock, Bach and Bossa Nova, and on and on. I have also listened to Flashpoints. Dennis does very good radio. Sometimes. He often has great guests, and even if his personality gets in the way sometimes, he often does a good job of getting important stuff across. But when I hear someone using the KPFA airwaves to attack the station management and other programmers on the air, I think it is time to reach for a 2x4. You want to know what drives people away from the station? The nasty, dishonest and really cowardly use of OUR airwaves to fight for power at the station. As much fun as listening to your mom and dad screaming at each other.
And screaming at each other has become a big thing at KPFA. It has always been true, as I'm sure you know better than I, that if you assemble any three KPFA people (listeners, volunteers, paid staff, whatever) you get four factions, at least two of them having principled differences about something. But never before the last few years has it seemed that any one group was making a concerted effort to take over the station, to turn it from a coalition to a monopoly of one faction. I have never heard consistent pushing of one or another organization (International "We Have All The" ANSWER in particular) over the airwaves. I have never heard denunciations of the station over the air. "Apartheid Radio?" Really? And of course those so attacked would not use the airwaves to fight back, because they have no intention of having a hand grenade fight in their own house. But some people don't seem to care.
I have read descriptions and transcripts of some of the meetings of the LSB (and for that matter, Pacifica's Board). I remember one technique that showed up over and over in the Anti-war movement back in the day. A group, with a firm intention of taking over a coalition and tapping it for its mailing and financial support lists, and turning it into a platform for one party and a recruiting pool for same, comes into a coalition with several front groups and itself. It then proceeds to turn the meetings into hell on earth, every meeting features personal denunciations, charging people with racism, being pawns of the Democratic Party, being responsible for the suppression of the anarchists of Catalonia or some such relevant question. Those who came to the meeting to try to fight the war and who are not there under discipline or who have weak stomachs think, "I really want to go to another of THESE meetings? I have a four star headache and I feel like throwing up." This goes on, and escalates, until enough people leave that the sect can pack a meeting and remove all the officers, replacing them with their own people. Hurrah, hurrah, another triumph for democracy, right?
You know better than this Robbie, and you know where this is going. Democracy is not the same as letting a small group of crazies who have nothing better to do run people out of a meeting. Some of the folks you are supporting want to have Amy Goodman investigated by Pacifica for covering up Bush's complicity in 9/11. Now I happen to think that elements in the government had a great deal to do with the assassinations of the 1960s, and in 9/11. But I would rather not hear about it 24/7. Now and then is fine. There are other things to talk about.
As to Aileen and her news style, while Stewart and Colbert, who I love, are wonderful, and Maddow is OK (I think her smirk makes her far less effective, not at pleasing the converted, but in converting those we might want to reach), a clear editorial position is perfectly appropriate for them. They are offering opinion, and are clear that that is what it is. A news broadcast that tells you rather than shows you, that tells you what your opinion should be rather than sharing information and showing you the respect to let you draw your own conclusions, is a newscast that is very pleasing. To the converted. It doesn't change anyone's mind. It is far too often the case that some of our most dedicated people think that the listeners, and especially the potential listeners, come to the radio with the skulls empty. All you have to do is open the top, and pour in your ideas, because of course these people can't have any of their own. All it does... well, you know. You hear someone trying to sell you something, you stop listening.
I'm sorry to have to write this to you, I will remain a dedicated fan of yours, and of KPFA's. But please, don't think you are championing democracy. You aren't.
Jack
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
>>Democracy is not the same as letting a small group of crazies who have nothing better to do run people out of a meeting.
Give me a break.
You mean these "crazies"?
Daniel B. Barnum, B.Arch, FAIA – Fellow, American Institute of Architects. Over forty years experience in the practice of architecture. Experience covers all aspects of planning, design, construction technology and project management for a wide range of commercial, institutional, religious and residential projects. His projects have been widely published and have received design awards from AIA. Member and former Vice President of AIA Houston and Founder and Chair of the Houston AIA Residential Architecture Committee, Chair of the Urban Design Committee, and Director for Urban Issues.
"I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them." http://www.ae911truth.org
Kevin A. Kelly, FAIA – Fellow, American Institute of Architects. Co-author of the groundbreaking book "Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer," which is a standard college textbook in the USA. He brings more than 28 years of experience in the programming field including such projects as the Chrysler Technology Center, Microsoft's recent headquarters expansion, all sports venues for the Atlanta Olympics, and the 1.8 million square foot 3M Research & Development Austin Center.
"The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the AIA Convention in San Francisco [May 2009] made a sufficient case that a new investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01 would be worthwhile." http://www.ae911truth.org
David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP – Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee. Former Professor and Chair of the Planning Departments at Syracuse University and Ball State University. Elected Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners (2004). Past President of the Fulbright Association of the United States. Recipient of five Fulbright Scholarships for continued education in Cyprus, India, Thailand, and the Soviet Union. Directed educational projects in Brazil and Portugal. Active in reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and bicommunal peace-making in Cyprus. Former professional planner on the staffs of the Washington National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Plan Association of New York. Former editorial board member of the Journal of the American Planning Association. Author of numerous journal articles on urban and regional planning theory and history. Author of Planning the Great Metropolis (1996). Co-author of The TVA Regional Planning and Development Program (2005). Contributing author to Two Centuries of American Planning (1988).
"I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues. So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.
When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur. Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.
What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea. But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation."
Mario Fontana, Dr Sc CE – Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Director of the Steel Construction Division, Geilinger AG. Author of more than 40 papers on structural engineering.
Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: "We simply don't know what exactly happened in WTC 7," said Mario Fontana, sitting Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction at ETH-Zurich. At conferences of structural analysis experts one has discovered only very little on the collapse of WTC 7. It is at least thinkable that a long, on-going fire could have caused the collapse of the building, according to Fontana."
translation in English: http://www.danieleganser.ch/assets/files/Inhalte/Publikationen/Zeitungsartikel/agora_eng.pdf
Rick Fowlkes, BS CE, MBA, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer, States of Arizona and California. Professional structural engineer with over 38 years experience with commercial, residential, and industrial engineering designs, including design of electrical power plants, substations, and transmission line structures. Owned and operated his own consulting engineering business since 1983.
"The truth has not been told up to this point, but the evidence brought to light by the Architects and Engineer's for 9/11 Truth is compelling proof that a more thorough investigation is indicated."
Edward E. Knesl, MS Eng, PE – Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Arizona. Thirty five years of domestic and international experience in commercial and transportation projects, including: Structural Design and Analysis, Construction Administration and Management, Plan Review, and Special Inspection.
"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below. We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top. The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?"
Hundreds more of the so-called "crazies" are listed here:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Give me a break.
You mean these "crazies"?
Daniel B. Barnum, B.Arch, FAIA – Fellow, American Institute of Architects. Over forty years experience in the practice of architecture. Experience covers all aspects of planning, design, construction technology and project management for a wide range of commercial, institutional, religious and residential projects. His projects have been widely published and have received design awards from AIA. Member and former Vice President of AIA Houston and Founder and Chair of the Houston AIA Residential Architecture Committee, Chair of the Urban Design Committee, and Director for Urban Issues.
"I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them." http://www.ae911truth.org
Kevin A. Kelly, FAIA – Fellow, American Institute of Architects. Co-author of the groundbreaking book "Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer," which is a standard college textbook in the USA. He brings more than 28 years of experience in the programming field including such projects as the Chrysler Technology Center, Microsoft's recent headquarters expansion, all sports venues for the Atlanta Olympics, and the 1.8 million square foot 3M Research & Development Austin Center.
"The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the AIA Convention in San Francisco [May 2009] made a sufficient case that a new investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01 would be worthwhile." http://www.ae911truth.org
David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP – Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee. Former Professor and Chair of the Planning Departments at Syracuse University and Ball State University. Elected Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners (2004). Past President of the Fulbright Association of the United States. Recipient of five Fulbright Scholarships for continued education in Cyprus, India, Thailand, and the Soviet Union. Directed educational projects in Brazil and Portugal. Active in reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and bicommunal peace-making in Cyprus. Former professional planner on the staffs of the Washington National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Plan Association of New York. Former editorial board member of the Journal of the American Planning Association. Author of numerous journal articles on urban and regional planning theory and history. Author of Planning the Great Metropolis (1996). Co-author of The TVA Regional Planning and Development Program (2005). Contributing author to Two Centuries of American Planning (1988).
"I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues. So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.
When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur. Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.
What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea. But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation."
Mario Fontana, Dr Sc CE – Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Director of the Steel Construction Division, Geilinger AG. Author of more than 40 papers on structural engineering.
Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: "We simply don't know what exactly happened in WTC 7," said Mario Fontana, sitting Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction at ETH-Zurich. At conferences of structural analysis experts one has discovered only very little on the collapse of WTC 7. It is at least thinkable that a long, on-going fire could have caused the collapse of the building, according to Fontana."
translation in English: http://www.danieleganser.ch/assets/files/Inhalte/Publikationen/Zeitungsartikel/agora_eng.pdf
Rick Fowlkes, BS CE, MBA, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer, States of Arizona and California. Professional structural engineer with over 38 years experience with commercial, residential, and industrial engineering designs, including design of electrical power plants, substations, and transmission line structures. Owned and operated his own consulting engineering business since 1983.
"The truth has not been told up to this point, but the evidence brought to light by the Architects and Engineer's for 9/11 Truth is compelling proof that a more thorough investigation is indicated."
Edward E. Knesl, MS Eng, PE – Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Arizona. Thirty five years of domestic and international experience in commercial and transportation projects, including: Structural Design and Analysis, Construction Administration and Management, Plan Review, and Special Inspection.
"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below. We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top. The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?"
Hundreds more of the so-called "crazies" are listed here:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
For more information:
http://www.ae911truth.org
So well said, Jack. Thank you.
This long rambling planned hit piece by 63-year old Jack Radley, a staunch friend of the Democrats and the Thug Hallinan Gang that has been bleeding KPFA dry so as to allow a takeover by a reactionary profit-making outfit, is another good reason to Stop the Thug Hallinan Gang by voting for Voices for Justice and Independent Community Radio. In particular,
see
The Voice for Justice for Radio slate:
Steve Zeltzer, Dr. Sureya Sayadi, Jaime Cader and Felipe Messina.
and
The Endorsers of the Voices for Justice Radio slate at:
From: http://www.voicesforjusticeradio.org/endorsers.htm
and
The ICR slate is:
Listener Category:
Stephen Astourian
Naeem Deskins
Georgia Frazier
Monadel Herzallah
Cynthia Johnson
Hyun-Mi Kim
Janet Kobren
Tracy Rosenberg
Gina Szeto
Kate Tanaka
Staff Category:
Shahram Aghamir
Gabrielle Wilson
Endorsers of the ICR slate are at:
http://voteindyradio.org/node/4
See all candidate statements at:
http://pacificafoundation.org/cand_list.php?sta=kpfa
You can meet the candidates at the following forums or hear them on KPFA:
For transit info or carpool to any forum call 510.332.7181 or email les_kpfa [at] pacifica.org
Saturday, August 28th Ship Clerks ILWU Local 344 Berry Street - (corner of 2nd and King).San Francisco, 12-4pm parking behind building, Buses 30 and 45 run every 5 minutes on Third-Townsend-Fourth Streets, Bus 10, T and N trains, near Southern Pacific station.
Thursday Sept.9 Black Dot Cafe 924 Pine St., West Oakland 6:30-9pm Hosted by JR Ministry of Information from blockreportradio.org and Hardknock radio
Monday Sept. 13 First United Methodist Church San Rafael (basement) 9 Ross Valley Drive ( Greenfield and Ross Valley Dr.) just off the Miracle Mile (Fourth St.) across from Bedrock Music near Cafe Gratitude). Potluck at 6:15pm / Forum at 7:15pm Sponsored by: Marin Peace and Justice
Tuesday, Sept. 14 Berkeley Community Media Public Access TV2239 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley 5-7pm
Sunday, Sept. 19 Sonoma Peace and Justice Center 467 Sebastapol Ave, Santa Rosa 2-5pm
Monday, September 20th Richmond Public LibraryCommunity Room/patio325 Civic Center Plaza (at MacDonald ) Richmond lots of parking co-sponsored byRichmond Progressive Alliance 6:30-9pm
O N A I R F O R U M S:
First Round:
Tuesday, August 31st 2-4pm
Wednesday Sept. 1st 2-4pm
Thursday Sept 2nd 2-4pm
Second Round:
Friday Sept. 10th- 7-8pm
Saturday Sept.11: 9-12noon
Wednesday Sept. 15: 7-8pm
Thursday Sept. 16: 7-8pm
Third Round:
Monday Sept. 27th: 8-10pm
Tuesday Sept. 28th: 8-10pm
Wednesday Sept.29: 8-10pm
In my memory, as in Jack's memory, are the assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and the 2 Kennedys, all perpetrated by the US government. Yet feeble Jack has learned nothing and still cannot comprehend the importance of stating loudly, frequently and comprehensively the fact that 9/11 was an Inside Job, the American Reichstag Fire, perpetrated by the US government, in particular the US military, at the behest of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice & Giuliani, to promote war and fascism so as to maximize the profits of the capitalist class, the same reason as the original Reichstag Fire. AS WE WATCHED IT ON TV, WE SAW NO AIR DEFENSE. That can only mean it was an inside job. If you need more, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, should make it clear that this was an Inside Job. We have scientific papers now describing the thermate, a military explosive substance, found in the dust of the World Trade Center (WTC). This is not just the loaded gun, this is the smoking gun! The Pentagon was not hit by a huge commercial plane doing an impossible maneuver, piloted by an incompetent pilot. It was hit by construction explosives and either a US military missile or US military small plane on the side that was still under construction were there were bookkeepers who could expose the millions of dollars being stolen from the public treasury. The hole in the ground in Pennsylvania had no bodies, said the coroner. The plane that supposedly landed there actually ended its flight at the Cleveland airport. There were no hijackers on those planes; 9 of the so-called hijackers were alive on 9/12/01, there were no Arab names on the passenger lists, the government admits the names are phony and that they have no evidence that any of them did anything. THE PLANES WERE ON REMOTE CONTROL GUIDED BY THE US AIR FORCE, JUST AS WE NOW HAVE CONSTANT DRONE ATTACKS ON PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN, guided by the US military in Nevada. THIS ENTIRE 9/11 INSIDE JOB IS BEING USED TO SCAPEGOAT MUSLIMS AND PROMOTE ENDLESS BLOOD FOR OIL WARS SO WE DO NOT POINT OUR FINGER AT THE PERPETRATORS: THE US GOVERNMENT AND ITS MILITARY, SERVING THE US CAPITALIST CLASS.
JACK AND FRIENDS, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. AT THE VERY LEAST, VIEW THE DVD, LOOSE CHANGE. HERE IT IS:
View
http://www.brasschecktv.com/
http://www.brasschecktv.com/index.php?call=category&id=13 (The 9/11 Files)
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/664.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/88.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/topic/911investigation/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2010m4d2-Memo-to-US-Congress-prima-facie-evidence-that-Bush-Cheney-and-Rumsfeld-committed-treason-on-911
DVD that is a Must See at http://loosechange911.com/
and http://lc911.com/lc911/catalog/Loose-Change-Final-Cut-DVD-p-44.html
Go to Socialist Viewpoint at
http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/
for videos and articles on the 9/11 Truth Movement including, in Volume 9, No. 3, May-June 2009, “Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust” by Editor, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which also has this article at:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51 based on the scientific article by Niels H. Harris, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen at
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
See also:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.sf911truth.org/
http://sftruthaction.blogspot.com/
http://davidraygriffin.com/?v=0
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project (911 timeline)
http://911blogger.com/
http://wtc7.net/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://v911t.org/ Veterans
http://mediafor911truth.org/supporters/
http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/
http://911summary.com/legal.php
http://mp911truth.org/ Medical Professionals
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
READ ALL OF THE FOLLOWING BOOKS:
1.Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert
2. 9/11 Facing Our Fascist State by Don Paul (Excellent research all done in 2001-2002; obviously an Inside Job from the beginning. The evidence is in this book.)
3.Waking Up From Our Nightmare by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman (Good color photos & research)
4.The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 by David Griffin (2009)
5.Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? by David Griffin (2009)
6.New Pearl Harbor Revisited by David Griffin (2008)
7.The Hidden History of 9/11, ed by Paul Zarembka (2008), articles by David Griffin, Jay Kolar, Zarembka, Don Trent Jacobs, Nafez Ahmed, David MacGregor, Bryan Sacks, Diana Ralph, with Appendix by Bertrand Russell: 16 Questions on the JFK Assassination (teaches how to investigate a crime)
8.The 9/11 Conspiracy, edited James Fetzer (2007), articles by John Austin, David Griffin, James Fetzer, Jack White, Judy Wood, Joseph Firmage, Morgan Reynolds, Rick Rajter, Elias Davidsson, Peter Dale Scott, John McMurty plus excellent photos
9. 9/11 Contradictions by David Griffin (2008)
10. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions by David Griffin
11. The New Pearl Harbor by David Griffin
12.. Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Griffin
13.Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid
14. The Iron Triangle (on the Carlyle Group) by Dan Briody
15. 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions by Rowland Morgan & Ian Henshall
16.9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Tarpley
17. Body of Secrets by James Bamford
18. The War on Truth by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed
19. Towers of Deception by Barrie Zwicker (with DVD enclosed)
20. 9/11 and American Empire edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott
21. Flight 93 Revealed by Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan
22.The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson
23.Welcome to Terrorland: Mohammed Atta & the 9/11 Coverup in Florida by Daniel Hopsicker
24.The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers and The Coverup by Sander Hicks
25.The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs
26.Inside Job by Jim Marrs
27.Forbidden Truth by Jean-Charles Brisard & Guillaume Dasquie
28.Pentagate by Thierry Meyssan
29.9/11: The Big Lie by Thierry Meyssan
see
The Voice for Justice for Radio slate:
Steve Zeltzer, Dr. Sureya Sayadi, Jaime Cader and Felipe Messina.
and
The Endorsers of the Voices for Justice Radio slate at:
From: http://www.voicesforjusticeradio.org/endorsers.htm
and
The ICR slate is:
Listener Category:
Stephen Astourian
Naeem Deskins
Georgia Frazier
Monadel Herzallah
Cynthia Johnson
Hyun-Mi Kim
Janet Kobren
Tracy Rosenberg
Gina Szeto
Kate Tanaka
Staff Category:
Shahram Aghamir
Gabrielle Wilson
Endorsers of the ICR slate are at:
http://voteindyradio.org/node/4
See all candidate statements at:
http://pacificafoundation.org/cand_list.php?sta=kpfa
You can meet the candidates at the following forums or hear them on KPFA:
For transit info or carpool to any forum call 510.332.7181 or email les_kpfa [at] pacifica.org
Saturday, August 28th Ship Clerks ILWU Local 344 Berry Street - (corner of 2nd and King).San Francisco, 12-4pm parking behind building, Buses 30 and 45 run every 5 minutes on Third-Townsend-Fourth Streets, Bus 10, T and N trains, near Southern Pacific station.
Thursday Sept.9 Black Dot Cafe 924 Pine St., West Oakland 6:30-9pm Hosted by JR Ministry of Information from blockreportradio.org and Hardknock radio
Monday Sept. 13 First United Methodist Church San Rafael (basement) 9 Ross Valley Drive ( Greenfield and Ross Valley Dr.) just off the Miracle Mile (Fourth St.) across from Bedrock Music near Cafe Gratitude). Potluck at 6:15pm / Forum at 7:15pm Sponsored by: Marin Peace and Justice
Tuesday, Sept. 14 Berkeley Community Media Public Access TV2239 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley 5-7pm
Sunday, Sept. 19 Sonoma Peace and Justice Center 467 Sebastapol Ave, Santa Rosa 2-5pm
Monday, September 20th Richmond Public LibraryCommunity Room/patio325 Civic Center Plaza (at MacDonald ) Richmond lots of parking co-sponsored byRichmond Progressive Alliance 6:30-9pm
O N A I R F O R U M S:
First Round:
Tuesday, August 31st 2-4pm
Wednesday Sept. 1st 2-4pm
Thursday Sept 2nd 2-4pm
Second Round:
Friday Sept. 10th- 7-8pm
Saturday Sept.11: 9-12noon
Wednesday Sept. 15: 7-8pm
Thursday Sept. 16: 7-8pm
Third Round:
Monday Sept. 27th: 8-10pm
Tuesday Sept. 28th: 8-10pm
Wednesday Sept.29: 8-10pm
In my memory, as in Jack's memory, are the assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and the 2 Kennedys, all perpetrated by the US government. Yet feeble Jack has learned nothing and still cannot comprehend the importance of stating loudly, frequently and comprehensively the fact that 9/11 was an Inside Job, the American Reichstag Fire, perpetrated by the US government, in particular the US military, at the behest of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice & Giuliani, to promote war and fascism so as to maximize the profits of the capitalist class, the same reason as the original Reichstag Fire. AS WE WATCHED IT ON TV, WE SAW NO AIR DEFENSE. That can only mean it was an inside job. If you need more, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, should make it clear that this was an Inside Job. We have scientific papers now describing the thermate, a military explosive substance, found in the dust of the World Trade Center (WTC). This is not just the loaded gun, this is the smoking gun! The Pentagon was not hit by a huge commercial plane doing an impossible maneuver, piloted by an incompetent pilot. It was hit by construction explosives and either a US military missile or US military small plane on the side that was still under construction were there were bookkeepers who could expose the millions of dollars being stolen from the public treasury. The hole in the ground in Pennsylvania had no bodies, said the coroner. The plane that supposedly landed there actually ended its flight at the Cleveland airport. There were no hijackers on those planes; 9 of the so-called hijackers were alive on 9/12/01, there were no Arab names on the passenger lists, the government admits the names are phony and that they have no evidence that any of them did anything. THE PLANES WERE ON REMOTE CONTROL GUIDED BY THE US AIR FORCE, JUST AS WE NOW HAVE CONSTANT DRONE ATTACKS ON PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN, guided by the US military in Nevada. THIS ENTIRE 9/11 INSIDE JOB IS BEING USED TO SCAPEGOAT MUSLIMS AND PROMOTE ENDLESS BLOOD FOR OIL WARS SO WE DO NOT POINT OUR FINGER AT THE PERPETRATORS: THE US GOVERNMENT AND ITS MILITARY, SERVING THE US CAPITALIST CLASS.
JACK AND FRIENDS, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. AT THE VERY LEAST, VIEW THE DVD, LOOSE CHANGE. HERE IT IS:
View
http://www.brasschecktv.com/
http://www.brasschecktv.com/index.php?call=category&id=13 (The 9/11 Files)
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/664.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/88.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/topic/911investigation/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2010m4d2-Memo-to-US-Congress-prima-facie-evidence-that-Bush-Cheney-and-Rumsfeld-committed-treason-on-911
DVD that is a Must See at http://loosechange911.com/
and http://lc911.com/lc911/catalog/Loose-Change-Final-Cut-DVD-p-44.html
Go to Socialist Viewpoint at
http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/
for videos and articles on the 9/11 Truth Movement including, in Volume 9, No. 3, May-June 2009, “Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust” by Editor, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which also has this article at:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51 based on the scientific article by Niels H. Harris, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen at
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
See also:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.sf911truth.org/
http://sftruthaction.blogspot.com/
http://davidraygriffin.com/?v=0
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project (911 timeline)
http://911blogger.com/
http://wtc7.net/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://v911t.org/ Veterans
http://mediafor911truth.org/supporters/
http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/
http://911summary.com/legal.php
http://mp911truth.org/ Medical Professionals
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
READ ALL OF THE FOLLOWING BOOKS:
1.Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert
2. 9/11 Facing Our Fascist State by Don Paul (Excellent research all done in 2001-2002; obviously an Inside Job from the beginning. The evidence is in this book.)
3.Waking Up From Our Nightmare by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman (Good color photos & research)
4.The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 by David Griffin (2009)
5.Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? by David Griffin (2009)
6.New Pearl Harbor Revisited by David Griffin (2008)
7.The Hidden History of 9/11, ed by Paul Zarembka (2008), articles by David Griffin, Jay Kolar, Zarembka, Don Trent Jacobs, Nafez Ahmed, David MacGregor, Bryan Sacks, Diana Ralph, with Appendix by Bertrand Russell: 16 Questions on the JFK Assassination (teaches how to investigate a crime)
8.The 9/11 Conspiracy, edited James Fetzer (2007), articles by John Austin, David Griffin, James Fetzer, Jack White, Judy Wood, Joseph Firmage, Morgan Reynolds, Rick Rajter, Elias Davidsson, Peter Dale Scott, John McMurty plus excellent photos
9. 9/11 Contradictions by David Griffin (2008)
10. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions by David Griffin
11. The New Pearl Harbor by David Griffin
12.. Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Griffin
13.Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid
14. The Iron Triangle (on the Carlyle Group) by Dan Briody
15. 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions by Rowland Morgan & Ian Henshall
16.9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Tarpley
17. Body of Secrets by James Bamford
18. The War on Truth by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed
19. Towers of Deception by Barrie Zwicker (with DVD enclosed)
20. 9/11 and American Empire edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott
21. Flight 93 Revealed by Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan
22.The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson
23.Welcome to Terrorland: Mohammed Atta & the 9/11 Coverup in Florida by Daniel Hopsicker
24.The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers and The Coverup by Sander Hicks
25.The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs
26.Inside Job by Jim Marrs
27.Forbidden Truth by Jean-Charles Brisard & Guillaume Dasquie
28.Pentagate by Thierry Meyssan
29.9/11: The Big Lie by Thierry Meyssan
Away from computer--more Fri. I been at most meetings. Jack here seems to use the lowest points as emblem--which Tracy ICR candidate handled well.
Where are those transcripts--not posted?
At least READ Robbie http://www.robbie.org
For more information:
http://www.robbie.org
Hello Jack,
So, you think I do inspirational programming but I’m intentionally dishonest. I suppose it’s possible but over thirty years of hiding my true, sectarian agenda would be really remarkable. And seriously pointless, don’t you think? I urge you to consider the possibility that there’s another reason I might see this differently than you.
I don’t see the relevance of your litany of abuses of democratic process since I haven’t represented bringing a more democratic process to KPFA as easy or free of risk. Quite the contrary. But we’re in crisis and we’ll either address it honestly or become a shadow of what we could and need to be. However many examples you might marshal of democratic practice distorted or misused you won’t prove that democratic process cannot work at KPFA. We’re pretty smart people and we have a large, involved, and politically active and experienced base. If we can’t make democracy work; who can?
Two people decide what form our news programming will take. It’s been that way – and the same two people – for twenty-five or thirty years. The people who choose what programs we air are not disinterested parties. And you call me a liar for saying that that’s undemocratic? Anyone running on a platform that explicitly rejects changing that arrangement has taken an undemocratic position. I don’t doubt that they are well meaning and have illustrious histories, just as you have, but their position is undemocratic. And their position ill serves the station and the causes we have worked so hard for. We’re losing listeners, we’re going broke, and, if we’re not careful, we’ll become irrelevant.
You mention being saddened. One thing that makes me sad is the SaveKPFA slate’s use of the word collaborative. The reason this saddens me is that it strikes me that they use the word to mean nearly the opposite of what collaborative actually means. The word ‘collaborative’ means working together. In a situation in which some people refuse to work together and others protest that refusal, which ought to be identified as not being collaborative? It’s not a synonym for acquiescent you know.
Another thing that strikes me as deliberately misleading, since you raised the topic, is the description of the ‘Democracy Now! time change events which appeared on SaveKPFA’s web site last election. And I fear will repeat this time. They say that the change involved a proposal to cut Democracy Now!’s airtime. Never happened. Just plain made up. And, if we’re going to talk about when errors are suspected of being deliberate – this ‘error’ serves perfectly to paper over the real context of the conflict – which was turf protection vs. progressive change.
If the motion had been to cut Democracy Now!’s time I would have voted against it. And I not only voted for it; I was the person who made the motion. Let the SaveKPFA folks address the problem of interested parties with lifetime tenure making decisions that affect themselves personally rather than trying to paper it over. Misrepresenting important issues should also be added to the list of undemocratic behavior.
Unlike you, Jack, whose first instinct seems to be to assume I’m lying and trying to sneak some sect (heaven only knows which one you think I favor) into KPFA, I am certain that the folks running on the SaveKPFA ticket are progressive souls, mean well, and ought to be thanked for being willing to enter a very difficult situation. But I think they’re wrong about some fundamental aspects of their platform.
Our beloved left hasn’t done well when we’ve fallen to making the expression of such disagreements into offenses against good order.
Best,
Robbie
So, you think I do inspirational programming but I’m intentionally dishonest. I suppose it’s possible but over thirty years of hiding my true, sectarian agenda would be really remarkable. And seriously pointless, don’t you think? I urge you to consider the possibility that there’s another reason I might see this differently than you.
I don’t see the relevance of your litany of abuses of democratic process since I haven’t represented bringing a more democratic process to KPFA as easy or free of risk. Quite the contrary. But we’re in crisis and we’ll either address it honestly or become a shadow of what we could and need to be. However many examples you might marshal of democratic practice distorted or misused you won’t prove that democratic process cannot work at KPFA. We’re pretty smart people and we have a large, involved, and politically active and experienced base. If we can’t make democracy work; who can?
Two people decide what form our news programming will take. It’s been that way – and the same two people – for twenty-five or thirty years. The people who choose what programs we air are not disinterested parties. And you call me a liar for saying that that’s undemocratic? Anyone running on a platform that explicitly rejects changing that arrangement has taken an undemocratic position. I don’t doubt that they are well meaning and have illustrious histories, just as you have, but their position is undemocratic. And their position ill serves the station and the causes we have worked so hard for. We’re losing listeners, we’re going broke, and, if we’re not careful, we’ll become irrelevant.
You mention being saddened. One thing that makes me sad is the SaveKPFA slate’s use of the word collaborative. The reason this saddens me is that it strikes me that they use the word to mean nearly the opposite of what collaborative actually means. The word ‘collaborative’ means working together. In a situation in which some people refuse to work together and others protest that refusal, which ought to be identified as not being collaborative? It’s not a synonym for acquiescent you know.
Another thing that strikes me as deliberately misleading, since you raised the topic, is the description of the ‘Democracy Now! time change events which appeared on SaveKPFA’s web site last election. And I fear will repeat this time. They say that the change involved a proposal to cut Democracy Now!’s airtime. Never happened. Just plain made up. And, if we’re going to talk about when errors are suspected of being deliberate – this ‘error’ serves perfectly to paper over the real context of the conflict – which was turf protection vs. progressive change.
If the motion had been to cut Democracy Now!’s time I would have voted against it. And I not only voted for it; I was the person who made the motion. Let the SaveKPFA folks address the problem of interested parties with lifetime tenure making decisions that affect themselves personally rather than trying to paper it over. Misrepresenting important issues should also be added to the list of undemocratic behavior.
Unlike you, Jack, whose first instinct seems to be to assume I’m lying and trying to sneak some sect (heaven only knows which one you think I favor) into KPFA, I am certain that the folks running on the SaveKPFA ticket are progressive souls, mean well, and ought to be thanked for being willing to enter a very difficult situation. But I think they’re wrong about some fundamental aspects of their platform.
Our beloved left hasn’t done well when we’ve fallen to making the expression of such disagreements into offenses against good order.
Best,
Robbie
For more information:
http://www.robbie.org
Wow. I want to thank several of you for so clearly illustrating my point. I would appreciate it if people, particularly those who want to throw insults around, would be so kind as to share their names with us. Oh, and please spell mine correctly. No L in there.
Robbie, democracy is not the same thing as everyone coming to meetings to decide everything. In any large organization, like KPFA, it means electing people to speak for us, who in turn make policy, hire management, and then run the station. We should also have a way to share the views of listeners with whatever bodies we elect. We should NOT all assume that we need to be in on every step of running the station. You and I are both aware that there are people with various mania (at least one was well illustrated in one of the letters here) believe that their personal obsession should be everyone's. I don't think you want that for the station, or for, say, you're program. You have a programing slot, your style and content are known, management assigns you the slot and supports you doing what you do in there. Good. Do we need an open forum to discuss your choice of each song? With whoever shows up getting a vote, and the right to denounce you or others who might want a different choice? Hell of a way to run a railroad. You wouldn't put up with it, nor would anyone else. If the majority of those elected find your programming inappropriate, or you consistently violate station policy, or do something to jeapordize the station, I assume you would be asked to leave. I hope you stay and keep doing what you do, I love it. But I hope you will put some thought to what democracy means.
I have heard programmers who deliver their stories with a sneer, a lot of jargon, and what comes across as contempt for anyone who doesn't buy what they are saying. I'd be more impressed, and I think most listeners, especially those we wish to reach out to, if we didn't have too much of that on the air. Facts, and humor, both speak louder and more convincingly than arrogance.
One person suggested that KPFA broadcasting should reach out to members of Peace and Freedom Party and socialists, that is our natural base and who we should talk to. I have no problem if some of our programing preaches to the choir. But that is not really what KPFA is for, and is a strategy that will lead nowhere but to ruin. This powerful tool should be used to reach people who are not yet convinced. And do so in a way that there is some chance they will listen to.
Thug? Well, whatever. I would think it would be less bullying if people would put their own names to the stones they want to throw. Reminds me of the folks who come to demonstrations to break windows, but never seem to be around when the cops appear.
Robbie, democracy is not the same thing as everyone coming to meetings to decide everything. In any large organization, like KPFA, it means electing people to speak for us, who in turn make policy, hire management, and then run the station. We should also have a way to share the views of listeners with whatever bodies we elect. We should NOT all assume that we need to be in on every step of running the station. You and I are both aware that there are people with various mania (at least one was well illustrated in one of the letters here) believe that their personal obsession should be everyone's. I don't think you want that for the station, or for, say, you're program. You have a programing slot, your style and content are known, management assigns you the slot and supports you doing what you do in there. Good. Do we need an open forum to discuss your choice of each song? With whoever shows up getting a vote, and the right to denounce you or others who might want a different choice? Hell of a way to run a railroad. You wouldn't put up with it, nor would anyone else. If the majority of those elected find your programming inappropriate, or you consistently violate station policy, or do something to jeapordize the station, I assume you would be asked to leave. I hope you stay and keep doing what you do, I love it. But I hope you will put some thought to what democracy means.
I have heard programmers who deliver their stories with a sneer, a lot of jargon, and what comes across as contempt for anyone who doesn't buy what they are saying. I'd be more impressed, and I think most listeners, especially those we wish to reach out to, if we didn't have too much of that on the air. Facts, and humor, both speak louder and more convincingly than arrogance.
One person suggested that KPFA broadcasting should reach out to members of Peace and Freedom Party and socialists, that is our natural base and who we should talk to. I have no problem if some of our programing preaches to the choir. But that is not really what KPFA is for, and is a strategy that will lead nowhere but to ruin. This powerful tool should be used to reach people who are not yet convinced. And do so in a way that there is some chance they will listen to.
Thug? Well, whatever. I would think it would be less bullying if people would put their own names to the stones they want to throw. Reminds me of the folks who come to demonstrations to break windows, but never seem to be around when the cops appear.
Out of curiosity I looked around to see what else Jack Radley wrote, and that's what I found, a 268 page book on starch. The same Jack Radley? No? Well, maybe there's some other writer with that name.
Or, is it possible that some anonymous CL'er composed the above attacks on Robbie and invented the name to give an appearance of authenticity?
Anyway, for those interested, and I'm sure many are, the starch book can be found at
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2193243
I look up Jack Radey and find a person who speaks out for a Police Auditor to oversee community policing and prevent police abuse in his community.
I look up Daniel Borgstrom and find an entry for a police officer that trains attack dogs.
Coincidence?
I look up Daniel Borgstrom and find an entry for a police officer that trains attack dogs.
Coincidence?
>>I look up Jack Radey and find a person who speaks out for a Police Auditor
Like 99.99% of those who listen to KPFA do not??
So what.
And focusing on whether people use their own name or not is just a way to redirect away from the topic. Not rocket science.
Like 99.99% of those who listen to KPFA do not??
So what.
And focusing on whether people use their own name or not is just a way to redirect away from the topic. Not rocket science.
Jack, either you don't know what the KPFAForward, Concerned Listeners, "Save KPFA" folks have been doing or you dont care!
KPFA: Ten Years After The 1999 Hijack Attempt
by Richard Phelps, former Chair KPFA LSB
Wednesday Jul 15th, 2009 4:12 PM
As Pacifica embarked on its new democratic path it became clear that everyone that fought the Hijackers didn’t do so for the same reason! At KPFA some staff and their supporters sought to defeat the Hijackers so that they could control KPFA and make the decisions about who/what gets air time and who gets the paid jobs.
After mass listener support rescued KPFA and Pacifica from a self appointed Pacifica National Board (PNB) that was planning to sell KPFA or one of the other stations and take the “community” out of the network, new democratic Bylaws were written and adopted. You can read the Bylaws at http://www.pacifica.org/governance/PacificaBylaws-new.html .
Pacifica’s Bylaws state a commitment for peace and social justice, Article One, Section 3. It seems inconceivable that peace and social justice can even be approached with out a democratic process with transparency and accountability. As Gandhi said “Be the change you want to see in the world.”
As Pacifica embarked on its new democratic path it became clear that everyone that fought the Hijackers didn’t do so for the same reason! Most listener activists and some staff supported the new democratic process and welcomed the involvement and input of the listener/subscribers who are the regular audience and the financial supporters of the station and Pacifica.
At KPFA some staff and their supporters sought to defeat the Hijackers so that they could control KPFA and make the decisions about who/what gets air time and who gets the paid jobs. This latter group has used the power of the stations progressive reputation and the power of the microphone to maintain control and frustrate the new Bylaws in many ways.
The staff group I am referring to was identified by an e-mail from Brian Edwards-Tiekert to the other “insiders” that became public in 2005. You can read the e-mail at http://peoplesradio.net/Dismantle.htm. The author acknowledged its authenticity. Their group now claims that it never met to discuss “dismantling the Local Station Board (LSB)”, aka the democratic process, or “how do we make our enemies own the problems that are to come”. This group has been supported by their electoral counter part, first called KPFAForward (2004) and now Concerned Listeners (CL).
In the 5+ years under this leadership group KPFA subscribers have gone from 28,000 in 2003 to 20,000 now! That is a 28% decrease while they increased the paid staff by 50%. Bringing us a $300,000 deficit this year. At the same time they refused to do anything about the financial problems hurting Pacifica. Their conduct actually precipitated a major financial crisis at Pacifica. http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-05-14/article/32873?headline=The-Pacifica-Financial-Crisis-Who-is-Responsible- .
Let’s see what these folks have done toward “dismantling the LSB”. In 2003 the KPFA Program Council, made up of paid and unpaid staff and listeners, voted to move Democracy Now! (DN!) to Prime time, 7-8am and move the morning show to 8-10am. There was/is significant listener demand/support for this time change. It is common practice and common sense to put your most popular/dynamic program in prime time. In May 2004 the LSB voted to move DN! to prime time as per the Program Council’s prior vote. This has never been implemented. WHY?
In 2007 GM Lemlem Rijio, quietly ended the Program Council. The LSB’s CL majority ignored the previous Resolution codifying the Program Council and did nothing to save the Program Council.
In 2007 GM Rijio took away the official status of the Unpaid Staff Organization (UPSO). UPSO existed to represent the unpaid staff at KPFA, more than 200 people. These are the people who do the majority of the work that goes on the air.
The CL slate literature for the 2006 and 2007 LSB elections was silent on the important issues of the Program Council, UPSO and the DN! move to prime time
In 2009 the CL LSB majority voted to meet only once every other month, instead of every month as all the other stations do and KPFA had done for 5 years. They ignored the backlog of work to be done and how it delayed the selection of LSB members to important PNB committees.
Over a year ago they took the link to the LSB page off the front page of the KPFA web site. They don’t announce the LSB meetings on the front page of the web site and often don’t announce them on the air as required by the Bylaws.
How has the CL maintained its slim majority on the LSB? Here are some of the dirty tricks they have used to dominate the elections. In 2006 and 2007 GM Rijio refused to allow any election information to be broadcast when the ballots were sent out. Rijio’s justification was that there was a fund drive in progress despite election information being broadcast during fund drives at other Pacifica stations. In 2006 and 2007 CL spent thousands of dollars and sent out a slate mailer to arrive with the ballots during the election information black out, imposed by their ally GM Rijio. To top that off, in 2007 when they finally did run some candidate carts, they ran all 22 at once, with CL candidate Sherry Gendelman’s first.
After the 2007 KPFA election there was only one news story on KPFA about the election. Interviewed were Sherry Gendelman, Matthew Lasar, a CL endorser, and Dan Siegel and Larry Bensky both CL allies and supporters and both guilty of using station or Foundation resources to support CL or attack their opponents in violation of election ethics. No listener activist candidates were interviewed. Why is there a FOX in our newsroom?
In the upcoming election there will be ample airtime for the election since the new PNB majority has resolved that it will be so. Bonnie Simmons, a CL/Rijio group member, recently made a motion to rescind the Resolution to require ample airtime for the election. Does an open inclusive election scare them?
“Our leadership elite may still want to believe in democratic principles-they certainly profess that they do-but in practice they have shown themselves all too willing to violate those principles in order to gain or retain power”, Cornel West from his book Democracy Matters, page 28. If democracy matters to you, it is time for a new majority on the KPFA LSB.
Please do not vote for any CL endorsed candidates if you want a democratic, financially sound KPFA/Pacifica.
Richard Phelps, former Chair, KPFA LSB, 35 year listener/subscriber, former AM & FM radio announcer.
KPFA: Ten Years After The 1999 Hijack Attempt
by Richard Phelps, former Chair KPFA LSB
Wednesday Jul 15th, 2009 4:12 PM
As Pacifica embarked on its new democratic path it became clear that everyone that fought the Hijackers didn’t do so for the same reason! At KPFA some staff and their supporters sought to defeat the Hijackers so that they could control KPFA and make the decisions about who/what gets air time and who gets the paid jobs.
After mass listener support rescued KPFA and Pacifica from a self appointed Pacifica National Board (PNB) that was planning to sell KPFA or one of the other stations and take the “community” out of the network, new democratic Bylaws were written and adopted. You can read the Bylaws at http://www.pacifica.org/governance/PacificaBylaws-new.html .
Pacifica’s Bylaws state a commitment for peace and social justice, Article One, Section 3. It seems inconceivable that peace and social justice can even be approached with out a democratic process with transparency and accountability. As Gandhi said “Be the change you want to see in the world.”
As Pacifica embarked on its new democratic path it became clear that everyone that fought the Hijackers didn’t do so for the same reason! Most listener activists and some staff supported the new democratic process and welcomed the involvement and input of the listener/subscribers who are the regular audience and the financial supporters of the station and Pacifica.
At KPFA some staff and their supporters sought to defeat the Hijackers so that they could control KPFA and make the decisions about who/what gets air time and who gets the paid jobs. This latter group has used the power of the stations progressive reputation and the power of the microphone to maintain control and frustrate the new Bylaws in many ways.
The staff group I am referring to was identified by an e-mail from Brian Edwards-Tiekert to the other “insiders” that became public in 2005. You can read the e-mail at http://peoplesradio.net/Dismantle.htm. The author acknowledged its authenticity. Their group now claims that it never met to discuss “dismantling the Local Station Board (LSB)”, aka the democratic process, or “how do we make our enemies own the problems that are to come”. This group has been supported by their electoral counter part, first called KPFAForward (2004) and now Concerned Listeners (CL).
In the 5+ years under this leadership group KPFA subscribers have gone from 28,000 in 2003 to 20,000 now! That is a 28% decrease while they increased the paid staff by 50%. Bringing us a $300,000 deficit this year. At the same time they refused to do anything about the financial problems hurting Pacifica. Their conduct actually precipitated a major financial crisis at Pacifica. http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-05-14/article/32873?headline=The-Pacifica-Financial-Crisis-Who-is-Responsible- .
Let’s see what these folks have done toward “dismantling the LSB”. In 2003 the KPFA Program Council, made up of paid and unpaid staff and listeners, voted to move Democracy Now! (DN!) to Prime time, 7-8am and move the morning show to 8-10am. There was/is significant listener demand/support for this time change. It is common practice and common sense to put your most popular/dynamic program in prime time. In May 2004 the LSB voted to move DN! to prime time as per the Program Council’s prior vote. This has never been implemented. WHY?
In 2007 GM Lemlem Rijio, quietly ended the Program Council. The LSB’s CL majority ignored the previous Resolution codifying the Program Council and did nothing to save the Program Council.
In 2007 GM Rijio took away the official status of the Unpaid Staff Organization (UPSO). UPSO existed to represent the unpaid staff at KPFA, more than 200 people. These are the people who do the majority of the work that goes on the air.
The CL slate literature for the 2006 and 2007 LSB elections was silent on the important issues of the Program Council, UPSO and the DN! move to prime time
In 2009 the CL LSB majority voted to meet only once every other month, instead of every month as all the other stations do and KPFA had done for 5 years. They ignored the backlog of work to be done and how it delayed the selection of LSB members to important PNB committees.
Over a year ago they took the link to the LSB page off the front page of the KPFA web site. They don’t announce the LSB meetings on the front page of the web site and often don’t announce them on the air as required by the Bylaws.
How has the CL maintained its slim majority on the LSB? Here are some of the dirty tricks they have used to dominate the elections. In 2006 and 2007 GM Rijio refused to allow any election information to be broadcast when the ballots were sent out. Rijio’s justification was that there was a fund drive in progress despite election information being broadcast during fund drives at other Pacifica stations. In 2006 and 2007 CL spent thousands of dollars and sent out a slate mailer to arrive with the ballots during the election information black out, imposed by their ally GM Rijio. To top that off, in 2007 when they finally did run some candidate carts, they ran all 22 at once, with CL candidate Sherry Gendelman’s first.
After the 2007 KPFA election there was only one news story on KPFA about the election. Interviewed were Sherry Gendelman, Matthew Lasar, a CL endorser, and Dan Siegel and Larry Bensky both CL allies and supporters and both guilty of using station or Foundation resources to support CL or attack their opponents in violation of election ethics. No listener activist candidates were interviewed. Why is there a FOX in our newsroom?
In the upcoming election there will be ample airtime for the election since the new PNB majority has resolved that it will be so. Bonnie Simmons, a CL/Rijio group member, recently made a motion to rescind the Resolution to require ample airtime for the election. Does an open inclusive election scare them?
“Our leadership elite may still want to believe in democratic principles-they certainly profess that they do-but in practice they have shown themselves all too willing to violate those principles in order to gain or retain power”, Cornel West from his book Democracy Matters, page 28. If democracy matters to you, it is time for a new majority on the KPFA LSB.
Please do not vote for any CL endorsed candidates if you want a democratic, financially sound KPFA/Pacifica.
Richard Phelps, former Chair, KPFA LSB, 35 year listener/subscriber, former AM & FM radio announcer.
The Pacifica Financial Crisis: Who is Responsible?
By Richard Phelps
Thursday May 14, 2009
Recently WBAI management did not pay their rent for four months and received a Three Day Notice to pay or be subject to eviction. This was not promptly communicated to the financial or executive management of Pacifica. WBAI has been losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for several years and currently owes Pacifica over $1,000,000.00 in back central services contributions. Each station contributes 20 percent of its listener-generated revenue to run the Foundation. When one station isn’t making its contribution the results are that the Foundation is short on money or the other stations have to pay more. This several year problem at WBAI and the current economic downturn has caused serious financial problems for Pacifica. The current Pacifica National Board (PNB), elected in January, gives hope for the survival of Pacifica.
Why didn’t Pacifica correct this problem early on? There was collusion among some PNB members from various stations to allow WBAI to do what they wanted to do with no oversight or accountability to the Bylaws or the listener/subscribers. The major players in this collusion were from KPFA, WBAI and WPFW, with a vote or two from KPFK and KPFT and the affiliate Reps on the PNB.
The Local Station Board (LSB) majorities at KPFA and WBAI generally elected three PNB members that supported this collusion and WPFW, until recently, often sent four. There are 22 members of the PNB, four from each station and two Affiliate Representatives. An LSB majority can elect three of the four PNB members for their station. With ten votes from KPFA, WBAI and WPFW it only takes three votes from the ten from the other two stations and affiliate reps to have a majority to control the PNB and continue this collusion. Until this last January the Colluders had the majority for several years.
Who are the Colluders and why did they do this? Local tyrannical majorities wanted to run their stations without regard to the Bylaws and with no oversight from the Foundation. At KPFA the “KPFAForward” (2004) and “Concerned Listener” (CL) (2006 & 2007) slates represented the same management/staff faction and generally endorsed majorities that sent three PNB members who consistently voted to protect and continue the collusion. This group included William Walker, Sarv Randhawa, Rosalinda Palacios, Mary Berg, Sherry Gendelman, Bonnie Simmons and Andrea Turner. They consistently vote/voted with the Justice & Unity majority from WBAI and the WPFW majority. They generally sit together at the PNB meetings and are regularly seen privately caucusing together at lunch and before and after meetings sometimes, with GM Lemlem Rijio when in Berkeley.
Prior to this year’s PNB, Bob Lederer was the Justice & Unity leader on the PNB. I have attended many PNB meetings and listened to most of the others on line. During those meetings if KPFA Colluder PNB members were not sure how to vote they often passed if Bob Lederer hadn’t voted or passed. When he voted they would follow. If you don’t believe me go to the archives of the meetings and listen. Rosalinda Palacios (2006) was especially consistent with following Lederer’s votes.
Whenever there was a move to correct the problems at WBAI the KPFA Colluders always voted with the others to protect the LSB majority at WBAI. Patty Heffley, the minority PNB Rep from WBAI, made a motion to have the PNB order the WBAI LSB to do a performance review of the general manager (GM) and the program director . The Bylaws require these to be done annually. At WBAI they had never been done, despite complaints from the LSB minority. The PNB Colluder majority refused to order the WBAI LSB to follow the Bylaws. Many others complained about WBAI being out of control and losing money and the Colluder PNB majority did NOTHING as the red ink continued to flow.
At KPFA the CL slate and the Rijio/Lilley management work together to make sure they maintain a majority on the LSB to elect three PNB members from their group. One of their methods was to have no election information on the air when the ballots went out and at the same time the CL sent a slate mailer. After the first time this happened I wrote a motion on the PNB Election Committee requiring election information to be on the air during the election. It passed out of the election committee by a 10-2 vote. The Colluder majority on the PNB voted it down. When they finally ran some candidate information they ran 22 candidate statements in a row, always with Sherry Gendelman first! At the April 2009 PNB meeting in Berkeley the new non-Colluder PNB majority passed a motion requiring broad election coverage on the air.
The Colluder majority was consistently against transparency. The Bylaws and California law allow Directors, PNB members, the “absolute right” to inspect all documents and facilities at any reasonable time. For years the Colluders fought to stop or hinder Directors’ Inspections. When inspections were finally allowed due to potential lawsuits it was discovered that $65,000 worth of equipment had been sent to a WBAI former GM’s father’s house and was not accounted for. As recently as 2008 a Director was ordered out of WBAI in the middle of a lawful inspection without any justification. Who gave the order? Dan Siegel, interim Executive Director, hired by the Colluder majority.
So when you hear Brian Edwards-Tiekert, Sherry Gendelman, Bonnie Simmons, Warren Mar or any of the CL allies complain about KPFA money going to shore up WBAI, they and their allies are responsible for this crisis for trading fiscal responsibility for their power to ignore the Bylaws, transparency and accountability.
To save Pacifica we must vote out the CL Colluders in the next election so they will not be able to send three Colluders to the PNB to ignore the Bylaws and progressive principles in favor of uncontrolled tyranny of the local majorities. KPFA is a Commons that belong to all of us and it must be protected and preserved above the CL/Rijio group’s desire for unrestrained power.
Richard Phelps is a former chair of KPFA’s Listener Station Board.
By Richard Phelps
Thursday May 14, 2009
Recently WBAI management did not pay their rent for four months and received a Three Day Notice to pay or be subject to eviction. This was not promptly communicated to the financial or executive management of Pacifica. WBAI has been losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for several years and currently owes Pacifica over $1,000,000.00 in back central services contributions. Each station contributes 20 percent of its listener-generated revenue to run the Foundation. When one station isn’t making its contribution the results are that the Foundation is short on money or the other stations have to pay more. This several year problem at WBAI and the current economic downturn has caused serious financial problems for Pacifica. The current Pacifica National Board (PNB), elected in January, gives hope for the survival of Pacifica.
Why didn’t Pacifica correct this problem early on? There was collusion among some PNB members from various stations to allow WBAI to do what they wanted to do with no oversight or accountability to the Bylaws or the listener/subscribers. The major players in this collusion were from KPFA, WBAI and WPFW, with a vote or two from KPFK and KPFT and the affiliate Reps on the PNB.
The Local Station Board (LSB) majorities at KPFA and WBAI generally elected three PNB members that supported this collusion and WPFW, until recently, often sent four. There are 22 members of the PNB, four from each station and two Affiliate Representatives. An LSB majority can elect three of the four PNB members for their station. With ten votes from KPFA, WBAI and WPFW it only takes three votes from the ten from the other two stations and affiliate reps to have a majority to control the PNB and continue this collusion. Until this last January the Colluders had the majority for several years.
Who are the Colluders and why did they do this? Local tyrannical majorities wanted to run their stations without regard to the Bylaws and with no oversight from the Foundation. At KPFA the “KPFAForward” (2004) and “Concerned Listener” (CL) (2006 & 2007) slates represented the same management/staff faction and generally endorsed majorities that sent three PNB members who consistently voted to protect and continue the collusion. This group included William Walker, Sarv Randhawa, Rosalinda Palacios, Mary Berg, Sherry Gendelman, Bonnie Simmons and Andrea Turner. They consistently vote/voted with the Justice & Unity majority from WBAI and the WPFW majority. They generally sit together at the PNB meetings and are regularly seen privately caucusing together at lunch and before and after meetings sometimes, with GM Lemlem Rijio when in Berkeley.
Prior to this year’s PNB, Bob Lederer was the Justice & Unity leader on the PNB. I have attended many PNB meetings and listened to most of the others on line. During those meetings if KPFA Colluder PNB members were not sure how to vote they often passed if Bob Lederer hadn’t voted or passed. When he voted they would follow. If you don’t believe me go to the archives of the meetings and listen. Rosalinda Palacios (2006) was especially consistent with following Lederer’s votes.
Whenever there was a move to correct the problems at WBAI the KPFA Colluders always voted with the others to protect the LSB majority at WBAI. Patty Heffley, the minority PNB Rep from WBAI, made a motion to have the PNB order the WBAI LSB to do a performance review of the general manager (GM) and the program director . The Bylaws require these to be done annually. At WBAI they had never been done, despite complaints from the LSB minority. The PNB Colluder majority refused to order the WBAI LSB to follow the Bylaws. Many others complained about WBAI being out of control and losing money and the Colluder PNB majority did NOTHING as the red ink continued to flow.
At KPFA the CL slate and the Rijio/Lilley management work together to make sure they maintain a majority on the LSB to elect three PNB members from their group. One of their methods was to have no election information on the air when the ballots went out and at the same time the CL sent a slate mailer. After the first time this happened I wrote a motion on the PNB Election Committee requiring election information to be on the air during the election. It passed out of the election committee by a 10-2 vote. The Colluder majority on the PNB voted it down. When they finally ran some candidate information they ran 22 candidate statements in a row, always with Sherry Gendelman first! At the April 2009 PNB meeting in Berkeley the new non-Colluder PNB majority passed a motion requiring broad election coverage on the air.
The Colluder majority was consistently against transparency. The Bylaws and California law allow Directors, PNB members, the “absolute right” to inspect all documents and facilities at any reasonable time. For years the Colluders fought to stop or hinder Directors’ Inspections. When inspections were finally allowed due to potential lawsuits it was discovered that $65,000 worth of equipment had been sent to a WBAI former GM’s father’s house and was not accounted for. As recently as 2008 a Director was ordered out of WBAI in the middle of a lawful inspection without any justification. Who gave the order? Dan Siegel, interim Executive Director, hired by the Colluder majority.
So when you hear Brian Edwards-Tiekert, Sherry Gendelman, Bonnie Simmons, Warren Mar or any of the CL allies complain about KPFA money going to shore up WBAI, they and their allies are responsible for this crisis for trading fiscal responsibility for their power to ignore the Bylaws, transparency and accountability.
To save Pacifica we must vote out the CL Colluders in the next election so they will not be able to send three Colluders to the PNB to ignore the Bylaws and progressive principles in favor of uncontrolled tyranny of the local majorities. KPFA is a Commons that belong to all of us and it must be protected and preserved above the CL/Rijio group’s desire for unrestrained power.
Richard Phelps is a former chair of KPFA’s Listener Station Board.
Whoever told you that the sort of Program Council I am advocating is anything remotely like the one you dread lied to you. The Program Council that I was part of, the one that called for the Democracy Now! time change, the one that was first ignored and then disbanded by the leadership you support, the one that ought to be reconstituted, was composed of a few representatives from the local board, a few representing the listeners, a few from the unpaid staff, and some paid staff and the program director. Maybe fifteen people in all. It did not meet publicly. Confidentiality agreements protected the speech of the participants.
Having to respond to your going on and on about sects packing meetings when that has not even a remote relationship to what what I'm suggesting makes me appreciate how difficult it must have been to answer people last August who thought or pretended to think that there were going to be death panels and that they were opposing a plan to kill their grandmothers.
Again, you've been lied to. Your grandmother is not going to be murdered. You are the people you're warning us all about.
Having to respond to your going on and on about sects packing meetings when that has not even a remote relationship to what what I'm suggesting makes me appreciate how difficult it must have been to answer people last August who thought or pretended to think that there were going to be death panels and that they were opposing a plan to kill their grandmothers.
Again, you've been lied to. Your grandmother is not going to be murdered. You are the people you're warning us all about.
For more information:
http://www.robbie.org
The police accountability guy is in Eugene, Oregon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyJg7_Pnzek
On the Facebook page for Jack Radey, there are not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, but 5 Hallinans as friends.
That would explain where the death panel info is radiating from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyJg7_Pnzek
On the Facebook page for Jack Radey, there are not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, but 5 Hallinans as friends.
That would explain where the death panel info is radiating from.
There's an "L" in Radley, but the person in Oregon is Radey.
He complained that his name was mis-spelled as Radley.
Methinks it is not a sincere response to Osman's post, just a Hallinan-sent troll.
Methinks it is not a sincere response to Osman's post, just a Hallinan-sent troll.
People, forget about "Jack", he doesn't seem to know Jack about what has been going on at KPFA and Pacifica. Stay focused on what is wrong with what he is arguing and advocating. We must always remember that a great idea could come from anyone so we must focus on the points being made and generally not the person making them.
Sometimes our allies are dead wrong and we have to always speak out for progressive values: truth, honesty, transparency, democratic process and fair play and a level playing field on which to debate our issues. If we allow our allies or ourselves to deviate from these principles we will eventually become that which we claim to oppose. And if that happens and we win the power struggle, what have we won: see the new boss same as the old boss!
Over the past several years when I wrote about the unprincipled acts of KPFAForward, CL and their individual members like Brian Edwards-Tiekert etc I would get personally attacked since they couldn't refute the truth of what I was saying. So stay focused on the dishonesty of his comments and rebute his garbage with facts as Robbie has done on the Program Council issue.
Some more history. CL didn't write anything about the Program Council issue during the 2006 and 2007 election campaigns. And I believe that they only took their position public in 2009 since Peoplesradio folks pointed out their silence on such an important issue in our candidate statements in 2007.
The CL was then forced to go public with their "advisory" position after all of our subscribers were informed of their dodging such an important issue, and we know how the CL management didn't pay any attention to suggestions or the bylaws or PNB directives so an advisory PC would be a total waste of time and people's energy.
Sometimes our allies are dead wrong and we have to always speak out for progressive values: truth, honesty, transparency, democratic process and fair play and a level playing field on which to debate our issues. If we allow our allies or ourselves to deviate from these principles we will eventually become that which we claim to oppose. And if that happens and we win the power struggle, what have we won: see the new boss same as the old boss!
Over the past several years when I wrote about the unprincipled acts of KPFAForward, CL and their individual members like Brian Edwards-Tiekert etc I would get personally attacked since they couldn't refute the truth of what I was saying. So stay focused on the dishonesty of his comments and rebute his garbage with facts as Robbie has done on the Program Council issue.
Some more history. CL didn't write anything about the Program Council issue during the 2006 and 2007 election campaigns. And I believe that they only took their position public in 2009 since Peoplesradio folks pointed out their silence on such an important issue in our candidate statements in 2007.
The CL was then forced to go public with their "advisory" position after all of our subscribers were informed of their dodging such an important issue, and we know how the CL management didn't pay any attention to suggestions or the bylaws or PNB directives so an advisory PC would be a total waste of time and people's energy.
Changing Your Name Doesn't Change Who You Are and What You Have Done!!
by Richard Phelps, former Chair KPFA LSB
Tue Aug 17 08:35:55 2010
First it was "KPFAForward". Then "Concerned Listeners". Now they are stealing the name of a former grassroots movement which their folks opposed at the time "Save KPFA"!
They may add new people as some old ones leave and their goal is the same, stymie or destroy the democratic process so that they can control the jobs and air time without any transparency or accountability to the listeners and subscribers.
If they spoke truthfully their pitch would be "Send in your checks and then shut up and let us run things"
In November 2008 a Trust donated money to KPFA and Pacifica, it included various checks that were turned over to LemLem Rijio GM. I believe that KPFA, then Treasurer, Brian Edwards-Tiekert ( famous for his: "dismantle the LSB" and "How do we blame our enemies for the problems to come" agenda items for this groups private strategy meetings), Sherry Gendelman, and Dan Siegel were present when these checks were given to KPFA/Pacifica.
LemLem didn't deposit a check for $375,000.00 for a year. It was discovered when an audit was approaching. This was no accident and maybe some day we will find out the details their nefarious scheme. After it was discovered and folks asked for a new check to be issued the Trust would only put it into another foundation to manage it. So once we had a $375,000.00 check to be deposited straight into KPFA/Pacifica accounts and now we have to ask a manager for the money!
Is that how they plan to "SAVE KPFA"??????????
And Conn and Matthew Hallinan stated in a letter to raise money and votes for their campaign that Lemlem was fired for "misplacing a check". Some how they forgot to tell their followers the size of the check and how long it was hidden. But what's the big deal don't we all lose track of $375,000.00 check every now and then? :)
by Richard Phelps, former Chair KPFA LSB
Tue Aug 17 08:35:55 2010
First it was "KPFAForward". Then "Concerned Listeners". Now they are stealing the name of a former grassroots movement which their folks opposed at the time "Save KPFA"!
They may add new people as some old ones leave and their goal is the same, stymie or destroy the democratic process so that they can control the jobs and air time without any transparency or accountability to the listeners and subscribers.
If they spoke truthfully their pitch would be "Send in your checks and then shut up and let us run things"
In November 2008 a Trust donated money to KPFA and Pacifica, it included various checks that were turned over to LemLem Rijio GM. I believe that KPFA, then Treasurer, Brian Edwards-Tiekert ( famous for his: "dismantle the LSB" and "How do we blame our enemies for the problems to come" agenda items for this groups private strategy meetings), Sherry Gendelman, and Dan Siegel were present when these checks were given to KPFA/Pacifica.
LemLem didn't deposit a check for $375,000.00 for a year. It was discovered when an audit was approaching. This was no accident and maybe some day we will find out the details their nefarious scheme. After it was discovered and folks asked for a new check to be issued the Trust would only put it into another foundation to manage it. So once we had a $375,000.00 check to be deposited straight into KPFA/Pacifica accounts and now we have to ask a manager for the money!
Is that how they plan to "SAVE KPFA"??????????
And Conn and Matthew Hallinan stated in a letter to raise money and votes for their campaign that Lemlem was fired for "misplacing a check". Some how they forgot to tell their followers the size of the check and how long it was hidden. But what's the big deal don't we all lose track of $375,000.00 check every now and then? :)
I was one of those on the Program council that voted for Robbie's proposal to change the most listened to show (Democracy Now ) to the most listened to time (7 to 8 Am ) Yeah i know wild and crazy Ultra left stuff !
Anyway the listeners loved the idea .The GM at the time Gus Newport reported that his Voice, Electronic and Postal mail was running Ten to one in support of the change . Another gain of such a change would be to open up the 6-7 am time slot to one of the several new shows that we had approved .
But a handful of long time staff , who Robbie aptly labeled the ''Entrenched '' launched a campaign to stymie the move , including attacks on Amy Goodman . They also falsely portayed the move as one that would end the Morning Show when they knew that it would simply change the time of the show from 7-9 to 8-10 . Even David Bacon chimed in smearing the vote as a '' Attack on Labor Programming '' though he knew full well that his Wed. Labor segment could easily be changed to say 8:30 Am .
After Gus Newport finally resigned , tired of having to fight with the same 'entrenched '' on practically everything , they were able to kill the move .
That's the sort of ''dynamic staff '' that the CL is currently allied with .
Anyway the listeners loved the idea .The GM at the time Gus Newport reported that his Voice, Electronic and Postal mail was running Ten to one in support of the change . Another gain of such a change would be to open up the 6-7 am time slot to one of the several new shows that we had approved .
But a handful of long time staff , who Robbie aptly labeled the ''Entrenched '' launched a campaign to stymie the move , including attacks on Amy Goodman . They also falsely portayed the move as one that would end the Morning Show when they knew that it would simply change the time of the show from 7-9 to 8-10 . Even David Bacon chimed in smearing the vote as a '' Attack on Labor Programming '' though he knew full well that his Wed. Labor segment could easily be changed to say 8:30 Am .
After Gus Newport finally resigned , tired of having to fight with the same 'entrenched '' on practically everything , they were able to kill the move .
That's the sort of ''dynamic staff '' that the CL is currently allied with .
The problem with the news, which comes out of the news training, is that it doesn't teach didactically or by example the importance of not just reproducing corporate/pentagon double speak. So often wire service copy is read directly.
A classic example was after Ronald Reagan died and the following was read on KPFA morning news:
"The Nation is mourning Ronald Reagan."
No one I knew was? Not the California farm workers, not the air traffic controllers or any union conscious people, not those that cared about the "Fairness Doctrine", not those whose relatives died or people that were wounded by the Blue Meanies in Berkeley on Bloody Thursday, etc., etc.
Just one example, there are thousands more. What is the point of training people to know how to broadcast the news if we don't instill some consciousness about the endless use of the word "terrorist" to describe "them" and not "us", and why aren't they calling the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts what they really are "occupations". By calling them wars it makes it sound much more noble for the US and keeps the listeners in lock step mentally with the corporate/pentagon line.
Repetition of ideas is how you get them accepted, so why are we so often repeating the words and ideas of the corporate/pentagon folks who want to control everything we do by controlling everything we think about. Are we just "playing" radio or are we truly trying to be an alternative to the corporate Orwellian media???
In support of what Stan Woods posted, it is commonly accepted in radio that you put your best program on at prime time! I worked in AM & FM for almost 6 years and at the AM station was number on on the Arbitron rating for my time slot. I know something about radio from personal professional experience.
Had we put DN! on at 7 am and maybe in afternoon drive or in the evening and promoted it to all the people driving to work and listeneing at home with their morning coffee we could have really increased our audience. During the Bush regime people were looking for answers . There are more people listening to their radios at 7-8 am than at 6-7 and 9-10 combined. Also it would have freed up an hour for new programing from 6-7 am.
Why didn't the "entrenched" want to make the changes that would have greatly increased our audience? They did not want ANYONE to think that any changes could be made on the program grid without their permission. The Morning Show folks were hard core entrenched and wanted prime time for themselves. Or as Robbie said "TURF before MISSION".
So Jack are these selfish people the ones YOU want running our community station?????
Robbie's 13 page detailed history of the DN! time change struggle can be read on PeoplesRadio.net. He wrote it in 2004 when the details were fresh in his memory. It is a good read if you want to know what happened.
A classic example was after Ronald Reagan died and the following was read on KPFA morning news:
"The Nation is mourning Ronald Reagan."
No one I knew was? Not the California farm workers, not the air traffic controllers or any union conscious people, not those that cared about the "Fairness Doctrine", not those whose relatives died or people that were wounded by the Blue Meanies in Berkeley on Bloody Thursday, etc., etc.
Just one example, there are thousands more. What is the point of training people to know how to broadcast the news if we don't instill some consciousness about the endless use of the word "terrorist" to describe "them" and not "us", and why aren't they calling the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts what they really are "occupations". By calling them wars it makes it sound much more noble for the US and keeps the listeners in lock step mentally with the corporate/pentagon line.
Repetition of ideas is how you get them accepted, so why are we so often repeating the words and ideas of the corporate/pentagon folks who want to control everything we do by controlling everything we think about. Are we just "playing" radio or are we truly trying to be an alternative to the corporate Orwellian media???
In support of what Stan Woods posted, it is commonly accepted in radio that you put your best program on at prime time! I worked in AM & FM for almost 6 years and at the AM station was number on on the Arbitron rating for my time slot. I know something about radio from personal professional experience.
Had we put DN! on at 7 am and maybe in afternoon drive or in the evening and promoted it to all the people driving to work and listeneing at home with their morning coffee we could have really increased our audience. During the Bush regime people were looking for answers . There are more people listening to their radios at 7-8 am than at 6-7 and 9-10 combined. Also it would have freed up an hour for new programing from 6-7 am.
Why didn't the "entrenched" want to make the changes that would have greatly increased our audience? They did not want ANYONE to think that any changes could be made on the program grid without their permission. The Morning Show folks were hard core entrenched and wanted prime time for themselves. Or as Robbie said "TURF before MISSION".
So Jack are these selfish people the ones YOU want running our community station?????
Robbie's 13 page detailed history of the DN! time change struggle can be read on PeoplesRadio.net. He wrote it in 2004 when the details were fresh in his memory. It is a good read if you want to know what happened.
"Jack Radey/Radley" asks us to spell his name correctly. A reasonable request. But he himself has spelled it both ways. So which is it? Radley or Radey? It looks to me like the antics of someone using a whimsical pseudonym, then changing it and chiding us for misspelling it.
Or, maybe Jack Radey/Radley is the authentic name of a poor soul who cannot spell his own name correctly.
For more information:
http://danielborgstrom.blogspot.com/
robbie - instead of the bizarre argument about "death panels," why don't you just respond to some of Jack's real points? For instance....
"Some of the folks you are supporting want to have Amy Goodman investigated by Pacifica for covering up Bush's complicity in 9/11."
"Some of the folks you are supporting want to have Amy Goodman investigated by Pacifica for covering up Bush's complicity in 9/11."
I don't really see how Robbie could respond to that and the analogy to death panels (i.e irrrelevant overly dramatic arguments) seems pretty apt.
A motion was made by an LSB member at the Los Angeles station KPFK, not here in Berkeley, that programs not produced in-house should reveal all sources of funding to Pacifica during contract negotiations.
The motion passed the Pacifica National Board some time ago.
None of the ICR candidates Robbie is endorsing were on the Pacifica National Board at the time or able to vote for or against the motion.
It's generally a good policy to be transparent about funding. Otherwise you start to get into the kind of troubles PBS has been getting into lately.
A motion was made by an LSB member at the Los Angeles station KPFK, not here in Berkeley, that programs not produced in-house should reveal all sources of funding to Pacifica during contract negotiations.
The motion passed the Pacifica National Board some time ago.
None of the ICR candidates Robbie is endorsing were on the Pacifica National Board at the time or able to vote for or against the motion.
It's generally a good policy to be transparent about funding. Otherwise you start to get into the kind of troubles PBS has been getting into lately.
Hello GP,
I thought the death panels analogy worked fine but I’m not wedded to it. Let’s just look at the bare facts.
Jack accused me of being deliberately dishonest. He accused me of being a willing stalking horse for some unnamed sectarian group. Jack made the point more than once that it made him sad to have to condemn me publicly because for years I’ve been producing radio programs that inspire him but he somehow found the strength to point his accusing finger at me through his sorrow.
Jack’s letter went on and on about the thuggish abuses of process we’ve both seen in the past and expressed his certainty that that was what I was intentionally trying to bring to KPFA. “You know better than this Robbie” he wrote, “and you know where this is going. Democracy is not the same as letting a small group of crazies who have nothing better to do run people out of a meeting.”
The fact is, the abuses Jack accused me of wanting to bring to KPFA could hardly have been less attributable to the proposal that I made– the reestablishment of a Program Council at KPFA which was made up of about fifteen screened or elected representatives of various groups of stakeholders in KPFA, which met privately, and which protected the participants with confidentiality agreements so that while the Council’s decisions would be made public the votes and the input of the individuals on it were secret.
Jack should be embarrassed. He owes me an apology. Instead he sends you to change the subject.
Whoever led him to believe that the Program Council proposal was an invitation to “letting a small group of crazies who have nothing better to do than to run people out of a meeting” should be ashamed.
Instead of apologizing or clarifying or even just saying oops it seems that Jack is going to let his accusations stand. They will continue to be circulated unqualified, uncorrected, and unaccompanied by a countervailing statement of the facts. People will read it and learn that that they need to be alarmed about the gathering hoard of lunatics and their dangerous Program Council and the inevitable rampaging sectarian thugs that will come with it. Not to mention my own malice.
This is expected. I knew I would be slimed rather than just disagreed with if I reentered the KPFA debate. Likely there’s worse yet to come. It can’t be admitted that someone has an honest disagreement with the SaveKPFA slate’s platform.
About your challenge to deal with Jack’s ‘real’ points. You offer this solitary sorry example of a ‘real point’: "Some of the folks you are supporting want to have Amy Goodman investigated by Pacifica for covering up Bush's complicity in 9/11".
This is just another hyped up charge. The commenter writing above describes the reality with your hype filtered out. But no doubt you have the next blindingly exaggerated charge at the ready to distract from that too. These things only muddy the water.
I did address the issue in my original statement.
“Listener-elected representatives have, for the most part, acted thoughtfully and responsibly. It would be as easy to point to flaky, disruptive, and even dangerous behavior among the station’s leadership and staff as among the vilified listener-elected board and program council members. More importantly, even if the listener-elected representatives were every horrible thing they are accused of being, the remedy would not be ending listener input to the station’s deliberations but electing better representatives. Democracy has never offered a guarantee of effective leadership, only the right to remove bad leaders and replace them with better ones.”
Neither Jack nor you address any of the issues raised in my letter. That seems standard operating procedure for the SaveKPFA slate’s defenders. More and more about the barbarians at the gate; little or nothing about substantive criticism of SaveKPFA’s platform and practice.
I know that there are well meaning people running on that slate; people who have fought the good fight all of their lives. This endless reliance on ad hominem argument is not consistent with their ideals. I hope they and you leave it behind but until you do don’t expect me to address the next hyped-up ad hominem accusation you come up with. It gets in the way of talking about real issues.
Best,
Robbie
I thought the death panels analogy worked fine but I’m not wedded to it. Let’s just look at the bare facts.
Jack accused me of being deliberately dishonest. He accused me of being a willing stalking horse for some unnamed sectarian group. Jack made the point more than once that it made him sad to have to condemn me publicly because for years I’ve been producing radio programs that inspire him but he somehow found the strength to point his accusing finger at me through his sorrow.
Jack’s letter went on and on about the thuggish abuses of process we’ve both seen in the past and expressed his certainty that that was what I was intentionally trying to bring to KPFA. “You know better than this Robbie” he wrote, “and you know where this is going. Democracy is not the same as letting a small group of crazies who have nothing better to do run people out of a meeting.”
The fact is, the abuses Jack accused me of wanting to bring to KPFA could hardly have been less attributable to the proposal that I made– the reestablishment of a Program Council at KPFA which was made up of about fifteen screened or elected representatives of various groups of stakeholders in KPFA, which met privately, and which protected the participants with confidentiality agreements so that while the Council’s decisions would be made public the votes and the input of the individuals on it were secret.
Jack should be embarrassed. He owes me an apology. Instead he sends you to change the subject.
Whoever led him to believe that the Program Council proposal was an invitation to “letting a small group of crazies who have nothing better to do than to run people out of a meeting” should be ashamed.
Instead of apologizing or clarifying or even just saying oops it seems that Jack is going to let his accusations stand. They will continue to be circulated unqualified, uncorrected, and unaccompanied by a countervailing statement of the facts. People will read it and learn that that they need to be alarmed about the gathering hoard of lunatics and their dangerous Program Council and the inevitable rampaging sectarian thugs that will come with it. Not to mention my own malice.
This is expected. I knew I would be slimed rather than just disagreed with if I reentered the KPFA debate. Likely there’s worse yet to come. It can’t be admitted that someone has an honest disagreement with the SaveKPFA slate’s platform.
About your challenge to deal with Jack’s ‘real’ points. You offer this solitary sorry example of a ‘real point’: "Some of the folks you are supporting want to have Amy Goodman investigated by Pacifica for covering up Bush's complicity in 9/11".
This is just another hyped up charge. The commenter writing above describes the reality with your hype filtered out. But no doubt you have the next blindingly exaggerated charge at the ready to distract from that too. These things only muddy the water.
I did address the issue in my original statement.
“Listener-elected representatives have, for the most part, acted thoughtfully and responsibly. It would be as easy to point to flaky, disruptive, and even dangerous behavior among the station’s leadership and staff as among the vilified listener-elected board and program council members. More importantly, even if the listener-elected representatives were every horrible thing they are accused of being, the remedy would not be ending listener input to the station’s deliberations but electing better representatives. Democracy has never offered a guarantee of effective leadership, only the right to remove bad leaders and replace them with better ones.”
Neither Jack nor you address any of the issues raised in my letter. That seems standard operating procedure for the SaveKPFA slate’s defenders. More and more about the barbarians at the gate; little or nothing about substantive criticism of SaveKPFA’s platform and practice.
I know that there are well meaning people running on that slate; people who have fought the good fight all of their lives. This endless reliance on ad hominem argument is not consistent with their ideals. I hope they and you leave it behind but until you do don’t expect me to address the next hyped-up ad hominem accusation you come up with. It gets in the way of talking about real issues.
Best,
Robbie
For more information:
http://www.robbie.org
I don't see that Jack ever even mentioned the Program Council. His message was about democracy -- both true and false -- in left organizations. For many of us who've worked on the left and also closely followed KPFA, it rings true.
The Pacifica board motion targetting Amy Goodman for what some of its members imagined is "CIA conduit funding" is easily viewable here (fast forward to 1:15 if you want the juicy part):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP6_xGxbi20
The Pacifica Board’s governance committee was considering a funding disclosure motion “to have Amy Goodman tell us where she’s getting money and what the money is buying.” The reason? "There has been a lot of debate about whether Amy Goodman has received CIA conduit foundation funding from the Ford Foundation and other places known long time suspected conduits for CIA funding.”
This is the Pacifica Board, which owns and runs the five stations!
As for Jack "sending me," I don't know him. I'm just a lowly Indybay reader responding to a thread.
As for all the stuff about being "intentionally" accused -- might I suggest you might be a tad defensive here? I found both your piece and Jack's actually quite a dialogue -- something we need more of around this topic. His was a very reasonable response to yours, which you opened with a quote from Bill Moyers: "We owe our adversaries the compliment of an argument." If you believe that, perhaps you shouldn't get so upset when someone argues back.
The Pacifica board motion targetting Amy Goodman for what some of its members imagined is "CIA conduit funding" is easily viewable here (fast forward to 1:15 if you want the juicy part):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP6_xGxbi20
The Pacifica Board’s governance committee was considering a funding disclosure motion “to have Amy Goodman tell us where she’s getting money and what the money is buying.” The reason? "There has been a lot of debate about whether Amy Goodman has received CIA conduit foundation funding from the Ford Foundation and other places known long time suspected conduits for CIA funding.”
This is the Pacifica Board, which owns and runs the five stations!
As for Jack "sending me," I don't know him. I'm just a lowly Indybay reader responding to a thread.
As for all the stuff about being "intentionally" accused -- might I suggest you might be a tad defensive here? I found both your piece and Jack's actually quite a dialogue -- something we need more of around this topic. His was a very reasonable response to yours, which you opened with a quote from Bill Moyers: "We owe our adversaries the compliment of an argument." If you believe that, perhaps you shouldn't get so upset when someone argues back.
Christopher Condon is a member of the board in Los Angeles. Not in Berkeley. He's not running in the KPFA election. Robbie didn't endorse him.
The motion was already passed last year. It applies to all new contracts negotiated for outside programming and does ask for the sources of all funding to be disclosed. Pretty standard stuff. As I said, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has been all over PBS for their many failures in this regard. No reason to repeat their mistakes.
The motion was already passed last year. It applies to all new contracts negotiated for outside programming and does ask for the sources of all funding to be disclosed. Pretty standard stuff. As I said, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has been all over PBS for their many failures in this regard. No reason to repeat their mistakes.
Ok, Robbie did not directly endorse him. Fine.
But the slate Robbie backs defends Chris Condon whenever it gets a chance re his attack on Amy Goodman. For instance, here's Independents for Community Radio candidate Tracy Rosenberg backing Condon's motion targetting Democracy Now:
http://savekpfa.net/node/7 (see paragraph 2 on Condon, and the Independents for Community Radio slate endorsed by Robbie on the same page to the right)
When voting for reps on the KPFA board, do we want to support candidates like this, who clearly support the nut jobs? I'm sorry, many of us do not.
By the way, this LA guy Chris Condon is running again in his local board election (http://pacificafoundation.org/cand_page.php?id=163) on a platform of 911 "truth," endorsed by former Pacifica executive director Grace Aaron. Here, you can read some of Condon's racist and ageist comments posted to LA indymedia (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2010/08/241424.php) as well as his call to draft Joe Wanzala, who is a founder of KPFA's Independents for Community Radio, as Pacifica's next director.
So when we say "save KPFA" (http://www.savekpfa.org), yes, this is the kind of thing we are trying to save the station from: racism, irrationality, and irrelevance.
But the slate Robbie backs defends Chris Condon whenever it gets a chance re his attack on Amy Goodman. For instance, here's Independents for Community Radio candidate Tracy Rosenberg backing Condon's motion targetting Democracy Now:
http://savekpfa.net/node/7 (see paragraph 2 on Condon, and the Independents for Community Radio slate endorsed by Robbie on the same page to the right)
When voting for reps on the KPFA board, do we want to support candidates like this, who clearly support the nut jobs? I'm sorry, many of us do not.
By the way, this LA guy Chris Condon is running again in his local board election (http://pacificafoundation.org/cand_page.php?id=163) on a platform of 911 "truth," endorsed by former Pacifica executive director Grace Aaron. Here, you can read some of Condon's racist and ageist comments posted to LA indymedia (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2010/08/241424.php) as well as his call to draft Joe Wanzala, who is a founder of KPFA's Independents for Community Radio, as Pacifica's next director.
So when we say "save KPFA" (http://www.savekpfa.org), yes, this is the kind of thing we are trying to save the station from: racism, irrationality, and irrelevance.
If Condon is a ''racist'' he's certainly an unusual one. Racists usually don't want African Immigrants like Joe Wanzala (from Uganda ) in a key leadership position .
I also hope Amy Goodman knows that many of her new ''friends '' were among the strongest opponents of the time change that the KPFA program council voted for several years ago that ,if it hadn't been blocked , would have moved DN to 7Am.
I also hope Amy Goodman knows that many of her new ''friends '' were among the strongest opponents of the time change that the KPFA program council voted for several years ago that ,if it hadn't been blocked , would have moved DN to 7Am.
I really appreciate Robbie's piece. It is beautifully written, courageous and true to my basic understanding of things after 11 years of involvement with KPFA as a listener activist, a staffer, the PC facilitator, an election supervisor and now a local and national board member. It's unfortunate that truth-telling in this environment is almost always met with personal attacks. Robbie is good to go through that in order to say what needs to be said.
Robbie and I have not always agreed on everything over the years. But the piece is right on the money. I encourage everyone to read it and take it seriously.
The same applies to many other things. I don't agree with many things that Christopher Condon (the LA board member who proposed the funding disclosure motion last year) says. Honestly, I find his anti-feminist comments irritating and offensive. And I know this will get back to him. but hey, that's how I feel.
That doesn't mean I can't acknowledge a good point when he makes one - and he makes several. Yes, funding disclosure is important. Not specifically because Democracy Now worries me, but it is good general policy for anyone and anything. Money has a lot of power in our society and you have to pay attention to where it is coming from, if strings are attached and if undue influence becomes an issue. You want to find out before there is a problem - not afterwards. See PBS for the cautionary tale.
http://www.media-alliance.org/article.php?id=1910
That is what you don't want to happen.
Chris Condon has strong feelings about 9-11. That is fair enough. There are a lot of real questions about what happened that day and why and a lot of people here and in Iraq and Afghanistan who died as a result. As a network founded by pacifists who believed fighting in any war was wrong, Pacifica certainly has a role to play in a national conversation about how we came to do what we did. Which was basically to act out the neo-liberal agenda in the Middle East as scripted.
So let us talk about the issues. Not about silliness and personal attacks. Funding disclosure is always a good idea, even if the justification provided is not one I think makes a particularly strong argument.
And no, my friend Joe Wanzala does not want to be the executive director of Pacifica. I'm totally positive about that one :)
Best,
Tracy Rosenberg
ED - Media Alliance
Member, Pacifica Foundation Board of Directors
Co-Founder - Independents for Community Radio
http://www.voteindyradio.org
Robbie and I have not always agreed on everything over the years. But the piece is right on the money. I encourage everyone to read it and take it seriously.
The same applies to many other things. I don't agree with many things that Christopher Condon (the LA board member who proposed the funding disclosure motion last year) says. Honestly, I find his anti-feminist comments irritating and offensive. And I know this will get back to him. but hey, that's how I feel.
That doesn't mean I can't acknowledge a good point when he makes one - and he makes several. Yes, funding disclosure is important. Not specifically because Democracy Now worries me, but it is good general policy for anyone and anything. Money has a lot of power in our society and you have to pay attention to where it is coming from, if strings are attached and if undue influence becomes an issue. You want to find out before there is a problem - not afterwards. See PBS for the cautionary tale.
http://www.media-alliance.org/article.php?id=1910
That is what you don't want to happen.
Chris Condon has strong feelings about 9-11. That is fair enough. There are a lot of real questions about what happened that day and why and a lot of people here and in Iraq and Afghanistan who died as a result. As a network founded by pacifists who believed fighting in any war was wrong, Pacifica certainly has a role to play in a national conversation about how we came to do what we did. Which was basically to act out the neo-liberal agenda in the Middle East as scripted.
So let us talk about the issues. Not about silliness and personal attacks. Funding disclosure is always a good idea, even if the justification provided is not one I think makes a particularly strong argument.
And no, my friend Joe Wanzala does not want to be the executive director of Pacifica. I'm totally positive about that one :)
Best,
Tracy Rosenberg
ED - Media Alliance
Member, Pacifica Foundation Board of Directors
Co-Founder - Independents for Community Radio
http://www.voteindyradio.org
And no, my friend Joe Wanzala does not want to be the executive director of Pacifica. I'm totally positive about that one :)
Best,
Tracy Rosenberg
____________________________
Because she wants that job! Or any other position of power she can sneek into by stabbing folks in the back, dominating ICR with undemocratic practices. Bringing in "young" people to run, instead of people like Stan Woods, "young" people that know nothing about KPFA so they have to follow her lead. Stan wouldn't miss meetings and would vote correctly so why didn't Tracy want to include him and others with more knowledge? Stan would not go along with her anti-democratic practices.
Most of the rookies didn't even get their own signatures for their election petitions, same as last year. When I was at the signature events other ICR followers were getting their petitions signed. That is how committed they are. Some of the ones from last year that were elected don't come to meetings which has destroyed the one vote majority at meetings.
But for Tracy her power and control is much more important than having the best and strongest crew on the LSB. For 2009 and 2010 she refused to do a unity campaign That has weakened the listener movement. Why did she do that? Because with an open democratic process involving all the activists she might lose control. So if CL regains control of the LSB it will be Tracy's fault by putting her power desires above the good of the listeners.
She doesn't believe in or practice transparency. She just gives it lip service. Last year she decided how to rank her slate without consulting Henry Norr, Aki, Chandra etc. She has gotten involved in many national board discussions about election problems often pushing her positions when she has a serious conflict, she is a candidate, and should stay out of all such issues and not vote on them or even speak to them at board meetings since doing anything from her board seat is improper influence since she is a candidate.
I can't vote for CL/Save KPFA. I will hold my nose and vote for Indy candidates except for Tracy.
Best,
Tracy Rosenberg
____________________________
Because she wants that job! Or any other position of power she can sneek into by stabbing folks in the back, dominating ICR with undemocratic practices. Bringing in "young" people to run, instead of people like Stan Woods, "young" people that know nothing about KPFA so they have to follow her lead. Stan wouldn't miss meetings and would vote correctly so why didn't Tracy want to include him and others with more knowledge? Stan would not go along with her anti-democratic practices.
Most of the rookies didn't even get their own signatures for their election petitions, same as last year. When I was at the signature events other ICR followers were getting their petitions signed. That is how committed they are. Some of the ones from last year that were elected don't come to meetings which has destroyed the one vote majority at meetings.
But for Tracy her power and control is much more important than having the best and strongest crew on the LSB. For 2009 and 2010 she refused to do a unity campaign That has weakened the listener movement. Why did she do that? Because with an open democratic process involving all the activists she might lose control. So if CL regains control of the LSB it will be Tracy's fault by putting her power desires above the good of the listeners.
She doesn't believe in or practice transparency. She just gives it lip service. Last year she decided how to rank her slate without consulting Henry Norr, Aki, Chandra etc. She has gotten involved in many national board discussions about election problems often pushing her positions when she has a serious conflict, she is a candidate, and should stay out of all such issues and not vote on them or even speak to them at board meetings since doing anything from her board seat is improper influence since she is a candidate.
I can't vote for CL/Save KPFA. I will hold my nose and vote for Indy candidates except for Tracy.
That is a bit of a strange post.
But let's get a couple of things clear.
Firstly, my entire opinion is that it is crucial that Independents for Community Radio maintains and enlarges its majority on the KPFA station board. The only thing I can see that I agree with this poster about is that a Save KPFA - Concerned Listeners board is unacceptable. If that happens without me, I'd be thrilled and have a lot more free time in my life. Being on the local board takes time. Being on the national board as I have been this year, takes an insane amount of time and is hard on me and hard on my personal life. I feel a bit sorry for people who seem to equate board service with some kind of ego gratification. There isn't any. I really hate having my reputation slandered all over the Internet. If I didn't care a lot about KPFA, I would not be running for a second term on the board. A large part of me didn't want to.
Independents for Community Radio is an affinity group. It's not a political party or a membership group. It's just a few allies and partners who decided to facilitate inviting community activists and organizers - prioritizing younger-ish folks and people of color - to get involved with KPFA's board and with the organization. Because KPFA needs them. And because navigating this election process isn't easy and isn't intuitive.
I think we have a great slate this year. It is diverse, community-based and a mixture of fresh faces and a few veterans of the listener democracy movement like Cynthia Johnson. It's 70% people of color, 70% women and 70% under 60 - exactly the opposite of the Save KPFA - Concerned Listeners crew who while talking about diversity and young people, seem to have a bad time practicing it when they assemble their slates. ICR looks like and is representative of the new California and KPFA needs to be a part of that. Not a plaything for an old white left that is dying as we speak.
One thing that makes me sad about the listener democracy movement is this phobia about "outsiders". As if people who can't recite the details of every internal intrigue for the last decade have no place in KPFA governance. They do. An important one. We have to move forward to a better future. There is no time to waste. Learning from history is important, but so is moving on. And if we think the KPFA struggle has nothing to learn from other movements, from other people's histories and talents organizing and working in their communities, then we are arrogant indeed.
I'm sorry the poster is angry or jealous or feels left out or slighted by something. That is too bad. And everyone is free to vote as they like. But this is about KPFA, which is an asset of enormous strength and size for people's movements in this country and needs to be working on behalf of media justice for those who don't get any.
That is our charge and that is what is important.
Vote Indyradio. whttp://www.voteindyradio.org.
But let's get a couple of things clear.
Firstly, my entire opinion is that it is crucial that Independents for Community Radio maintains and enlarges its majority on the KPFA station board. The only thing I can see that I agree with this poster about is that a Save KPFA - Concerned Listeners board is unacceptable. If that happens without me, I'd be thrilled and have a lot more free time in my life. Being on the local board takes time. Being on the national board as I have been this year, takes an insane amount of time and is hard on me and hard on my personal life. I feel a bit sorry for people who seem to equate board service with some kind of ego gratification. There isn't any. I really hate having my reputation slandered all over the Internet. If I didn't care a lot about KPFA, I would not be running for a second term on the board. A large part of me didn't want to.
Independents for Community Radio is an affinity group. It's not a political party or a membership group. It's just a few allies and partners who decided to facilitate inviting community activists and organizers - prioritizing younger-ish folks and people of color - to get involved with KPFA's board and with the organization. Because KPFA needs them. And because navigating this election process isn't easy and isn't intuitive.
I think we have a great slate this year. It is diverse, community-based and a mixture of fresh faces and a few veterans of the listener democracy movement like Cynthia Johnson. It's 70% people of color, 70% women and 70% under 60 - exactly the opposite of the Save KPFA - Concerned Listeners crew who while talking about diversity and young people, seem to have a bad time practicing it when they assemble their slates. ICR looks like and is representative of the new California and KPFA needs to be a part of that. Not a plaything for an old white left that is dying as we speak.
One thing that makes me sad about the listener democracy movement is this phobia about "outsiders". As if people who can't recite the details of every internal intrigue for the last decade have no place in KPFA governance. They do. An important one. We have to move forward to a better future. There is no time to waste. Learning from history is important, but so is moving on. And if we think the KPFA struggle has nothing to learn from other movements, from other people's histories and talents organizing and working in their communities, then we are arrogant indeed.
I'm sorry the poster is angry or jealous or feels left out or slighted by something. That is too bad. And everyone is free to vote as they like. But this is about KPFA, which is an asset of enormous strength and size for people's movements in this country and needs to be working on behalf of media justice for those who don't get any.
That is our charge and that is what is important.
Vote Indyradio. whttp://www.voteindyradio.org.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network