 |
 |
> 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 > happened. I'm glad of your illuminating initial sentence, Richard. Long live John Pilger. 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: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:25 PM > 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 > happened. > > 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 > >do. > > > >Long live pluralism, eh? > > > >Sam > > > >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 > >>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 > >>> > >>>why? > >>>of whom? > >>>are all his claims wrong? > >>>and, if not all, are you saying it is necessary to appear to refute them > >>>anyway > >>> > >>>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? > >>> > >>> > >>>L > >> > >> > >>-- > > > -- >