Pacifica hires armed guards

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Mon Jun 28 07:40:58 PDT 1999


At 09:25 AM 6/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 21:52:51 -0800
>From: dennis bernstein <dbernstein at igc.org>
>To: "freepacifica at penguin.josephson.com" <freepacifica at penguin.josephson.com>
>Subject: {FP} FOUR ARMED GUARDS FOIL DUET AT KPFA
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>4 ARMED SECURITY GUARDS FOIL SINGING DUET AT
>KPFA FREE-SPEECH RADIO
>
>Sunday, June 27, 1999
>
>A new twist in the battle for the soul of Pacifica. The network has
>hired plain- clothes armed guards to "defend" the station round the
>clock. They refused to answer any questions, including their names.

As I always saying, SCRATCH A LIBERAL AND FIND A NAZI UNDERNEATH. If this story is not a proof of that, I do not know what is.

As Christopher Hitchens aptly observed, the liberals have been charged with the important mission of pacifying dissent as the last vestiges of the New Deal/Civil Rights Movement/Great Society/and the democratic interlude of 1960s are now being dismantled and trasferred to corporations. Pacifica is one the few such vestiges remaining, hence the intensity of the battle. The liberal closet Nazis are worse that typical conservatives, because theyr have a missionary zeal and as new proselytes to the capitalisys faith they have a strong urge to prove themselves.

However, the question that puzzles me is how can that liberal shit in the Pacifica foundation do their fifth-column work legally? After all, the foundation is NOT thier private property, and there are laws on the book that curb executive excesses is the stockholders decide to act. hence my questions: 1. who are the "stockholders" of the Pacifica foundation? - in other words, whose vote can bring the exec and the board down? or is it one of those executive empires that only the "nonprofit" status (=elimination of propriety interests of stockholders) can bestow? If that is the case, Pacifica is an important waring of the perils to democracy created by nonprofits.

2. If there is such a "stockholder constituency" in Pacifica, why do not they do anything? Are they they same mold of liberal shit at Pacifica's directors, or are there other reasons of their inaction?

wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list