The idea of taking action is probably comforting in the sense of control
over the irrational that it confers. But it might be good to wait until one
knows where to aim the gun. It's good to remember that anyone who flies a
small plane could change the course of an airliner once its pilot had got
it off the ground. Whatever the source, once it becomes that easy we're
dealing with the essentially random--there will always be violent men and
women, with or without state support. There can be no control here. Wisdom
is to recognize this.

Right now all over the third world most people (the ones who don't make it
into newsreel footage, and who are surely blameless) are looking at the
sky, expecting disaster to fall.

It does seem excessive to see everyone of another political persuasion as
somehow implicated. I'm sorry for you, Richard. I will respond no further.

Mark

At 02:52 PM 9/11/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> You haven't spoken one word of support for the USA and its leadership.
>Instead you speak in sentimental terms, with I feel your pain as a mantra.
> The people of the City of New York are handling this horror with maturity
>and civilization, the civilization which is the United States of America,
>under attack by tyrants and the real war mongers.
> Now you will see how sharp a shooter America is. Our President is
>strong and well grounded, unlike the man who he replaced or the one he had
>to defeat.
> I stand with Churchill and George Bush.
> This is a poetry discussion room and we are discussing poetry and its
>politics. So far in this world of poetry Richard Dillon is the only one who
>has overtly taken the side of the United States and its President. I can
>only conclude that many of you are dancing in the streets joyfully with the
>Palestinians, who bring their babies up to do what we have witnessed.
>
>
>
> This is a family tragedy, Richard. Hardly the time to decide that some
> people aren't members of the family. It might be good to wait till the
> grief subsides to come out swinging.
>
> Mark
>
> At 01:01 PM 9/11/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>>I can't wait to read your _objective_ commentary on those days in the 1950s.
>>
>>I still haven't seen a word of support from people like you for
>> So, move to
>> It is war, Baby.
>>
>>>The idiotic filth in _100 Days_ contributed to the horror of these hours.
>>>
>>>
>>>>At 11:58 am 11/9/01 -0400, Richard Dillon wrote:
>>>>>""""
>>>>>
>>>>>But the poetry community has been attacking this President since he
>>>>>got started.
>>>>>_100 Days_ was its preeminent attack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike Blake, many current
>>>>>poets stand, it seems, with the enemies of the United States.
>>>>>
>>>>>I await the moment with the writers in _100 Days_ declare their
>>>>> It would be an honest thing to do.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As someone currently cut off by phone from a friend in DC, able only to
>>>>wait for the cross-Atlantic phone lines to start working again, and
also as
>>>>a friend of the editors of 100 Days, I find it unfortunate that while I
>>>>cannot phone my friend to find out whether he is safe, this kind of
idiotic
>>>>filth could make it across the same communication lines. The war-mongering
>>>>leaders of the US and my own government have bombed civilians in Iraq, the
>>>>Sudan and elsewhere: this is no justification for the loss of civilian
life
>>>>in the US presently, just as the actions of Bin Laden could never justify
>>>>our _illegal_ attacks. And no, no-one has to claim allegiance with Bin
>>>>Laden to feel outrage at US/UK policy, that is so outrageously simplistic
>>>>that my day's research in the library on America in the McCarthyite 1950s
>>>>is brought suddenly and frighteningly into focus.
>>>>
>>>>yours in anger,
>>>>
>>>>Malcolm Phillips
>>>>
>>>>/ / / / / / / / / / / /
>>>>
>>>>Flat 59 room 2
>>>>Albany Park
>>>>St Andrews
>>>>KY16 8BP
> >>>Scotland
> >>>(00 44) + 1334 427862 (internal university number 7862)
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >
> >
> >--
> >
>
>
> --