Radio Flashback: Half A Lifetime Ago

MTV had already started, but Top 40 radio had hit a slump as the 1980s began.   Then along came the pop infusion of 1983.   That winter I handled lots of fill-ins on WNVR, a Top 40 AM station practically across the street from my apartment in Naugatuck, CT.   It was a great little station, even if it was "revenue challenged."   By that spring I found a full-time radio gig 42 miles down the highway at WLYQ/Norwalk.   "Q96" was also Top 40, but it had been all automated up to that point sounding exactly like Q105/New London did in its pre-live announcer early days.     At first it seemed inconsistent coming out of a six hour midday show with a recorded, robotic and generic announcer into a live and local, afternoon show, but as the automation was cut back the "Q" really came alive.    Q96 had the new music of 1983 on its side, as new artists like Bryan Adams and Duran Duran shared the airwaves with established icons who really hit their stride.   David Bowie and Michael Jackson come to mind.    I remember during my brief tenure in mornings getting a wakeup call from the overnight guy saying I might want to get in earlier since the Connecticut Turnpike's Mianus River Bridge had collapsed.    Of course, Fairfield County's Q96 couldn't keep its Top 40 exclusivity long with this wealth of new music as New York's powerhouses WPLJ and WHTZ (the legendary Z100) joined the fray from less than forty miles away.   KC101/New Haven also got more Top 40 and less adult contemporary.   The "Q" began to attract some impressive Top 40 talent, many making it to the big time in NYC, Boston and beyond.    As the presentation got more high energy, I found a spot that matched my more adult style next door at sister station WNLK-AM 1350.    WNLK had a great news department.    When I didn't get the program director job there, I went up Route 7 to take the PD job in Danbury.    All in all, my Norwalk excursion was a positive one.    Owner Mike Hanson once told me, "I hire good people and let them do their jobs."    That simple philosophy says a lot.

$140.00... For What?

It seemed like a simple procedure.   We clearly needed storage space, so we took a trip over to Carefree Small Buildings here in Colchester and found a nice 8"x12".   They also set us up with some paperwork so we could get a building permit from the town.   At first I thought we'd have to pay $60 to the regional health district.    Then I was informed I didn't have to pay till it was approved.   I then got a letter saying they couldn't process the request because we didn't pay some unspecified fee, meaning another trip to town hall.   Upon my return I was told, "Who sent you this?"   They said my building was small enough to be exempt from the health district fee.   I got a call today saying my permit was approved and the cost is $140.00!   Where did that figure come from?   If there's that much confusion over a storage shed less than 100 square feet, I can't imagine what I'd be dealing with for a real building.   I know everybody wants their pound of flesh, but could I have gotten a hint of the cost ahead of time?   Oh well, I went this far.     
P.S.:  When I went to pay for the permit, I was informed that $60.00 of it was a state-imposed charge "special" to Connecticut.   Also, the town's addition was wrong; it was actually $151.00.

Damned If You Do...

The latest revelations on intelligence gathering by the U.S. National Security Agency have made for some strange political bedfellows.    Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden has been called a hero and a traitor by folks on both sides of the political spectrum for leaking information on government access to millions of phone records.   I don't see any heroes so far in this story.   While President Obama has assured the American people that the government has not been listening to calls without a warrant, I am doubtful of his assertion that Congress has been closely consulted over this activity.   While some of this information has evidently been useful in preventing more terrorist attacks, governmental checks and balances - and as much personal privacy as possible - must be preserved.   Without that, what makes us any better than China?   By the way, should it come as all that surprising that the U.S. has been giving China a dose of its own medicine by hacking their computers?    I find a lot of the indignation on both sides a bit unbelievable.   No matter who's in power, we need to achieve a balance.    We also need to make whistleblowers feel they have recourse within our own system.   Compromising intelligence was the wrong way to go, but it's not all about Mr. Snowden.   It's about what kind of balance we want between freedom and security.   Both sides of the argument have gotten very heavy handed.    

Simple Explanations Don't Work

 What century are we living in?    I ask myself something like that whenever an issue comes up surrounding the so-called "Battle of the Sexes" like the latest statistics showing women as the main breadwinner in forty per cent of American households.    Is it really all shocking or terrible?    I heard one commentator (Matt Allen on WPRO-AM/Providence) lament that more men have to "act like a man", as if recreating a scene from The Godfather would bring men back to the roles where they belong.   No doubt there are men who are lazy and looking for instant gratification with no personal responsibility.    Is it just a massive failure to "man up"?    That narrative is all too simple, and it is an insult to the majority of men who work to do the right thing in raising a family, pursuing a career or being an integral part of a community.   Do most young men want to live with their parents forever and shirk work?    I don't think so.   Roles are continually changing for many reasons, some positive, some negative.   Chalking it all up as a bad thing due to the feminization of America demeans us all.   It's more complicated than that.