Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

KPFK: Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

by Paul H. Rosenberg Sunday, Jan. 27, 2002 at 11:04 AM
rad@gte.net 562-436-3113

The new old forces now in charge of KPFK could not have found a manager more like Mark Shubb if they had gone out and cloned him. That, at least, is my opinion of one activist who knows them both, and has just announced his departure from IMC-LA, largely due to insularity and lack of vision that he attributes in part to Starr's influence.

errorMeet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

The new old forces now in charge of KPFK could not have found a manager more like Mark Shubb if they had gone out and cloned him. That, at least, is my opinion of the appointment of Steven Starr. Like Shrubb, Starr is someone I've known before he became KPFK manager. Although they're aligned on opposite sides, I can't think anyone more similar to Shrubb in the way he operates than Starr is.

But, hey, I've had "personality conflicts" with both of them, so who am I to talk? But here's what's significant. (1) In both cases, I was the one who did a great deal of hands-on grunt work, as well as organizational planning, and they were the ones who meet with others in private to consolidate opinion on their side.* (2) In both cases, the substantive issues were given short shrift, once the "personality conflict" explanation was trotted out.

These are very troubling similarities in operating style. I would never pretend to be good general manager material. Some degree of manipulation that I find distasteful may indeed be necessary for the job. But something else is necessary as well-a sense of what's important that goes beyond one's own ego to encompass points of view that are profoundly different and challenging to one's own, but still part of the progressive tradition. And it wouldn't hurt if the person actually had hands-on, nitty-gritty activist experience, as opposed to one million frequent-schmoozer miles.

Rather than bore you with my own long-winded analysis, let me just quote him briefly and offer some brief comments. This is from an IMC-LA-WORK email, responding to me:

As for 'trying very hard to function within the process, and Steven isn't', it's just not true; I've used consensus consistently, since I mentioned Life and Debt at the Quaker House seven months ago, to get us mobilized/ involved, I've used it to get us all to agree to do a Consensus Training a few weeks ago, to get us to pay more attention to the Principles of Unity, to set up the Encuentro, to set up the space."

Apparently, where Starr is coming from, consensus process is something you use, just as you might use a lawsuit-to get your way, not to participate in something larger than yourself and your own ego. That, at least, is how this passage struck me. I spoke of "functioning within the process," he spoke of using it to get his agenda accepted by the group.

What Pacifica needs right now is *not* the replacement of one clique by another. What it needs is openness and dialogue. Not expert manipulators who can give the *appearance* of openness and dialogue, but people with a long, deep record of producing the genuine article. Based on my experience within IMC-LA, Steven Starr is definitely *not* such a person.

In addition to the agenda he pushed 'using the consensus process' was an agenda he blocked-an agenda I believed in to make IMC the one-stop information source for all of radical/progressive LA activism, bringing together thousands of organizations and activists working in dozen of different issue areas, all related to fundamental issues of global social justice. Starr's influence in blocking this expansive vision of what IMC LA could become is a major reason I am leaving IMC, but the real cause isn't Starr himself, but the collective's insularity and disinterest in reaching out to the larger activist community. Starr was a champion of this insular outlook, and that makes him a remarkably poor choice for putting the community back into community radio.

But, I could be wrong, and I hope for the sake of us all that I am. Maybe Steven sees KPFK differently than he sees IMC, and he will be a great manager. But ultimately, it's up to the whole community to be much more pro-active in holding all our media-makers accountable. (Including me, of course.) It would be no different if the choice had been a clone of Lew Hill, rather than Mark Shubb. In fact, the responsibility would have been even greater. The more impressive the leader, the greater the need for critical vigilance. Eugene Debs said it best when he refused to lead people into paradise. For if one person could lead the masses into paradise, one person could just as easily lead them out.

"Don't follow leaders,
Watch the parking meters."
-- Bob Dylan.

Your time has expired.
And so has mine.

Paul Rosenberg has been continuously involved in IMC-LA since a few weeks before the D2K demonstrations. He has just announced his departure from the IMC-LA collective. He has just begun working as an assistant editor at Random Lengths, a genuine alternative biweekly serving San Pedro and the greater Harbor Area, and is working on a book, "Beyond War: Fighting Terrorism At Its Roots." Click link below for many of the stories he has published on IMC-LA.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


comment moved from center column to below

by johnk Sunday, Jan. 27, 2002 at 11:26 AM
johnk@woostock.com

[These comments were moved from the front page center column to after this story. Explanation below.]

Long-time IMC activist, Paul Rosenberg, now an editor at Random Lengths, who just announced his resignation from IMC-LA, characterized Starr as "a deal-maker" rather than an activist with the group. "I've never heard of him covering a demonstration or making any media for IMC beyond putting together some center column stories," Rosenberg said.



Starr was largely responsible for securing IMC's current offices, along with financing to make them affordable, but Rosenberg and several other long-time IMC activists feel that this move has been a mistake, and is related to the shrinkage of the IMC collective. "Like Shrubb, Starr is someone I've known before he became KPFK manager. Although they're aligned on opposite sides, I can't think anyone more similar to Shrubb in the way he operates than Starr is." Rosenberg concedes that Starr's influence is a major reason he is leaving IMC, but says that the real cause isn't Starr himself, but the collective's insularity and disinterest in reaching out to the thousands of progressive organizations in the LA area. Starr was a champion of this insular outlook, and for that reason Rosenberg feels that Starr is a remarkably poor choice for putting the community back into community radio. "But I could be wrong, and I hope for the sake of us all that I am," Rosenberg said. "Maybe Steven sees KPFK differently than he sees IMC, and he will be a great manager. But ultimately, it's up to the whole community to be much more pro-active in holding all our media-makers accountable."

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Support For Starr

by Chris Burnett Sunday, Jan. 27, 2002 at 12:21 PM

To Pacifica Listeners and IMC Activists,

I want to send a clear message of support for Steven Starr as choice for the new General Manager of KPFK. I have worked closely with Starr at the IMC since it's inception in Los Angeles and have confidence in his ability to treat people fairly and honestly, as well as someone who, in fact, does work within the consensus model that has been developed at the LA IMC. Starr has also been instrumental in working on successful outreach events to a variety of students and activists in the LA area, including the production of an IMC video project that was featured in the center column of this site last fall. In my experience, I think the negative and destructive comments made by Rosenberg above are inaccurate and unfounded.

Taking on the postion of GM for KPFK is a job that would be incredibly difficult for anyone, and I believe that the decision to choose Starr was a good one. I personally watched the boarding up of Pacifica's KPFA and subsequent reaction by the community of people who took back the station in Berkeley, and have always felt myself to be a close ally of those who want to restore the mission of Pacifica and institute structures that are participatory and accessable. I have the utmost confidence in Starr's ability to address these concerns.

As an IMC activist and organizer, I feel that Starr shares the values and principles on which the IMC is founded. It is of no small concern of mine that this would be a prerequisite for *anyone* who would be confronted with the task of stepping into a very difficult job at KPFK.

Sincerely,

Chris Burnett
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Was You There, Charlie?

by Paul H. Rosenberg Sunday, Jan. 27, 2002 at 3:09 PM
rad@gte.net

With all due respect, Chris Burnett has had virtually no involvement in the functioning of IMC-LA collective since D2K, and thus has no personal experience of the events from which I have drawn my conclusions.

Personal relations of people involved in IMC, but outside of the collective decision-making process, are no basis for making judgments about how people within the process.

But it gets worse. At one time, as Steven notes, he brought Chris in to give us a refresher "consensus training." Only, it wasn't a consensus training at all. It was simply a quickie, 30-minute overview of information about how concesus is supposed to work--something that could have been done much more effectively in 10 minutes simply by giving people handouts & telling them to read them to themselves. There was not a single exercise, not a signle bit of actually training in the entire "training." It was a joke. Neither Steven nor Chris seemed to have the slightest clue that the exercise was faintly ridiculous at best, and an utter travesty at worst.

I am not an ideological purist of concensus process. I was involved with the pre-party Greens in the late 80s & early 90s and I saw concensus process used to block progress & new ideas again and again. As a result, I regard concensus pragmatically, as a powerful tool that is nonetheless has certain limits. Sometimes it's preferable, sometimes not.
But if you *choose* to work with it, then it brings along certain committments, which go far beyond just following the directions that Chris came and read to the group. It involves *internalizing* certain attitudes and orientations. Among these is the shedding of the viewpoint that you alone know best and just have to figure out how to get everyone else on board. This is something that Steven Starr has not come close to grasping, as his own words clearly show. No amount of testimony from people who weren't there can negate what I have seen.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Newswire Debates

by Chris Burnett Sunday, Jan. 27, 2002 at 4:01 PM
chris@indymedia.org

I am not particularly interested in back and forth accusations about this particular subject. My original intention is to defend Starr from the kind of personal attacks exhibited on this page, and now it seems towards me. However, I am more than willing to answer questions about this particular subject, and related innaccuracies, if someone cares to email me (chris@indymedia.org) about it.

Sincerely,

Chris Burnett
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Consensus at IMC-Houston is a joke

by .-D Sunday, Jan. 27, 2002 at 4:47 PM
edi@hal-pc.org

It's been used there as a tool to censor in the most absurd manner. First the leader called to see if there was a consensus to have me removed from the IMC-Houston discussion list, then when no concensus appeared (in fact quite the opposite, a consensus against the proposal), the process was changed again and again until the leader felt secure he could remove me.
Some so-called activists are no more than cheap hoods.
I'll eventually get to writing about this type of thing more fully here:
http://www.geocities.com/hcjnw
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I'm Not Attacking Chris...

by Paul H. Rosenberg Sunday, Jan. 27, 2002 at 6:13 PM
rad@gte.net

...just because I point out the limitations inherent in his endorsement. I think that IMC-LA would have been much better off if he had stayed actively involved in the collective. Unfortunately, he did not.

As for is involvement in the "consensus training," I can only assume that since Steven Starr is the one who recruited him, Chris was somehow lead to believe that all we needed was a reminder review. It seems strange that he wouldn't find this a puzzling request, but I was equally puzzled at myself in retrospect. After all, it was scheduled as a 30 minute agenda item, and it certainly isn't possible to do a real concensus training in that time--though I have been part of such quickie trainings just before demos. I, too, should have questioned what we were doing beforehand. We all should have.

It's only because Chris is vouching for Steven on the matter of concensus process that I bring this up. I wouldn't fault him for getting roped into Steven's little charade, if only he wouldn't go out of his way to defend Steven on related matters of working within concensus that he can know nothing about from direct experience.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Salvation results from an open honest process

by Joe Blackburn Sunday, Jan. 27, 2002 at 6:59 PM
bh069@lafn.org 310/577-0817 & 661/948-6291 PMB 492, Lancaster, CA 93584

The only way I know I am getting true free speech is if I get so exasperated that I turn-off the radio. Piss me off!

Clear incisive open honest communication is what the World needs now. Go for it.

Perservere! Air the dirty laundry! But focus on the clear and present danger of a military police state. The war on terrorism is a war on us. Principled, explicitly honest, expression of all points of view, can save the day.

The truth always hurts. But, only your friends will tell you the truth.

Ask me for $200. Active support!

Love the Earth!
Joe Blackburn
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Support for Steven Starr

by John Kawakami Monday, Jan. 28, 2002 at 2:43 AM
johnk@woodstock.com

I'm John Kawakami, an IMCer since around March of 2000, and participate in the IMC in a mostly administrative, organizing, and technical capacity. I've also been a Pacifica listener for over fifteen years. Given the comments above, I feel I must register a vote of confidence in the board's choice of Steven Starr as interim GM of KPFK.

I'm distressed, hurt, and offended by this public display of anger, particularly by someone with whom I have worked closely. I can't tell if this is revenge, or a real exposition, because I talked to Paul Rosenberg twice yesterday, when these articles were posted, and he was extremely upset over a range of issues. If anyone wishes to discuss this further, I'm available by email at johnk@woodstock.com.

About some of the issues raised, I actually agree with Paul, though not with the same fervor or tone. Ideologically, I have some issues with how Steven has worked within the IMC. He's interested in high profile projects, while I'm interested in smaller projects. These are two things I'm sure we'll never agree on.

Despite this, I have no conflict or fight with Steven. Our work relations have been very good, and he's been straightforward, flexible, and understanding. Sometimes, he has a managerial manner I bristle at, because the IMC is supposed to be an explicitly nonhierarchical collective, but he's been flexible, and adjusted; moreover, IMC is not KPFK. The two organizations have similar goals, but the scale of work, and resources available, are far greater at KPFK. To this end, his demonstrated ability to delegate responsibility and grant autonomy should work well in his position.

I think his record and resume speak volumes. Though he's not been an LA activist for very long, he's the kind of person who can work with a diverse range of people, understand multiple perspectives, and get real projects completed. Yes, he's a media industry insider, but that's not necessarily a bad thing for a radio station.

Beyond KPFK, he's also responsible, in spirit, to the IMC, which is a source of his legitimacy. If there's an issue with him, you can bring it up on IMC. In the unlikely case LA site is sabotaged, there's the San Diego and San Francisco sites, which are operated by different collectives. There's also the KPFK message boards and the savepacfica website. He's under the microscope, and he knows it. I'm not worried for KPFK or for Steven.

I think Steven Starr is capable of pulling KPFK through this difficult recovery and time of conflict, and hope to see him exceed all expectations.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Starr Supported Insular Vision Of IMC

by Paul H. Rosenberg Monday, Jan. 28, 2002 at 8:51 AM
rad@gte.net

The events of the past 24 hours have probably cost me a lasting friendship with John Kawakami, and that's probably the worst thing about them. But that's my concern in this post.

John says that he likes working on small projects, while Steven likes working on big ones. But that's only part of the picture. It would be more accurate to say that Steven likes *initiating* big projects. Projects that others can do a lot of work on.

What Steven doesn't like is an expansive, inclusive vision of IMC-LA, that would have hundreds, maybe thousands of organizations and activists all contributing to an insanely powerful news organization. This was the proposal that I formally brought forward several months ago, to develop issue-oriented web pages, which would be edited by activists already generating media in the areas concerned--staff members of organizations who write reports, do press releases and the like, volunteers who edit newletters and put together fact sheets, activists who give speeches and write emails to activist email lists, etc., etc., etc. Starting with issue-oriented webpages on the IMC-LA website would be a very low-cost way of building up the organization and our *participatory* audience/readership. As this approach developed, it would be possible to start other projects in other (less interactive) media that reach people in other ways.

There were a number of objections, chiefly revolving around fears that this "wouldn't be the IMC anymore." I responded by saying that I was extremely flexible, and wanted to work with people to find a way to meet all their concerns. I invited them to reframe their objections as concerns to be met, rather than reasons to flatly reject my idea. There was some willingness to do this, until Steven put his foot down and flatly rejected it.

He did so in a variety of ways, but primarily on the basis that there needed to be a firm line between those inside the IMC and those outside. This is somewhat problematic, since IMC-LA had never clearly defined what it meant to be a member of the collective. It was a fluid, evolving concept. Ironically, Steven chose as his criteria that *work* is what makes people members of IMC, but work is precisely what these people would do. Thus, his objection was arbitrary, self-contradictory, and non-negotiable.

There were legitimate concerns about how to expand to be more inclusive and still stay true to our mission. I regarded the process of addressing these concerns to be a very important *group* process. Steven's maneuver effectively derailed this process in a very clever way.
Concerns about growing the collective on the scale I envisoned were real and legitimate. A single collective would probably not be feasible, but rather some sort of spokes-council model would have to be adopted. These issues are precisly the sort that require extensive discussion in a consensus decision-making process. Therefore, it is unwise to go forward if there is significant opposition in the first place.

Steven's red-herring maneuvering shifted the group's focus of attention, while stirring up wider feelings of unease. He was thus able to block the consideration of my proposal in any meaningful sense, without ever engaging in the sort of responsible dialogue that is supposed to characterize the consensus process.

Steven was not the only problem, of course. The group itself had strong insular tendancies, which Steven played upon. Collectives need a certain cohesion to operate effectively, which makes a certain tendency toward insularity virtually inevitable. It requires conscious effort to counter this. I was challenging people to engage in this effort, and that was bound to meet some resistence.
Up until last week I continued to believe that eventually the group would change it's attitude, but I finally realized that I had simply been deluding myself, and that fundamental change was just not in the cards.

The basic problem, as I came to see it, was not insularity, but an over-all lack of long-term vision which made the comfort of insularity more appealing than the prospect of building a substantially poweful organization. Steven's "big project" mentality was big only within the shrunken context of the group's vision--which he shared. He had no interest in building long-term structures--such as that described above--which could allow for vastle more people to play a vital role in media-making.

Why this matters for his role as KPFK general manager should be obvious for three reasons. (1) If Steven was adamantly opposed to an expansive, inclusive vision of what the IMC should be, why in the world would he think any differently about KPFK? (2) If Steven is disingenuous in working within a concensus process, why in the world would he be forthright and accountable when working at the top of an hierarchical organization? (3) If he's so *good* at rhetoric and manipulation (and he is!), there is all the more reason to fear the disconnect between rhetoric and reality.

Steven's past life in the entertainment industry should not be held against him per se. Rather, the ways in which it affects his outlook and operating style should be closely scrutinized. We should also consider how wise it is to give such power to someone without an extensive background in the activist trenches, and the knowledge such a background brings.

Someone like former KPFK news director Frank Stoltz would raise no such concerns--though I have no idea if he'd want the post. I simply point to him as an example of the *TYPE* of person whose background is exemplary of what's needed. He may *not* be the best "people person," (I have no idea, I've only met him once or twice) but is that what we really want? Particularly when a "people person" may simply be the most skilled in derailing significant substantive issues?

In short, if you look beyond the generalities of those who endorse Starr, you find the particulars that call him into question. After all the years of struggle that Pacifica has been through recently, it would be a terrible tragedy to see the present opportunity botched by someone who is not well-known to the wider community, and who has a track-record of *NOT* favoring long-term planning and boldly inclusive organizing. It's particularly disturbing to see him promoted as a paragon of consensus-based decision-making, when a study of particulars shows that he is not.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


another perspective on steven & the imc

by mary Monday, Jan. 28, 2002 at 5:08 PM
marywelz@yahoo.com

I support the comments of John and Chris re steven. I say 'thank you' to steven for accepting the thankless INTERIM GM position. With his broad experience and skills, commitment to community based media, I look forward to his involvement. Steven is human. i don't always agree with him. As i have gotten to know Steven, however, I perceive him as driven, open and supportive.

I have been peripherally involved with the imc and the pacifica movement. I am not a media person, but want to help with community outreach, to assess community needs, to organize trainings, etc. I share the vision of others within the imc, that the imc can be a community resource for news/information, media trainings, etc.

I had reservations re Paul's proposal due to practical concerns re feasibility, 'logistics.' From my own experience, I have not always felt support for my proposals. I have had to reassess, scale back, identity immediate specific goals, tasks. The imc is all volunteers with very few funds, most of the work happens due to self initiative.

Within the imc, we have discussed how/when to bring in the community - we need more resources, more infrastructure, etc before we can do outreach, but we need the community to help us build resources, infrastucutre, etc. Last November, we met with a few community activists, they were quite supportive, generated lot of great ideas. After the meeting, however, I felt overwhelmed because the imc has so much potential to support/involve the community, but we have so little time, money, resources, etc. We are sensitive to wanting to build trust, to be able to deliver on our commitments to the community.

Yes, the imc folks are helping to organize the 'life and debt' screening,' other projects are temporarily on hold. The 'Life & Debt' screening can be a valuable fundraising and outreach opportunity. Until my own 'life & debt' drama, I was willing to assist in organizing the event. this was an investment opportunity - we invest our time/energy to build a successful fundraiser, we would reap funds to help us realize the imc potential.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Paul as any fule kno'...

by David Cook Monday, Jan. 28, 2002 at 10:10 PM
davidxcook@juno.com

...that's worked at William Morris, style will trump substance every time. So, instead of your sour grapes towards "Suave Stevie", take a page from his sweet smell of success book. First thing tomorrow, you go get that "rat's nest" cut at the barber; two, shower at least once daily; three, buy some cologne and breath mints; four, join Bally's and get that gut and fat ass worked off; five, stop wearing ten year old stained t-shirts from Sal's Army; six, get...like...Stevie...hip.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


sir, you have insulted my honor!

by steven Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2002 at 12:00 AM

sir, i challenge you to a duel to reclaim my honor!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Can't fool an old fool

by .-D Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2002 at 9:26 AM
edi@hal-pc.org

Sure enuf, it takes a grubby street anarchist to rid Pacifica of an odious old manager, even when it means facing false arrest. The lack of attention to personal hygiene and nutrition comes due to an immersion in organizing activities, to bring not only the locals out in support for change, but to help unify a national movement.
Ah, it's a selfless job with very few recognizable rewards, save the most significant one -- success.
After the triumph, and the general patting each other on the back, it's time for the slick individuals to walk in, with their de facto grand visions.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


brief comment

by peter morgan Saturday, Feb. 16, 2002 at 3:35 PM

i am yet another IMC'er involved since the green days, pre D2K, and I have not been as active since about the time la.imc retained 'formal offices'. There were time commitments which led to my reduced participation, but unfortunately, i also saw a change from a group based process, of which the racous general meetings were critical, to a sort of "clubby" atmosphere.
i am rather amazed that no individual here has referred to the massive amounts of 'consensing' spent on the "ban kpfk personnel from Patriotic Hall" issue; an exhaustive agreement finally pounded out-- and a subject which nearly took down the la.IMC before the launch. And, while my memory is vague, I believe it was Steven Starr who was the primary force in unearthing this monstrous issue on, literally, the eve of the D2K...why such concerns weren't voiced at our previous meetings can only be conjectured.
Curious understanding of consensus which i see everyone mentioning here.
Steven is obviously an energetic person, and a serious individual. I generally respect him because he pretty much isn't a bullshitter. He uses his own voice, rather than an affectation which some Nation-al types prefer.
However, i can't forget that useless waste of energy from the IMC inception, and from an individual whom i never saw more than once at a pre-D2K general meeting.
i do expect Steven will be a damned sight better than the fool's runner Schubb.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


kpfk's web- cast

by BRUCE Monday, Feb. 18, 2002 at 8:27 AM
dawn@chatlink.com 1-541-471-0906 703 NW amelia DR

Has anyone heard anything about kpfk's web-cast being off line?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Notice to D. Cook

by lithium Thursday, Feb. 21, 2002 at 10:26 AM

the shipment should arrive postpaid.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy