WELL, HERE IT IS

Here's the 10 questions I did for All Access, the radio trade website. Thanks again to Perry for asking all the silly questions. For you readers, I'm only leaving out the station stuff - otherwise it's printed in its entirety:

NAME: Greg Alan
TITLE: Morning Show Host
STATION: Newsradio 600 WMT
RAISED: St Paul, MN and Mason City, Iowa

1. How did you get into radio?

It got into me, actually. My mother has an old cassette tape of my brother and I and some recorded horseplay where I would pretend to read the news and providing the 8-yr old version impressions of Jimmy Carter. I attended Brown Institute (now Brown College) in the old days and immediately began working in a factory having nothing to do with radio. After getting sick and damn tired of doing the same thing over and over again, I decided to give it a shot...for the chicks, of course. I used to love listening to KSTP in the Twin Cites; Bob Yates and Don Vogel at the old KSTP and Tom Barnard at KQRS and soon realized I would have a hell of a lot of dues to pay before I found what I wanted to do. I stuck it out and now it’s all I know how to do. Believe me, I’ve tried.

2. What are you passionate about?

Production values. I absolutely get a charge out of a great bit working to perfection. Most of the time, it’s the spontaneous ones that are best. You look back after doing something really cool and wonder how it could have been better had you planned it. My passion is also for the power of the medium. Laugh if you must, but the Clear Channel “Less is More” initiative is a good start. Radio people have devalued their own product for far too long. When you’re a talk host and you react to a local issue or call to action and you see the groundswell of support for a hot button topic, it’s hard to see why we’re charging 25-bucks for a 30-second commercial and loading up our hours with 14-minutes of spots.

3. You were in Iowa, then went to Charleston, then back to Iowa- what differences did you note between the Midwest and South? What would surprise outsiders about Iowa?

It’s a shopping “buggy” in the south, a cart in the Midwest. You “mash” a button instead of press it. Outsiders are a little more suspect in the south than in the Midwest. There’s a tendency to want to limit the explosion of growth in the south...housing, development, vacationers. But the Midwest needs all the help it can get. Here in Iowa, we’re doing all we can to attract families and businesses. If people only knew the lifestyle we enjoy here in community, our schools, and the general friendliness of everyday people. Sadly, that’s not what we’re advertising these days...we’re more interested in building a 50-million dollar “monkey bubble” to attract...um, well...somebody. I can recount scores of stories of Iowans who have – in very simple ways - gone out of their way to help someone. There’s something else somewhat similar too...despite their reputation, Iowan’s are not all about choosing our Presidential candidates in the caucuses. When the major media descends every four years, we laugh ourselves silly at the stereotypical displays on the news...much like the south who don’t wholly deserve their racist/right-wing reputation.

4. If you hadn't gone into radio, what would you be doing today?

Driving my wife nuts with rants about the overpopulation of deer...but most likely with computer programming or IT. At every step of my career, I’ve always been intrigued by the new technology and wanting more and more of it to work properly allegedly to make my job easier. This has meant long hours studying the manuals (remember those?) and researching and learning new stuff. I taught myself HTML (before MS Frontpage), ASCII coding for satellite switchers, and a host of audio processing and digital automation systems. I’ve built computers, a home studio, networking systems, and websites. Even as just a simple talent, I believe it’s important to know how stuff works...in the event that it stops working. I wonder how radio people would get along today if suddenly the internet went down and they lost their automation systems. Even in medium markets, when the Prophet system and server go down – many of the so-called new recruiting class of radio people don’t know what to do with themselves. You’ll get dumbfounded looks of fear and nobody will turn on the damn microphone and say something.

5. You overcame a major health challenge early on- how has the experience affected the way you've lived since then?

Oh, you found that, eh? Yes, I’m a cancer survivor (twice – once with a bone marrow transplant), but I don’t make a big deal out of it on the air. If people find out about it or I mention it very casually, then fine. Otherwise, it’s not what I am about... I don’t let it define me. I think it’s a little smarmy to make yourself part of some great cause or whatever to make yourself a part of the story. I think people can see through that pretty easily and they get turned off. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think people would get sick of me mentioning it every opportunity I got...and I get a lot of opportunity. But talk to the bulk of cancer survivors and you’ll soon find out that they’re rather humble about it and are more interested in the joys of life...not the struggle. It’s changed me, of course. I see the little things for more than what they are and take pleasure in simple mundane activities. I’m also more optimistic about any unfortunate situation that comes my way. I was told not ever to expect children, but now I have 2 wonderful little simple things in my life, daughter Catherine Helena and son Spencer Reagan.

6. What's different about you on the air? What sets you apart from other talkers?

I tell stories. I use my everyday observations and inquisitive logic. I know, I know... the internet and access to information is a wonderful thing, but the best things to talk about can be seen all around you. That’s what I bring to the table. Anyone can read All Access (and I do - no offense) and find “topics” to rant about...but you’d be surprised how much show prep is happening within a few feet from your doorstep. Then once you start noticing these things, you connect them with your listeners. Why is it you can’t get a stinkin’ drink of water from a paper cup and cooler on the golf course anymore without having to buy bottled water from a cart girl who comes around only every 6 holes? Well, they took out all the coolers filled with ice water on public courses. Why? After investigating (and observing), it seems there’s a liability risk in providing water because it might be contaminated. Official health department rules, you see. Yes, it’s much better to have people die of heat stroke and dehydration in 90-degree weather and 75-percent relative humidity. You won’t find that kind of gold on a newspaper website.

7. Of what are you most proud?

I’ve only been fired twice in 15-years. Once for wearing cut-off sweatpants as shorts on a Saturday when I didn’t even have to come in to the station (don’t ask). The other time for (deleted by corporate lawyers). I weathered that storm rather well and I’m pretty proud of how I maintained my composure (mostly) in a difficult situation. I held my tongue until the absolute last moment. The hammer came down when my wife was 8 months pregnant and I’m very proud of how she took it too. We stayed in town until the baby was born, and kept making most of our bill payments. I couldn’t exactly look for work too hard because it would make the situation worse, but as fortune would have it, my home state came calling and now I’m proud to be at a station with three – count ’em – three Marconi Awards in the glass case.

8. What do you do for fun?

Radio. Seriously. If you love what you do, you don’t have a job.Otherwise, I enjoy watching my two year old run rings around the other kids because I have a stay at home mother with her instead of being raised in a glorified puppy mill. (Sorry, it’s the talk host in me)My 8-month old son, who is all boyI love golf - although it doesn’t love me enough.And I work on my website and blog– although not as much as I should/could when the server isn’t acting up.

9. Fill in the blank: I can't make it through the day without ______________.

...an alarm clock going off at 3:05am and my Mozilla Firefox browser hooked up to All Access; State29 (which is a great Iowa blog); Fark.com; National Review; and VirtualBubbleWrap.com. Shameless plugs.

10. What's the best advice you ever got? The worst?

Best: “You should read this book.” My mother talking about "Think and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill. It was the best dime she ever spent at a garage sale.

Worst: “You have a malignant lymphoma. Most likely Hodgkins, but in order to make sure you should have a gallium and phosphorous CT scan and barium contrast. I set up an appointment with an oncologist...” Huh? Wha?...my doctor said this and sheepishly walked out the door. I raced home to look in a dictionary because I had no idea what he was talking about. Then I went to work.

OH MY GOD

I'm shocked. The "conservative" court that "gave George Bush the White House" has just ruled that your home isn't really yours.

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

This is gonna be big. Really big.

According to the Supreme's thinking, eminent domain used by the government to sieze property (after fair compensation) for public use now includes whether or not the city or state can make more money with your land than you can as a reason to take it from you.

The power can come in the form of condemning your land to make way for any kind of development that brings in more revenue than your simple $1200 a year brings in. Prior to the ruling today, the government had to show a clear "public use" for the property - building roads, bridges, even parks. Now, they can build a "technology park" and sell off the land to a private developer to make oodles of cash.

Make no mistake, in many of these cases, the government will be merely acting as the middle man. They take the land from you (after paying you a pittance) and then they sell it to someone else, and they turn around and sell it to someone else.

Good God...I'm still shocked.

Here are some random comments from the arguments and content of the story from the Washington Post. Just read these and tell me we aren't in a whole heap of trouble:

"...Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices..."

I guess if everyone in the city got free memberships to the health club it could be considered a "public use" but what are the odds of that happening?

"...The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex..."

I can see the headline: More Homeless In Connecticut, Leaders Unsure Why

"...Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community..."

And the homeowners themselves know nothing? What's this? The same people who think putting a giant rainforest in the middle of Iowa are better at deciding what?

"...private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted..."

So it's big business and private developers who will be huge winners in this case. Little guys, and families with moderate incomes and homes will be in extreme danger of having their homes stolen for these "public use" projects.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

I wonder if the liberals would consider that a threatening message to judges?

It was a 5-4 decision. Guess who was on what side?

The FIVE in favor of taking your house for any old reason at all:
Justice John Paul Stevens - appointed by Gerald Ford
Justice David Hackett Souter - appointed by George H W Bush
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - appointed by Bill Clinton
Justice Steven G Breyer - appointed by Bill Clinton
Justice Anthony M Kennedy - appointed by Ronald Reagan

The FOUR who think building a private health club isn't "public use" are:
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor - appointed by Ronald Reagan
Justice William H Rehnquist - appointed by Ronald Reagan
Justice Antonin Scalia - appointed by Ronald Reagan
Justice Clarence Thomas - appointed by George H W Bush

The five should be impeached...and I'm being totally serious. This is awful. This is not my America...

Conservative Impeachment Petition

Liberal Impeachment Petition

FELONS CAN VOTE...SHOULDN'T YOU?

The continuing controversy involving Governor Vilsack's Executive Order 42 (which he will sign on July 4th) has allowed Rehka Basu of the Des Moines Register to get all gooey again...

"...Last year, 43-year-old Jackie Tilley, a mother and ex-meth maker, moved members of the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women with her testimony about not being able to vote. "The loss of voting rights excludes us from having a voice in presidential elections and school-board elections," she said. "This directly relates to not being able to be responsible and productive citizens."

I'm sure it was very moving. Exactly why she chose to take the time to testify instead of applying to the Governor for clemency isn't clear. I'm also not clear on how not being able to vote relates to not being able to be responsible and productive. Only about half of us even choose to vote and I'm sure the remainder have no trouble being responsible and productive.

I'll pause while you wipe your eyes...but hold on to that tissue:

"...Iowa has been sending ex-offenders a mixed message, on the one hand demanding they lead responsible lives in civilian society, on the other hand setting up roadblocks to their full participation..."

Those roadblocks being having to actually PAY THEIR DEBT to society. Heck, if we're worried about roadblocks...why even wait until they get out of prison to allow them to vote? I mean, really...they're currently living under the supervision of the state. Shouldn't they have a right to have a say in how they're treated?

But Basu doesn't fault Ms Tilley. She doesn't even fault the Governor - who has the CURRENT power to give her her right to vote back if he wanted to. She faults...Republicans.

"...several prominent Republicans in the Legislature oppose restoring ex-offenders' rights..."

LET ME BE CLEAR so all can understand this - including you, Rehka...set aside your partisan political glasses for a moment. Pretend you're not a Democrat or Republican.

1. The governor has the current power to grant any ex-con the right to vote once they go through the process of applying to the Board of Parole and serve their time - including any and all parole and supervised leave. All they have to do is pay any and all court costs and restitution they might owe to their victims. No one is opposed to restoring ex-convicts the right to vote.

2. The Governor's executive order would eliminate the need for ex-cons to pay their court costs in order to have their rights restored. In my mind, you're still not a "responsible and productive citizen" until you do that. Why not make this true for those who have their drivers licenses taken away until they pay their fines? Why should they not be able to drive just because they didn't pay a lousy 40-dollar speeding ticket?

3. Last year, the Governor received 444 requests for the re-granting of voting rights. He REFUSED 105 of them. What was so wrong with those 105 that he felt they didn't deserve to have their rights back? Someone needs to grab the Governor and ask him that question.

4. Why did the Governor wait until Friday afternoon to announce his decision? Why did he wait until after the legislative session had ended? Why did he choose July 4th of all days to make it official?

So weepy left wing goons like Rehka Basu can come up with a clever hook to close out their otherwise sleepy (and delusional) column.

"...Whatever the political impact, this July 4 will be a special Independence Day. It's when Iowa joins the states that don't just talk about forgiveness and salvation but practice it..."

Yes...special indeed. I'm sure Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would be proud.

SHAMELESS ME

For those of you stopping by after the interview published at All Access.com, thanks. I'm having some trouble with the archives of this blog, but I'm working on the fix. It seems my server has lost the coding necessary to remember where they are.

For those of you wondering what the heck all the fuss is about, go to All Access.com and read it yourself. You have to be a member, but it's free.

And thanks to Perry Michael Simon for remembering I was still alive.

I don't want to post it just yet, but I will when the run on All Access ends.

THE TURNSTYLES OF JUSTICE IN IOWA

The great governor of the state of Iowa wants felons to be able to exercise their right to vote. Of course, they already have that ability once they apply for clemency after they pay their debt to society, but the governor wants to eliminate the middle-man.

According to a sneaky weekend story most of you missed because of the nice weather and Father's Day holiday, Governor Vilsack plans to sign Executive Order 42 which would grant blanket amnesty to any and all convicted felons now or in the future. They'll no longer have to worry about those pesky applications to the governor and having to pay all those expensive court costs and restitution to those silly victims.

It's outrageous, of course, but typical of an outgoing Democrat who finds his party in trouble with Howard Dean leading the faithful.

The Des Moines Register is helping with I'm sure some more sympathetic news stories about down on their luck felons who only want to participate in society again. Expect more like it in the coming days before he signs the order - on July 4th, no less.

Well, here's a little research I dug up and a point by point analysis of what he plans on doing.

"The disenfranchisement of these offenders has a disproportionate impact on minorities in our communities. . . . This directive will provide the most important opportunity to those who need it most - the right to vote," he said. Vilsack pointed to Deb Brenklander, convicted of a meth-related crime and discharged from parole in February, as someone who wants to repay her debt to society. She already had her citizenship rights restored through the existing process.

No one is being disenfranchised, Governor - and you know it. If anyone is, it's your fault anyway. According to your own Board of Parole (PDF file, page 15) in 2004, there were 444 requests from felons to have their right to vote restored. Governor Vilsack granted 380 of those requests. One wonders what was wrong with those 105 remaining that HE HIMSELF disenfranchised.

Besides, the woman you had on the stage with you had hers restored already...precisely as the current law allows.

To the press release we go -

"...To become eligible to vote, offenders now must undergo a 3 to 6 month process that includes submitting an application to the Governor seeking “restoration of citizenship,” the application is then forwarded to the Division of Criminal Investigation for verification and then sent to the Board of Parole for a recommendation..."

What the governor DOESN'T tell you is that they can only have it restored once they pay all court costs associated with their crimes, any fines, and restitution to victims if any. Once they do all that, they can apply and have it granted by the governor. Sorry, but in my language, you haven't 'paid your debt to society' until you actually pay your debts to society.

One right the governor DOESN'T want to restore -

"...The Executive Order will not constitute a “pardon” or remission of guilt and will not restore an individual’s firearms rights..."

Well, I'll sleep safer knowing THAT. I guess there are certain rights the governor wants to reserve in his control.

A few other points to make.

There's a case in Cedar Rapids involving James Bentley - who is charged in the sexual abuse of Jetsetta Gage before her brother murdered her. She was 10 years old. He's certain to serve time once he is convicted. Once released, he won't be able to live within 2,000 yards of a school (thanks to a law the governor signed also)...

But he'll actually be allowed INSIDE a school when he gets his right to vote back. Otherwise, he faces disenfranchisement. Most people vote in schools around here. Oh, well...it's all for a good cause, right? Come to think of it, the governor will also restore his right to run for office. What party do you think he'll thank for the chance?

Now, about those felons convicted of voter fraud...

FOR THE 90-TH TIME, MOVE-ON-DOT-ORG ALREADY...

This is the only public response I'm going to have to the spammers that have been filling me up with the "supposed shocking revelations" about the "Downing Memo"...here's a recent email from some dope in Marion, Iowa:

Why no coverage or investigation of the Downing Street Memo? If that memo is authentic (which it is) then this speaks volumes for what our country has become and why the world hates us now more than ever. It is obvious that the PNAC-populated White House intended to attack Iraq years before the actual event. Why isn't the PNAC policy being connected with the Downing Street Minutes? There is a story here if you're willing to dig a little deeper and look behind the scenes. I would kindly suggest you look at reporting this, being that the Downing Street Minutes are now in the news (no thanks to you). The American Public might be interested in this BBC presentation on the same subject - or at significant segments thereof. Panorama: Iraq, Tony & the Truth. How can something this important just be ignored? Regards, Melanie

Because it's silly, Melanie. I really could give a big fat crap what the world thinks of us...whether or not they hate us is none of my concern. They're weenies anyway. But "investigating" this would accomplish what, exactly?

I'd rather investigate the true reason Margaret Sanger wanted abortion legal in the US...1.3-million US citizens die every year because of her.

But if you must - here are my comments...

The memo simply contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking. It is sad when hearsay thrice-removed raises this kind of ruckus, especially since a version had been reported three years ago. As smoking guns go, it is not high caliber.

Regime change had been U.S. policy since October 31, 1998, when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. It was not a state secret. On February 12, 2002, Colin Powell stated that "With respect to Iraq, it has long been, for several years now, a policy of the United States government that regime change would be in the best interests of the region, the best interests of the Iraqi people. And we are looking at a variety of options that would bring that about." The policy had bipartisan support; in June 2002 Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said, "There is broad support for a regime change in Iraq. The question is how do we do it and when do we do it."

By the time the Downing Street Memo was written overt action against Iraq was being widely discussed, spurred in part by the July 5, 2002, publication of some of the war plans in the New York Times. (A previous version had been leaked in May by the Los Angeles Times.) The July 5 article led to rampant speculation about the inevitability of war, especially in Britain, and whomever Dearlove and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (cited in the memo) were talking to then may well have been reflecting this mood.

So, I suggest you get over it and move-on-dot-org to something else less nuts...like maybe the JFK assassination.