<pre>>Obviously I didn't make myself clear. Actually I care about >this more than ever, and have been agitating among some >of my fellow producers about doing something. (An awful >lot of them are just shrugging, in a gesture of hopelessness. >The "why bother?" came from near-despair, not smugness. >Maybe I'm overly affected by the mess that is WBAI, but >getting involved with Pacifica governance seems like >exposing yourself to massive amounts of flying shrapnel >with only a very remote chance of success. Describing >it as an uphill battle feels like an understatement. >Doug Doug, It is heartening to hear that you are doing some agitiation. Pacifica is definitely worth protecting (from itself?). You are right that getting involved in Pacifica governance means you expose yourself to attack, if you have integrity. I don't know what the answer is. Without people of integrity, Pacifica governance won't work, and the stations will suffer, as has happened in the past. I have tried to raise awareness of WBAI's problems among my little corner of the NYC progressive community. Some listen, but many either a) are suspicious and fear I may want to "hurt" the station, or b) hardly listen anymore and think it's quaint that one would try to reform WBAI. An interesting book is Matthew Lasar's "Uneasy Listening," where he describes the network's internal strife of the last 30 years. These problems are not new. Jamie </pre> <hr size=1> Yahoo! Mail <a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com">Use Photomail</a> to share photos without annoying attachments.