I accept that there are degrees of left and right, and that you position yourself in the “sensible middle.” But I don’t agree that liberals are “far left.” That territory’s mine, brother. People on the left think liberals are best described as “center-left” and way too often cave to attacks and demands from the right. Liberals are seen by the true left as soft and too willing to compromise.

You’d be surprised, George Soros is actually a solid liberal — not the radical leftist Fox would have you think. He’s a total believer in the free market, which is where he made his own money, and he hates Communism, which he was born under in Eastern Europe. When the Soviet Union collapsed he put millions of dollars of his own money into pushing the Eastern bloc to adopt “our” system. They did, and Rumsfeld seems to think Eastern Europe longingly looks to the US more than Old Europe. Conservatives portray Soros as being farther left than he actually is in order to undermine his credibility with the mainstream. (Of course none of them have ever done half of what he has to transform formerly Communist dictatorships into capitalist free market democracies, but that’s not the point when you’re in shout-fest talk radio showbiz.) They do this because he is one of the biggest benefactors of the Democratic Party and it’s in their interest to paint him as an extremist.

ANSWER, Code Pink, etc, these groups are in fact further to the left than Soros and wouldn’t consider themselves “liberal.” So your characterization of them is fair. Except they do not “hate America.” Michael Moore is a populist and ANSWER and Code Pink are modern versions of ’60s protest groups. They certainly hate Bush, but they don’t hate the country. Let’s be fair. Ward Churchill is an extremist and I won’t try defending him here, even though I think in America you should have the right to say what you want.

I do agree with you on one thing. The Democratic party certainly has been hijacked by interest groups. These are usually single-issue groups, like pro-choice groups or environmental groups who don’t care about anything else aside from their agendas. Add to that an entrenched Democractic establishment of a few rich donors and strategists who are only concerned about “electability” (remember when they decided Kerry was “electable”? Whhaaaat??) and what you get is total incoherence. Married white men have a hard time relating to the party because they don’t see where they fit , since they’re generally not part of one of the interest groups. To win them back the Democrats need to start talking comprehensive big-picture stuff, not minutae driven by one constituency or another.

But come on, the right talks as though Democrats would purposefully destroy America and then shit all over it if only they had the chance. Let’s get real. Democrats, even the rag-tag interest groups, at the end of the day are regular Americans who worry about their phone bills, drive cars with leaking radiators, love running around outside, and hand out candy to kids on Halloween just like anybody else. They are not sub-human “freak shows.”

Well, nobody’s enslaving me and feeding me regurgitated worm vomit, fun as that sounds. I don’t register with any political party. I always vote and it’s always a choice between a candidate who sucks ass and a cadidate who sucks tremendous ass. Which is why I never vote Republican.

The cardinal rule of the left; People are pawns,burdens and useless.
It underscores every reaction(They think they analyze,but analysis is cerebral,not viscral. They have to ”problem”

Thats why people need big government programs for everything under the leftist mindset. Of course the real masters the super rich liberal realize this is crap,so they manufacture it. If they didn’t,someday someone might ask why they should listen to Kerry,Kennedy,etc. about anything-because like Marx they talk alot about employment and work but avoid it like the plauge.

The poor common folk are to be kept in government “schools”. To be indoctrinated into spineless, sloth and self pity, stripped of their dignity and self worth. Make them slaves by telling them they are to be mastered by their passions,not to be masters of their passions.

That way when it comes time to vote, they are reduced to baby birds in nests responding to the politician with the most regurgitated worm.

If you pummel them enough, they wont even realize they are eating vomit.

That is from a fellow who seems to know the reality of the wine and cheese set.

You are right I put words in your mouth. This is because by ommision you infered that it is liberals who are for the common man and conservatives are for big business, I don’t think it was much of a stretch for me to come to this conclusion after reading your post. Of course I over dramatized a bit as we all do. I was trying to get you to see my point.

As I stated earlier there are many degrees of liberalism as well as many degrees of conservatism. On the left you have hate America groups like ANSWER, code pink, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill and his ilk etc . On the right you have The bible thumpers Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc Most Dems and reps/libertarians fall somewhere inbetween. I still claim tht the far left and special interest groups have hijacked what used to be the party of the common people. Look who the major financial player in the democratic party is right now George Sorios. You can’t get much further to the left than him. Yet he and his group are the ones forming and driving the policy in the democratic party at present time.

I agree with many liberals on what is good for the nation, but I disagree on the approach. The private sector can and will do more to alleviate the many problems we have. Yes some will profit more than others and some will abuse the system. Do you really think big Govt can do a beter job? Sorry the answer is no. The govt financially rapes us constantly, stealing our money for more failing social programs of which almost none have proven to be effective. Especially when you figure in the cost.

Yes I’m appalled at the churchy crowd who try and legislate what people can and cannot do in the privacy of their homes. Singing patriotic songs should never be mandatory. I would be against any law that would force this on the people. Are you appalled at the secular elitests who do things like pulling the plug on a young women valedictorian. who had the audacity to thank god for her success in overcoming a hard life filled with many trials and challenges. Are you appalled at the far left taking over our universities and establishing speech and thought codes reminiscent of 1936 Germany or communist Russia. Free speech has effectively been banned on many campuses.

Of course conservatives don’t want to live in pools of toxic slime, and neither do liberals. Yet conservatives (especially libertarians) are often opposed to environmental regulations, while liberals support them.

Environmental problems are a good example of what economists call “the tragedy of the commons.” Avoiding the overuse of an environmental resource depends on the collective action of everyone who uses it. If consumers acted together, they could make sure to use enough water so everyone got their fair share but not so much that the well dried up. But no single user has an incentive to reduce his consumption, so collectively the resource gets used too much. The same goes for air pollution. Everybody wants clean air, but no individual manufacturer has an incentive to reduce its emissions. So while everybody wants clean air, everybody continues to pollute, and we all end up with global warming.

These are the kinds of situations in which liberals support government regulation or taxation to correct for the failure of the market. Government intervention can make the individual, private cost of using water or polluting the air reflect the collective cost to society. This mitigates against the problem of overuse by private decision makers.

Conservatives oppose this view. They insist that the market alone will solve the problem. More specifically, libertarians object because they generally believe government should not intervene in public affairs at all (except, usually, in the case of national defense, although libertarians are also usually isolationists in foreign policy).

In your post you put words in my mouth, essentialy accusing me of saying conservatives drink the blood of malnourished babies. I had to laugh, but come on man, do you really think I believe all that? If you go back and read my post you’ll see it’s entirely about liberals. There’s not one attack against conservatives. For the record it’s you who brought up the idea of conservatives being haters. Bitter, angry, mean: every family’s got the sourpuss who’s colder than a witch’s tit.

Your underlying theme is that liberals are rich elitists living in privlidged enclaves that are totally out of touch with the rest of the country (the shorter way to say this is “wine and cheese”). What I’m pointing out is that this description of “liberal” has only to do with social class — social class defined by consumption habits. It has nothing to do the cannon of ideas developed by the likes of John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes, and John Dewey that a liberal believes in. To be a liberal is to believe that the state has a role in providing positive liberty (freedom to achieve certain ends; negative liberty is protection against external coercion) for individuals. Liberals support a greater degree of government intervention in the market, anti-discrimination laws, universal education, progressive taxation, and believe government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. This is the platform of the Democratic Party. It has nothing to do with being rich or eating cheese.

And the reason I cited the Pew Research Center study (which by the way is actually an impartial, non-partisan source) was to show that the people who support these ideas — Democrats — are “African Americans…a plurality of Hispanics, city dwellers, union workers, whites who earn less than $30,000 per year, singles, widows and divorced people, and single moms.” Hardly a wine a cheese crowd.

The stereotype just doesn’t hold. It describes a small number of clueless Hollywood stars and self-absorbed postmodern academics, but has nothing to do with the masses of ordinary working people who belong to the party of liberalism — Democrats — and struggle like everyone else and love their country like everyone else.

I suspect there are probably things we probably do agree on. I’ve worked in the heart of the ghettos in north Philly and I fully agree citizens there are not well served by their local Democractic leadership. The blowhards and bimbo environmentalists in Hollywood are a joke, just like their shitty movies. Big business doesn’t give a damn about the American blue collar worker if it can make a quick buck by moving production to China and padding the pockets of upper management.

Here’s one more: as a libertarian you should be apalled by the churchy crowd insisting on interfering with people’s personal business, from what kind of video games a 16 year-old kid can and can’t play to the private sexual choices of consenting adults, to demanding we all sing patriotic hymns in public school.

Anyway, while you go kick a kid in the gutter and pollute the Merrimack, I’ll put on my pink fairy tutu and make a friendship cheese plate for Osama.

You claim liberals want a fair society in which everybody has a chance. So do conservatives. So what’s your point? You claim liberals believe in environmental standards that prevent big business from polluting the environment that we live in. Most conservatives I know also like to live in a clean environment and also support common sense environmental standards. So once again I ask what is your point?
You claim liberals want to make sure workers get decent health coverage.
Again so do conservatives. They tend to think it may be better done through the private sector. Again what is your point? Liberals believe in things that big business doesnt (maximum profits) in short liberals stand up for the little guy.
I got news for you big business is made up of liberals and conservatives. As to liberals not believeing in business making big profit,here is where conservatives probably differ with liberals. Conservatives think it is ok for big business to make maximum profits because in so doing they are probably creating new jobs for the little guy, and affording higher wages for the little guy, and also letting the little guys profit sharing rise. So in short the conservitive is for standing up for the little guy. So finally I will ask again what is your point? 9 of 11 richest senators are democrats. So much for the little guy.

Reading your opening you are suggesting conservatives would like to see an unjust society where only the rich business man can succeed all others must fail. Conservatives would also like to have an environment that is polluted with toxins and the water. Is unfit to drink causing us all to die within a few generations.

We would also like to see people dying in the street. or perhaps performing operations on themselves.
And last but not least we would like to see big business make zillions and zillions of dollars leaving the rest of us in abject poverty. lLving in the streets.Our children dying of fammine and disease. Only the liberals can save us from the evil conservative.

You forgot a few. Liberals care about minorities. Liberals care about women. Liberals care about the children, and liberals care about gay people.

Lets see. Conservatives hate minorities they would like to see a return to slavery, conservatives hate women they all belong in the kitchen. conservatives hate gay people. (read the bible) although secretly many admit they have attended an Elton John concert. And as unbelievable as it may seem they even hate children. No rational reason is given for this.Leading conservitaves say it is probably due to a gene that most conservatives have whereby they are predisposed to hate everyone. But some say it is due to the loss of unskilled labor jobs. Children can no longer be used by big bussiness for cheap labor.

Some of The wealthiest areas of the country are Boston, NYC, most of the north east and parts of California Berkley, Hollywood etc.All are heavily democratic. The wine and cheese steryotype has been effective because it is true to a large extent. Have you ever been to Cambridge? The rich, eliteist, far left east and wast coasters drive the dem party. It is not the middle of the road dem who has the power. Just ask Joe Lieberman. Blacks and minorities vote dem because they have been bought off and brainwashed. How are the 100% democratically controlled cities of Detroit,WashingtonDC, Gary, Newark,Philly(only 300 murders) etc etc doing .Yes blacks in these cities are thriving under democratic leadership. The only people making money in these places are the funeral homes.

Once again my original post was made part in jest and fun. There does seem to be some thin skinned people. Thats ok. Please excuse me I have to go kick a kid to the curb, and pollute the Merrimack river. While I’m at it I may try and deprive some minoritiy of a civil right or two. Us conseritives are such a mean evil lot. By the way I like to think of myself as libertarian. They hate everyone including big business.

Liberals want a fair society in which everybody has a chance. Liberals believe in legal protections like environmental standards that prevent big companies from polluting the environment the rest of us live in, and making sure workers get decent health coverage. Liberals believe in things that big business (which is interested in maximum profits) doesn’t. In short, liberals traditionally stand up for the little guy.

So where does the phrase “wine and cheese liberal” come in?

This is a phrase introduced by business interests on the right to discredit people with liberal ideas who are unsympathetic to corporations. Suddenly being a liberal is not about supporting a just society and making sure everyone’s got a chance. Instead a liberal is somebody who consumes elitist products, preferably imported from France whenever possible. It’s a sly trick, because it puts liberal people in the position of the rich upper class businessman — the guy in the Lexus with a trunkload of brie and his stock broker on the cellphone who represents a system liberals object to.

The wine and cheese stereotype has been so effective that we might think all Democrats are a “tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show” (to quote the famous right wing attack ad on Howard Dean).

Now compare that stereotype with the reality as described by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, based on emperical research:

“More whites consider themselves Republicans rather than Democrats. Pluralities of suburbanites, Protestants, married people, and those from households with incomes of $30,000 or more also self-identify as Republican… In contrast, the Democratic party is more attractive to less wealthy and minority segments of the electorate. African Americans are overwhelmingly Democrats, as are a plurality of Hispanics, city dwellers, union workers, whites who earn less than $30,000 per year, singles, widows and divorced people, and single moms.”

A political scientist at Washington University in St Luis has conducted an interesting new study on the popular journalistic image of rich latte-drinking Democrats and poor NASCAR Republicans, and finds one reason that it persists is that in the wealthy coastal states where the media are located class is less of a predictor of party affiliation that in the rest of the country.

Chris’ salary: $150K
Average Salary for 4 assistants: $300K (half Chris’ salary)
Studio Rental: $20K
Server: $10K
Utilities:/Misc Expenses: $20K

Total: $500K

These may or may not be fanciful but I’ll bet they are within +/- 100K of what it would cost to privately fund the ROS experiment for a year. If the 100 most rabid ROSers (and there are by my count approximately 30-40 junkies consistently posting over the last year– I include myself [with thanks to Nick’s index] donated $1000, ROS could be funded for about 10 weeks. I don’t believe that is feasible even if we could afford such a donation, it wouldn’t go far. I think the only answer is to actively seek the equivalent of the UML initial charter from philanthropists or interested parties. Maybe some “lefty” like George Soros would like to have a social minded channel with demonstrated growth potential broadcasting to the world. I’m sure Chris is scouring his vast network of connections to make something happen and I hope he is successful but as plnelson says it will take more than bake sales, raffles, or neighborhood fundraisers to support this venture. While this may sound pessimistic, I’m an eternal optimist and believe ROS has a future – we just have to think large scale.
ROS for ALL,

Jazzman

Not everyone fits totally into every box its more about generalities. Also I dont expect my views to to have a positive impression on very many people at this venue. I dont mind. My original post was also meant to be a bit sarcastic that is sometimes hard to accomplish by nondirect verbal communication. sorry.

Also, I’m not trying to chastise, but to merely give you a sense how your habit of stereotyping hurts the (presumed) purpose of your posts here. I mean, presumably you want to make a positive impression with your views. But great tact is necessary for that. Lumping people into stereotypes won’t help your ambitions.
That’s all.
See ya’ round the threads.

My reference to Cambridge was sort of in that regard. Many of your shows are for the NPR crowd. Wine and cheese liberals. Ivy leauge types, what ever you want to call it. You can deny it all you like. But as Bill Belicheck once said ”it is what it is” That does not mean good or bad. With Chris’s ties to NPR and many of the people in the area I thought he could perhaps muster up some support from his old connections.

In closing I don’t think their was need to take such offense to my post it was certainly not meant to be offensive. I was just giving you the view of an outsider who lives in the valley. As I said I enjoy the show and the people who post. I wish you were more even handed politically, but it is your show, I do find you guys more respectfull than Air America, who I also listen to.

Are you saying that the administrators of UMass Lowell are too blue collar or middle class to support a public radio show? That this was not belt-tightening, but a social decision based on the inability of the classes to intermingle? That’s offensive to both us and UMass Lowell, but if you mean it you should go ahead and actually say it.

As for Cambridge, where are all of these advocates, and how are they going to help us? Is there some kind of liberal elite support society headquartered here? If so they have yet to announce themselves or send a check. But tell you what. I’ll bring this up the next time I drink brandy and play snooker with the rest of the media elite and find out what they know. Then I’ll call Bank of America, because if I’m not a member of the middle class, then surely there was a mistake on my last statement. Perhaps they can add a couple zeros.

I do know that the majority of students were against this gig right from the begining. You could read about it in the papers.

1. I agree that there never was any logical basis for a ROS / UMass Lowell relationship. Even if ROS represented a move toward “community” programming, what “community” could ROS be said to represent? It’s part of the larger theme I’ve been banging away on in this thread about public radio not really having a clear vision of itself and its mission.

2. I disagree that WUML is a “community radio station”. The station appears to recognize that it’s in a large, diverse community but it only does the MINIMUM necessary to acknowledge that. It has a TOL during the week, and it consigns a cluster of ethnic programming to a Sunday ghetto. The rest of the time it’s a typical college music mix (indie rock, hip hop, punk, local bands, etc) for kids who can’t get their heads out of their earbuds. If WUML was serious about its role in the community it would slash its music programming in half and replace it with more varied content. Even if we imagine that the “community” it serves is mainly UML students, there is a lot more to being a student than listening to music. Furthermore you can get ska and punk and hip hop and indie rock etc, etc, music anywhere on the Internet 24/7 – you CANNOT get greater-Lowell news and public affairs programming anywhere, anytime.

Before I go any further, my problem is not is with ROS as a program. It’s a fine outlet, and one that I hope will continue to grow. But the UMass Lowell / ROS deal itself was ill-conceived, that much is now clear.

First, there was the problem of money. UML thought they could buy instant name recognition and an enrollment bump on the cheap. And you, Christopher? Well, perhaps you thought you’d get a chance to get back on the air (and on the internet) doing what you love, in an appropriate environment. However, these things cost money. And money is something the UMass system does not have. At the time the deal was inked, it was obvious to students at WUML, those WUML alumni who are in the broad/narrowcast business, and even some UMass administrators that the funds for ROS, new studios, and a new program were just not going to be available.

Second was the alienation factor. You have stated, Chris, that, “We had planned with UMass over the next five years to build a community radio station…” Statements like that, show a lack of actual – physical – interaction with the students at the current radio station. While UML’s radio station – WUML – is student run (as it has been for over 50 years!), it is, despite your comment to the contrary, ALREADY a community radio station – it has a two-hour daily live talk/public affairs/opinion program, and it hosts MANY programs catering to Lowell’s varied community. Students were wary of a perceived “takeover” of their station (with plans of news studios, etc) by ROS, mostly because they had no real contact with anyone from the program. To say, “I made myself available, and still do…” is noble, but to say that to a student 25 miles away (limited by money, time and transport) is doublespeak. You’ve been conducting this entire UML relationship from a distance, and now the lack of personal interaction has brought you no good. Sadly, despite your high ideals and your flowery prose about the Merrimack Valley while invoking the name of Jack Kerouac, you have alienated yourself from the very “community” you were purporting to engage.

So all of the blame does not rest with the university, Christopher. And that’s what this was all about. Now go out there and find some solid funding!

Do I have inside information? No. Everything contained herein and in my previous post has either been published in one of the local newspapers, or readily given in response to my queries. I would not post personal information like salaries, if that information had not already been available as a matter of public record.

Ahhh, the wonders of open-sourcing!

For the record, I stand corrected – to a degree – about the ROS producers being “State Employees.” Thanks for setting me straight, Katherine.

A lot of that is due to the recent HUGE infusion of funds from a single wealthy private donor (Joan Kroc). Her $200M bequest is greater than NPR’s entire annual operating budget.

Anyway, I didn’t say the grayhairs ar blocking NPR – I’m saying they’re pretty much what’s keeping it afloat.

Success should not equate to conservatism! I’ve worked for high tech companies all my life and in our industry it is AXIOMATIC that when you are successful and growing and doing great is the BEST time to enter new fields, try new ventures, or reinvent yourself. That’s when you have the resources, the morale, the drive, and you can make changes on your own terms instead of being forced by desperate circumstances. The biggest, richest, most successful high tech companies have always followed that model.

All I can say is I’m NPR’s ideal listener – educated, affluent, and young enough that I could still be a supporter for decades to come. And yet I am listening to LESS and LESS NPR programming with each passing month, and what I do listen to is increasingly outside the funding stream (local station support) that NPR relies on. Consider me the canary in your coal mine.

The Western Ave complex is an AMAZING place. It’s a set of building that used to factories. It’s STILL used for manufacturing to a great extent but several floors and parts of buildings have been turned into artists’s condo’s. It’s not galleries, per se; it’s mostly working artists and their studios, although the Arts League of Lowell often puts on shows there. To get to the artist’s condos you go up and down in a freight elevator.

I dont watch much T.V. But I usually watch New Hampshires public station more than Bostons. I love New Hamshire cross roads and Fritz Weatherbee. They seem to have a bit more local programing. Are there art galleries at the western ave complex. Or just artists who hang out?

I should mention that I’m ALSO a Merrimack valley resident and ‘thoreauman’ actually brought up a key point that I neglected to mention in my litany of public radio’s problems:

Public radio used to have a connection (no pun intended) to its local community. But what does that MEAN these days?

WGBH and WBUR have a listening area that extends from southern NH to Rhode Island, and out past Rt 495. That’s probably about 3 million people. What do we have in common that represents a “community”? How do you do “local” programming on the scale?

It’s scarcely better in greater Lowell. WUML is a college radio station that fills most of its broadcast schedule with the typical music mix of college stations. It has a few non-music shows (e.g., TOL) and on Sundays WUML does its community outreach thing with a few small segments to some of Lowell’s many ethnic communities. But mainly WUML is about music. If they were serious about their role in the community they would eliminate half their music content and replace it with something meatier.

But it faces the same basic problem the big stations do: Greater Lowell is VERY diverse. Not only does it have one of the most complex mixes of ethnic groups of any US city, but WUML’s listening area includes leafy-green suburbs with nuclear families, a large mix of white-collar professionals, urban homesteaders, a very active arts community, a large blue-collar working class demographic, and some of America’s remaining manufacturing segments. I like to hang out at the Western Ave (in Lowell!) complex, because I’m an artist, and that mix of manufacturing and art is good example of Lowell.

I disagree. People who reach for their checkbooks understand the venerable stages and cycles involved in change.”

How is that different than the answer my hypothetical congressman would give?

Aren’t you BOTH saying that “these things take time to sort themselves out” and we don’t know exactly how MUCH time it will take or what the final result will be, or whether it won’t just be money down the drain? In neither case do I see a plan.

“I recognizee 25 year cycles before new ideas proposed are fully integrated into public life and then set upon by the next generation of activists and pro’s. That’s how it works.”

THAT 25 year cycle is a result of the natural span of a generation. So you can at least point to some biological fact to set people’s expectations. But there is no natural cycle for the uptake of a new technology or paradigm. For example, web-based social networking, e.g., MySpace, has gone from Zero to Ubiquitous in about 3 years. In the early days of radio the first commercial radio station in the US (KDKA) went on the air in 1920. By the 1930’s radio was a staple of American life and a major force in social and political change (e.g., FDR’s ‘fireside chats’).

Public radio in the US is like the US government – constantly reacting to the latest problem, lurching from crisis to crisis, putting out fires, wheeling and dealing and spinning to try to prop things up, but NO ONE seems to have a vision that enough people buy into of where it’s all going.

I don’t know about you but I follow lots of public radio news and blogs regularly, and I’m telling you: people are in a panic out there. Between funding threats and right-wing activists and the FCC trying to control content, and satellite radio taking key market segments, and the rise of podcasting and streaming and multimedia technologies, and the general segmenting and subsegmenting of US culture, and the dying-off of the grayhairs who used to be public radio’s greatest supporters, there is no prominent person with a clear vision of public radio’s future that has much buy-in right now. This ROS thing perfectly encapsulates the bigger picture.

I disagree. People who reach for their checkbooks understand the venerable stages and cycles involved in change. In my work, city planning and design, I recognizee 25 year cycles before new ideas proposed are fully integrated into public life and then set upon by the next generation of activists and pro’s. That’s how it works.

Currently my take on it is colored by 10 months of nearly daily particpation yielding the following:

1. Lydon’s brief with the UMass Lowell’s former Chancellor was probably unrealistically broad. I think it’s good to have the ROS mission unhitched from UMass. Too parochial to provide a lasting fit.

2. The almost universal dilemma of spam and web ranting has proven to be an unexpectedly strong detractor here. It traces to the bad behavior bred by humans engaged without normal social contact — eye contact, body language, voice, etc. It appears to be a neurologicsl fact of life on the Web. Lydon’s model needs to face this squarely and morph creatively.

What better starting point than a natural call for re-imagining the mission and its form.

I’m standing by.