all Lars, all day starting at 6 AM for 12 hours continuous on frequency:1500/2!Right on your AM dial!

Why? Is this gonna be some kind of punishment?

only if you work for state or city or countyand person in next cubicle complains to H.R.!!

no matter what you think of Lars, it's for a good cause....so i applaud him..

Wall-to-Wall Lars,A.Lars talk-sweep,LARrs-Radio 7-50?Lars-Radio -7-50 they should make some jingles!!??,KLRS?He ,ight also get some overtime $to spend on Christmas presents?

it's for a good cause

Are you sure? The guy is toxic and the "cause" isn't going to get a penny from me BECAUSE of the association.

By the way, what is the "cause"? I'd like to contact them and inform them of their blunder.

Salvation Army

Sent.

Raymond.Dihle@usw.salvationarmy.org <raymond.dihle@usw.salvationarmy.org>

If you are close enough to their transmitter, you can certainly receive KXL on 1500.

So, only approved left-wing types are allowed to raise funds for charity? That, or you are stereotyping anybody not on the radical left. Open your eyes and your heart.

I didn't realize there was a litmus test for who is allowed to raise money or contribute to charities.

Hear, hear, Joe!

GO ARMY...!!!

There is absolutely a litmus test to raise, contribute or accept charitable donations. People and charities do it ALL the time for hypocritical and reasonable reasons. I know you may be surprised that Lars Larson crosses some kind of line for some - but really, it's Lars Larson. Should you be all that surprised? I'm not.

It doesn't cross my line, for what that's worth.

http://www.gamertell.com/gaming/comment/gencon-donation-refused-by-christian-chi ldrens-foundation/

only approved left-wing types are allowed to raise funds for charity?

Nope. Anyone can. But if you spread BS on the airwaves, expect to be held accountable. This is one of the ways this can happen.

Besides, I would expect some on the right to raise a ruckus if the ACLU got involved in a bit of fundraising with one of THEIR favorite charities.

My heart IS open, just not for the Salvation Army at this time. It'll be Goodwill for now.



Oh, I got a response:

. . . Thank you for your email. I am forward it to those who need to know this.

I'll give The Salvation Army a bit of credit for a quick reply. Now hopefully they avoid toxic associations in the future.

only if you work for state or city or countyand person in next cubicle complains to H.R.!!

For which they should!



I'll give The Salvation Army a bit of credit for a quick reply. Now hopefully they avoid toxic associations in the future.

You can only hope....

I bet you will be listening huh Trix?

Damn right WW!

What an ahole you are.
To harrass the Salvation Army, over politics?
Sick effin freak.
Get a life. I detest Lars, but I would NEVER EVER do a stunt like what you have pulled. You suck.
Why would you even go there?
This is by far the dumbest thing I have seen out of some REALLY dumb things you have said mr. skeptical.
Please, don't ever work in radio, PLEASE.
We don't need you, and I know that NPR will gladly lose you too. You are the type NOBODY wants.
Crawl back into your basement, get your xbox going and stop posting crap like this. Scrooge.

This is by far the dumbest thing I have seen out of some REALLY dumb things you have said mr. skeptical.

What other "dumb" things have I said? "Bush sucks?", "WPE?" Help me out. My Wii got fried, so expect more posting here than usual!

I don't know Skeptical. That one crack about how Scott Studios automation with three sound cards is better than ENCO automation with FOUR soundcards was REALLY dumb. Really.

this thread is stupid!!!

"this thread is stupid!!!"
True!!! So, why did you start it???
And continue to contribute to it???

Lets all blast everyone who works for a good causeand blast the cause too!!for not getting approval(on all details) from the far leftNEO-Libs first!!

62, the term is NEO COMM's.

To top it all off it seems like the esteemed left is all talk and no give when it comes to personal charitable giving:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The most common reason for this is questionable politics and personal enrichment happening in many of the organizations.

Not all of them, but many of them.

In my case, I much prefer to help people directly, or work through some public program, administered sans shitty politics, or religious connotations. There still is often an enrichment problem. Probably always is. However, the help can be delivered on a need basis, without worries of discrimination, or those receiving it having to endure some lame advocacy at a time when they are weak and just really need help.

Help, just needs to be help. Help, plus some advocacy pressure like that just sucks.

The Salvation Army, for example, does advocate for discrimination. (negative positions toward gay people)

Now they are doing good works too, don't get me wrong there. However, the two are linked, meaning if I give to help those who need it, I'm also giving to support the cause of discrimination.

Not gonna do that. Others do, and that's fine. We all vote with our feet, and I appreciate the good done by the organization for what it is.

However, discrimination can't be glossed over with a lot of good public works. It's still discrimination, and as such, needs to be addressed.

We are not supposed to do that here.

Call me a member of the esteemed left, or not. Don't really care. What I just wrote is a very common reason for not engaging in the kind of giving referenced in the article.

(the author of it doesn't grok that either, which makes me question where he's really at on all of this. Probably clueless!)

The only options I have personally, are to vote with my feet (and I do), and let others know why (and I do).

How it all plays out is how it plays out, but I sure don't suffer some guilt trip over not giving this way. Most of the people I know, who see things this way don't either.

Lets all blast everyone who works for a good cause

Are anti-choice organizations "good causes"?

If so, let me arm my bazooka.


The point is this: To be a "good cause" to EVERYBODY, they can't discriminate. Period.

I seem to find agreement and disagreement on both sides of the charity fence...Dodger calm down...
Lars bitches about illegals all year long and what if the stats show the help and service Sal. Army gave in that same year was to mostly illegal poverty stricken people...


The rant and the rave is for show...always has been always will be...because rant and rave gets ratings, means nothing and gets little done...

So excuse the rant and rave for the one day Lars gives to a charity...

Yep. I'm there on it. IMHO, Lars sees a chance to get some good done, and get some promotion done at the same time. Tough gig. He knows how to work it and does.

I'm not so sure I would call him on that.

It's important to discuss the other implications though. I'm quite sure a whole lot of people don't know or have not thought through what it really means to have the good works linked to questionable politics.

Hell, I wouldn't know if somebody had not taken the time to explain it to me. Now that I do, I just make other choices.

Eventually, either social pressure, in the form of reduced contributions will force change, or change will happen in the political and legal arena, and we move on.

It's just a process.

As a volunteer for Salvation Army Salem I see the people who come to us for help as I am the one distributing the food boxes and the majority of the people we see on a daily basis are not hispanic but rather white english speaking folk just like most of us here.

So for as much as IMHO "moderate" Lars Larson spewing his anti-illegals rant and then later in the year fundraising for a non profit charitable organization I see no big deal.

Just my thoughts

My daughter works and has worked for the Salvation Army in various locales and I have to agree with Shyguy. Most of the people they took care of and that I saw (I helped on Thanksgiving and holiday feeds) were just as Shyguy stated. And a few were in highly hispanic populations. They did not ask about sexual orientation and it wasn't an issue. Nor did they advocate anything when giving out clothes and food. In LaGrande, when someone came looking for food, they got it....most of it donated by local merchants. No questions asked.

And that's exactly why the good works they do are just good works.

I like the organization for that. They don't pester people much at all, unless the people ask for it. Some of them do, and that's good too.

And the people just out there doing the work are doing the work too.

All good. Which is why I've no beef with any of this.

The higher level organization politics are a different focus, and have little to do with the people working the front lines.

If I was not clear on that, now I am!

But on the other hand, the Boy Scouts "enrollment" has declined severely since the high level politics decided to discriminate. Bringing kids into the discussion might have helped.

I think that the Salvation Army has an advantage of bring an organization for the poor . . . one isn't apt to take a political stand if they're poor and hungry. However, the landscape is ripe for takeover by another non-discrimnatory organization.


SPECULATION DEPT: Does anyone think Lars may have chosen the SA because of their anti-gay stance?

The Stumptown Blogger interviews Lars:

http://stumptownblogger.typepad.com/stumptownblogger/2009/03/index.html

Craig_

Enjoyed reading about Lars-

As a person who worked with Lars (Early '80's when he was a reporter on KXL-AM)

We were friends outside of work - He stole my girl friend at the time - (I got her back though no other comment - to private)

One word I can use that would sum him up then and probably still applies -

"Focused".

Knows exactly what he wants!

It has been great watching his career over the years.

The guy is driven!

OMG!
Lars like the same movie I like.
Shoot me now.