Andrea's alive and thriving, and has just published a collection with SALT,
though where she is today precisely I can't tell. I was pleased to have a poem
in 100 Days, and consider it an excellent and timely collection.
I think she was less interested in her career than in how a poet and citizen
might try and facilitate an articulation of a sense of widespread anger at what
was happening to democracy in the US. I would not seek to rebuke anyone for
publishing a collection of poetry. It would be a strange and petty thing to
Long live pluralism, eh?
At 03:53 PM 2/1/02 , you wrote:
>How clever you are, L.
>You lift Pilger, you lazy rutter, and offer it up, offal and all.
>How clever you are, L.
>Now they are your views. You lifted them and never told us when you
>lifted them that they weren't yours.
>You offered them the way a child would take a cookie to a friend.
>"Here, this is good, eat this."
>NO. THERE IS NOTHING IMPLICIT.
>You either stand point for point with this rant or you don't. And
>obviously, you don't because you can't. And you can't because Pilger
>is a paid political provocateur. He's a hustler and a bully and a
>fomenter and an agitpropster.
>So, what is a poet doing putting this kind of rant in front of us?
>Because it is interesting?
>Interesting to you? And if so, why? Why is it interesting to you?
>We've seen this before. We know what this is. You know we know what
>this is. So what's the point?
>Right now, put up or shut up.
>This is the same kind of agitprop that _100 Days_ promoted. And
>where is Andrea Brady today? With her accusations that the President
>of the United States is a moron and a drunkard and a cretin and all
>What she did was slanderous and will haunt her career. She's got a
>lot of time to think about it, too. Because the RadLibs won't hold
>onto their power in the Ivy League forever as the politics move back
>towards the center and the current generation rebukes and refutes
>people like her. And you. And Pilger.
>Because if they don't, they won't have a country.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Richard Dillon" <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: 01 February 2002 12:25
>>| John Pilger is a paid political activist and agitator for the World
>>| Socialist Review. When I attempted several years ago to communicate
>>| with him directly he told me, "I don't give a shit about you or what
>>| you, or people like you, have to say." And he doesn't.
>>Perhaps you communicated more effectively than you know
>>| Mr. Upton's views, shot at us by this use of Pilger's column,
>>They are not my views. They are Mr Pilger's. If you look very carefully, you
>>might see his name. That's why he put it there. That's why I left it there
>>It's one thing - if this is what you are getting at - to express a view and
>>then say *afterwards "I was just quoting". I sent the whole thing with the
>>author's name on it. Implicit in that is "This is interesting" but I haven't
>>told you my view on it. I live in a world in which any account other than
>>the official account is shouted down, as you are attempting to shout me
>>down - "the silencing of dissent" - and I passed on the words of someone who
>>manages to be heard. There may well be inaccuracies, exaggerations etc. I
>>haven't gone into in that much detail yet. I read it quickly, it looked
>>interesting, it is pertinent and I passed it on.
>>| require a point for point refutation
>>are all his claims wrong?
>>and, if not all, are you saying it is necessary to appear to refute them
>>Unless I am to mistrust all the news media, I am sure that the first
>>paragraph is accurate. You wish to refute it, do you? You think they've
>>caught bin Laden, do you? You think there is peace in Afghanistan because
>>there is some peace in Kabul? You believe the US govt is *not planning to
>>develop new weapons, despite announcing itself that it plans just that? You
>>think the number murdered by USUK action is not around 5000, do you? I think
>>that's a UN figure. It's quite widely accepted. You dispute that the new
>>military budget is enough to end all primary causes of poverty in the world?
>>Please show *your figures. You dispute that Rumsfeld said he told the
>>Pentagon to think the unthinkable? It was widely reported. You dispute the
>>reports of Cheney's 50 years of war statement, do you? (Who do you think did
>>his voice on the sound bites?). You dispute the summary of 1984 slogans?
>>Which edition are you using? You dispute that Somalia is in the firing line?
>>You dispute that there is oil off that country's coast? You dispute the
>>judgement on _Black Hawk Down_? (It's quite a widely held view) You dispute
>>that maybe 10000 somalis were killed in 1993? You dispute the account of
>>Brzezinski's account of the Carter years? You dispute that Taliban means
>>student? I look forward to your refutations. Maybe _heroic denial_ could be
>>the next project
>> which will not affect Mr. Upton
>>| and, of course, Pilger.
>>If you show me that something in Pilger's article is wrong which I had
>>concluded was true, I shall of course be affected.
>>| Do the writers on Poetry ETC want to see the list take the turn Mr.
>>| Upton seeks to take it?
>>*I am a writer. I am also quite unable to "turn" (turn?) a list on my own.
>>If the list were to "turn", whatever you mean by that, in a direction I
>>seek, it would have to be because many agreed to it. Would that be wrong?
>>Should they be arrested?
>>It's news to me that I wish to take it anywhere; but I do remember when I
>>was suggesting that the bombing of Novi Sad in response to events in Kosovo
>>had to be gratuitous, I received support from the then list-owner for my
>>stand against war
>>You seem inordinately flustered by this article being posted here. Why are
>>you so threatened by it? It was tangential tooursconcerns before but youhave
>>made it central. How dare I express an unofficial view - back to ecellence
>>in poetry, you; and keep your mouth shut
>>Do you have so little respect for your fellow list members that you believe
>>it is likely that they will be in some way corrupted & en masse. I think
>>they're harder-headed than that, by a long way. If I tried to impose my
>>views here I'd expect a good verbal dusting down
>>I think you protest too much. Never mind about my plans for the list, what's