Well, Richard, thanks for that, now let's give you some simple facts:
Global GNP is enough to feed and comfort three times the current world
population.
One third of the world population lives below subsistence level.
The reason for this disparity is that the USA followed by some Pacific Rim
countries plus I am sad to relate Western Europe including Britain are
grabbing more than they need to support a consumerist lifestyle that means
nothing.
One of the things that supports this, oddly enough, is religion, which in
the USA in particular has come to mean nothing except a denial of a reality,
that we all will die one day, and whatever happens afterwards, which
probably won't be much, substituted (again) with a fantasy of
consumer-perpetuation in the after-life.
In that you have something deeply in common with the crude versions of
Islam, no wonder you have such a rivalry.
It's all bollocks, any person of any honesty knows these panacea systems for
what they are, whether you call them Christianity, Buddhism. Capitalism,
Mormonism, Hinduism, Communism etc etc. Anything that claims to provide all
the answers is a lie.
All we know is that we do not know.
And that we are beholden not to cause harm.
And my old boxer-labrador cross 'Bruce' was the cleverest dog of all time.
Best
Dave
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Dillon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: no subject left! Lefts.
No greater marketer than this Richard Dillon has Andrea Brady for her
misbegotten agitprop, to his unflinching bepuzzled McCluhanesque
probity.
While we're at it: Hamlet took arms against a sea of troubles, which
included King Claudius. Same with Dubya. We all must face our fates.
Birc's fate is to _____________ in the final analysis.
Where's the fish?
> >But who on this list other than thee and me and Richard have actually
read
>it? Fewer than have copies, given the number of list members printed in
>it.}<
>
>Probably nobody, as you know I haven't read it for the reason that I've
>never seen the bloody thing, Rob, but what isn't acceptable is the
continual
>abuse Richard pumps out towards Andrea Brady and Keston. As you know, I
>know, the poetry publishing scene in Britain is under threat by
>circumstances, that a well-off American like Richard chooses to villify
some
>of the few people around here who actually get work published (that is, not
>just their own) is a disgrace.
>
>Richard's perfectly entitled to his own views on 100 Days, as is any
reader,
>what he is not entitled to is a campaign of destruction.
>
>David Bircumshaw
>
>Leicester, England
>
>Home Page
>
>A Chide's Alphabet
>
>Painting Without Numbers
>
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robin Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:46 PM
>Subject: Re: no subject left! Lefts.
>
>
>From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> For interest, Robin, what was I wrong about?
>
>That there was good stuff in it. To be honest, you may be right, but it
was
>so badly edited and presented (to my eyes at least) that digging the jewels
>from the dung would take too much effort.
>
>Richard and I are probably equally ballistic over _100 Days_, for totally
>opposite reasons.
>
>> I think I summarise myself correctly: that I mistrusted it conceptually,
>but
>> I trust the editor and publishers - I admire them tremendously as poets
>
>See my earlier posts on this -- I +really+ dislike and distrust posture
>politics, and it would have been yesterday's newspaper without 9/11. As
>agitprop, it sucked. And Richard is totally right here, the bloody book put
>itself forward as agitprop.
>
>> I supported / support the aim, despite my suspicion of agitprop; I
>supported
>> the claim that there is a need to express dissent even if it is
unheard -
>> even if it is condemned by know nothing arrogant air heads as an attempt
>to
>> take over the world
>
>Phoey. If you're going to do agitprop, bloody get it RIGHT. Shelley in
>Mask, Mayakovsky in "Red Passport", Harrison on the Gulf War. NOT some
>incestuous Ivy League/Oxbridge publication that no one will read.
>
>{Oh, lor', I'm losing my temper, amn't I, Lawrence?
>
>But who on this list other than thee and me and Richard have actually read
>it? Fewer than have copies, given the number of list members printed in
>it.}
>
> > I think things moved faster than Andrea expected - and this I didn't
say
> > explicitly that Sep 11 changed / diminished the likelihood of pop sales
>
>As you say, "I mistrusted it conceptually".
>
>Conceptually it was flawed. Presentationally it was crap. As any kind of
>intervention in a political debate, it was a joke.
>
>> I think there's some good stuff in it
>
>Maybe. And that's the crunch. I've done my bit -- I (for better or worse)
>ran a List critique on the Ann Waldman piece in 100D.
>
>I really do think the ball is in your camp now -- pick a piece, a
+specific+
>piece, from 100D and explain why it will Live Forever.
>
>At least both Richard and I have copies.
>
>> And I thought I was right about everything all the time
>
>Don't we all, brudda?
>
><g>
>
>Robin
--
|