No, she was interested in vesting herself in the RadLib power elite.
Now she can read at Naropa and get that big check from her fellow
Revolutionary, Anne Waldman.  And for a while, the scam will work.
But I am talking decades hence.  When the funding dries up as your
side loses.

There is no pluralism at Naropa.  There is RadLib SandinistaIsm.

I know you had a poem in _100 Days_, but I've been waiting for you to come out
of the closet.

What is happening to Democracy in the USA is this:  The USA isn't a Democracy.
It never was and thank the Founders for that bit of wisdom.  Brady's
side, your side, failed to steal the election of 2000, that's what

Now, L., let's go toe to toe, blow for blow, day for day on that
Election.  Right now.  Put up or shut up.  Tell us how you and your's
never tried to steal the election.  Begin with Waldman's anecdote
about, "Getting to the back of the bus."  Tell us just which Black
Floridians had their vote registrations denied.
Go there now.  Go to Judge Sauls' judgement of your and Waldman's
representative in court, David Boies.  Take us to your duped Yalie
statistician.  Take us there now, L.  Tell us, oh, do tell.  And when
you are done I am going to straighten your tie.  By way of your mouth.

Now, start.  If you have the time.  And, please, don't lift from
Pilger.  Or, OBL.

>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."
>>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
>>the rest?
>>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.
>>>   will
>>>| require a point for point refutation
>>>of whom?
>>>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
>>>your agenda?