—Ben Bagdikian, former dean of the School of Journalism at the University of California in Berkeley
One must wonder how journalism got so corrupted in America today—so fixated on famous airhead personalities and diversionary fait divers. Mass Communications programs in the nation’s universities and colleges likely play an important role. After all, what can one expect from Mass Comm professors who don’t even have the courage to report corruption in their own respective institutions? Spinelessness seems to have become a defining trait of the professorial herd. I’ve witnessed it over and again. If not courageous truth seeking and truth telling, therefore, what might professors be instilling in their journalism students, many of whom end up at the helm of local community newspapers? For one thing, journalism students seem to have been learning that bending over backwards in order to avoid offending the thin skinned is far more important than truth telling. Democracy, however, demands citizens with tough skin.Over the past couple of decades, on a number of occasions, in vain, I brought First Amendment issues to the attention of local journalists. Their response has more often than not been simple indifference and silence. Nearly 15 years ago, for example, I was evicted from my office without due process at Fitchburg State College, a public institution. Eventually, the college paid me a settlement. However, neither local nor the student newspapers would publish a story about the incident. For the college, it was as if it hadn’t happen. Just the same, I founded The American Dissident as direct result of the intrinsic corruption witnessed first hand at Fitchburg State College.
A decade ago, I was accosted by police on three different occasions over the period of a year at Walden Pond State Reservation, each relative to the exercise of free-speech rights on public property (for details, examine www.theamericandissident.org/WaldenPondStateReservation.htm). Not one newspaper contacted proved interested in the stories. On one of those occasions the police incarcerated me for a day. The judge, of course, threw that case out three months later.
More recently, I brought to the deaf ears of local journalists anomalies also pertinent to the First Amendment regarding the Concord Cultural Council and Watertown Free Public Library. As for the latter, it issued a no-trespass order (see previous blog), though no crimes had been committed, that is, with the exception of lack of display of deference and curtsy. Although I informed the local editor of the Watertown Tab & Press that the librarian had lied in the text of the order stating I’d made threats and had caused a general disturbance, he was not sufficiently interested to investigate. But where and who were the witnesses and what threats had been made? Also, no hearing whatsoever was offered by the library for me to attempt to defend myself. My right to exercise free speech at that public library had simply been terminated on the whim and prevarication of an uptight reference librarian. But the journalist was not at all interested in investigating the breach of a citizen’s right to free speech in a public space. Why not? Didn’t attacks on citizen rights constitute a good enough subject for journalists nowadays? Well, he did publish a brief letter to the editor of mine, though corrupted its title to “Man, forbidden to enter the Watertown Free Public library, has his say.” Yes, I had my say, but I didn’t have my hearing!
As for the Concord Cultural Council, it decided this year to disregard any project proposals that might be of a “political nature,” a policy likely provoked by my overt questioning and challenging of the Council over the past several years. But what is “political nature”? It remains conveniently undefined, of course. My proposal was rejected this year for that reason. Why, a thinking citizen ought to wonder, didn’t the Council enact instead a policy to disregard projects of an “entertainment nature”? After all, entertainment is generally a superfluous form of culture, one that when too pervasive can indeed be detrimental to the health of democracy for it diverts citizen attention away from important issues, including war and corrupt politicians and other local leaders. Political engagement is, however, necessary for democracy’s very survival. Nothing at all in the minutes of the Council, which I examined, indicated that a discussion on the issue had even been engaged. I brought the matter to the deaf ears of The Concord Journal.
Finally, a thinking citizen, would have to wonder why there has not been a continued journalistic effort at revealing the extent of the damage effected by the millions of dollars used by the American Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s number one lobby in Washington, to purchase politicians in a very successful effort to stifle business regulation, which ended up wreaking havoc on the nation’s financial system and in the lives of everyday citizens regarding their retirement accounts.
Below are two letters I wrote this past week. Chris Helms (Watertown Tab & Press) did not respond to my questions, though did permit me to post a very short account of the event in question. Patrick Ball (The Concord Journal) has yet to respond, though it’s been about three weeks now.
Chris Helms: Please do let me know if you decide to run that letter of mine. Actually, I was really hoping, however, you'd investigate and write a story on the incident. After all, the First Amendment is clearly in question. My right to exercise free speech has been denied in a public space. As a journalist, why don't you care about that?
Were there witnesses besides the two librarians? If in fact I upset patrons, did any patrons complain? Why is there no recourse to contest the no-trespass order? Why doesn't Leone Cole respond to my emails with that regard? Why is she uninterested in my side of the event? Why did Francoeur lie? Why did she say I made threats and upset patrons, when nothing of the kind occurred?
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone
Patrick Ball: No response at all from you regarding my cultural-council complaint! Perhaps you ought to investigate. I’ve been investigating. The issues are clear. This year the Council enacted a new provision for excluding culture: “political nature.” Why? Or why didn’t it enact a new provision excluding culture of an “entertainment nature”? Why has it been according grants year after year to the very same organizations? Why does it reject my requests year after year? Well, at least now we know why: “political nature.” Why are the Council’s minutes devoid of debate on that issue? I examined them yesterday in Town Hall. Why should politicians (selectmen) select Council members… in order to exclude those like me who challenge politicians and their masters, the business leaders of the Chamber of Commerce?
Here’s another interesting story you could do. It would be a fascinating one: “Local Journalists, Paladins of the Local Chamber of Commerce?” Think about that!
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone
40 comments:
I think it's "threw".
Thanks. I've changed it. Using the wrong homonym is a common occurrence in writing.
Are you calling me a homo?
I need to know what you are planning to do with the material you've accepted for publication. Publish or don't, I don't care. Just let me know and I will leave you alone.
I see you've gotten rid of my Winans thing. Is that censoring or filtering? Anyway it's gone forever, unless you have a copy, because I don't. That's how much I really care about publishing, or the apparent permanence of my work. It's fleeting, as everybody else's. I'm taking that to mean you've no intention of publishing any of the other things of mine you previously accepted, and that is fine. It seems a shame, though, since I've started here, not to add a bit more.
I read your survey thing, and think you are embarrassing yourself. And yet I can't look away, much like an auto accident. Ironically, about the only thing you ever succeed at is some light moments of entertainment. I laughed out loud when you screamed "Ad hominem!" at that lady. I see why you got so mad when I called you a journalist: a few others had said that too and you were sick of hearing it. Why are certain truths so hard for you to accept? Truth is your game, yet you ignore it at your convenience, just like logic. For some mysterious reason of your vanity you must call yourself a POET, not a journalist! Just like Villon! You can call yourself whatever you want, that's your right as an American.
Your ideas are good, even though they're not your ideas but Orwell's ideas, Thoreau's and Emerson's ideas. Anyway they're fine ideas. The problem is not with your ideas but with you, as a person and as a writer. You wield these ideas in a disgraceful way, against the wrong people, and your so called essays are nothing but the same old sentence reworked to infinity and surrounded with quotes to round it out. Arguing, or "debating", with you is like fighting a fucking windmill.
I quote from DARKNESS AT NOON, by Koestler, a book which you claim to have read, but then again you thought Dreiser wrote it:
"For a few seconds Rubashov entertained the hypothesis that Gletkin had gone mad; this mixture of logic and absurdity recalled the methodical lunacy of schizophrenia."
I was going to quote this anyway, but when I saw the guy from Gargoyle also wrote something similar, it fits even better. Actually I thought that guy from Gargoyle made a lot of sense, and it was pretty remarkable of him to be the only one to answer your questionaire. Of course you give him no respect at all.
You seem to be caught in a Russian novel, except without a real enemy. The powers you are attacking are not powers. Your ideas of censorship are absurd, and if followed out logically then basically these journals have to publish every damn thing that comes across their desks, or they are censoring somebody. You are attacking little old ladies, literally. And to think you expect the newspaper to write a story about it! Wow, boss, that's big fucking news!
Evidently you do not like the "satire of my presence".
Mather, as much as I might have disappointed you by criticizing your poetry, you have really disappointed me… and not at all by criticizing mine. So many compliments you gave me during the past year or two regarding The American Dissident et al! Then all of a sudden, you’ve seen the established-order light! You come off like a whimpering two-year old because all you seem capable of is calling me names, right and left: ad hominem over and again and again. Attack my ideas with sound logic and examples to back it up. That’s a simple enough statement that perhaps an 8-year old could comprehend. Perhaps. But you can’t do that because either anger is blinding you or you’ve simply received like so many others a deplorable education.
Those ideas of mine did not come from Orwell, Thoreau, Villon or Solzhenitsyn. Those writers simply confirm my observations, which mostly stem from direct conflict with authority. I cite authors (do you want to see the letter you wrote telling me how much you loved that part of The American Dissident?) because they CONFIRM, and those who don’t like me will simply ignore that CONFIRMATION. Tell a member of Thoreau Society that Thoreau said “let your life be a counterfriction to stop the machine” when that member behaves clearly as a lubricant, and he’ll ignore you… for evident reasons. Capiche?
But why tell you this? You won’t listen. You can’t listen. You just want to play hurt little child.
Why would I want to continue to publish someone like you, Mather, who suddenly states he doesn't give a goddamn about vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, logic, fighting censorship, and all the other things The American Dissident stands for, like it or not? What is wrong with your thinking? How did it become so corrupted? Of course, I won't publish you! Let the tons of other journals that have no particular focus publish your Bukowski-like stuff. Send it on to Gargoyle or Rattle. I’m sure they’ll love it! What do I care? Maybe they’ll put you next to Pinsky or Collins. Sure, that would really make your day! Whoopee.
You state with my regard: “You wield these ideas in a disgraceful way, against the wrong people, and your so called essays are nothing but the same old sentence reworked to infinity and surrounded with quotes to round it out.”
But you fail to provide one concrete example. Please do. Otherwise the statement is nothing but more Schneiderian ad hominem. And whom should I wield my ideas against? You won’t even say.
Let’s hope you’ve learned the lesson of the day, though I doubt you have. Here it is: if you can’t take it, then don’t dish it out! And clearly you can’t take it. Ciao, pantin!
PS: Your comment on calling you a "homo" is as childish as it gets!
PPS: Thanks to you I hunted for a quote to preface this blog entry!
I already told you my perspective on you changed when you attacked me and the way I live my life, in a manner I consider to be of the lowest kind. I started looking at you and your journal and your web site and your little stunts with a more critical and broader mind. I don't care that you criticize my poetry. That means nothing to me. The "light of the establishment" came on when you continued to disrespect me, as a human being, period. That's about as logical as I can put it. It has nothing to do with Thoreau or Orwell or Emerson. I love them all, and many of your other quoted writers. Why would I want to argue with them? I am disappointed in you, too, and I suppose it's true that I'm "hurt", I'm not ashamed to admit that. You are so smug when you say things like "lesson of the day" and "Capiche" and other cute little foreign things. I guess it's not name-calling if you do it in a different language, eh? Also, just saying "logic" all the time isn't the same thing as actually using logic. Your old "use logical argumentation" line is just something you throw out like tacks in the road when the other person begins to actually make sense. How can you call people "whores" and "backslappers" and then scream ad hominem when someone calls you a "bore" or a "journalist"? You see how logical you are?
Fuck you with your "where's your example" bullshit! Your whole god damned web site is one big example. Just pick a page. How about the survey, which is what I was talking about in the first place.
And now you put yourself on a par with Orwell and Thoreau. Don't sell yourself short, hombre! In fact you're probably, in a historical sense, much more important than any of them. Solz especially! It is your fate to be heard: when all else fails try to strong-arm editors into publishing you, threaten to embarrass them in public if they don't, use catch-phrases as ties and gags. Furthering democracy or "vigorous debate" has nothing to do with your motives. I don't buy it! What vigorous debate? You call people "backslappers" and "whores" and then you expect them to debate you about the "obvious truth of these facts". And also your ideas of censorship are absurd, like I said before. Is every magazine supposed to accept you every time? Where is the line? When will be enough exposure? When is it censorship and when is it editorial choice? You as an editor turn peoples' work down all the time, and any one of them could start writing you letters about censorship, calling you "close minded" and "unintersted in democracy".
As far as who you should be wielding "your" ideas against, why don't you try wielding them on yourself?
I thought that comments on a blog were supposed to be related to the blog entry that the blogger posted. Mather must have a different opinion on that.
I like to see differences of opinion but Mather's comments are mostly centered on old personal gripes and on other topics that have little to do with the blog entry.
Instead of creating his own blog to address issues that interest him, it appears that Mather has decided to latch on to this blog like a pesky parasite to petulantly vent what ever comes to his mind.
Ok, I will ask four questions, and let's see if you can answer them.
1: What is the difference between censorship and editorial choice? When does an editor have the right to reject a work?
2: How can you justify your rampant use of ad hominem, such as "backslappers", "whores", "cronyism", "egomaniac", "horseshit", "whimpering two year old" etc., while at the same time screaming "ad hominem!" when someone uses it on you? Do you not see any hypocrisy in this?
3: Is it the obligation of government to give money, through subscription or grant, to every small magazine in the country? If so, does this not constitute a desire for bigger government instead of smaller government, which is what Thoreau believed in?And if not, then how should the magazines that do receive the monies be decided upon?
4: My willingness to write you here is a willingness to "vigorously debate" you, which is supposedly what you want, and yet you give me nothing but grief about it, call me a whining child, make fun of my lack of education, etc., basically hoping I'll just shut up and go away, simply because I agree with your ideas, but not your methods. Explain.
Charlotte, your name calling is as bad as Slone's. You sound like some of the others and what they have said about Slone himself on his ad hominem page. I'm giving his own medicine back to him, and apparently neither one of you like it. Why does he need you to protect him? In any case if it wasn't for me no one would be commenting on this shit at all. Check out all the "o comments" on his other blogs. Also, if it bores you or you think it's irrelevant then don't read it!
I'll address your current blog. I agree with your thoughts on the state of journalism, but do not think that if these journalists
focused on the escapades of G. Tod Slone it would be a step forward.
Nobody knows exactly how you conducted yourself or what you said to get yourself arrested at Walden. There's a whole lot of shit between the lines of your "logic", I know that. I mean, I've seen cops walk right by crazy people yelling obsenities in the street without saying a word to them, I've had plenty of experience with law enforcement myself and I can't see them arresting you for the fun of it, or (even more absurd) to
supress your ideas. Listen, I
can't believe I'm arguing that the cops must have a different story of what happened, but I am and I'd like to hear it. Of course you'll just say their a bunch of
"liars".
Much of your blogpoint seems to be that you can't get exposure for the great wrong you've been done at the Watertown library. I do not really know what happened at that library, and neither does Charlotte, even though you have "some" of it on tape. Yes, it sounds like they gave you the shaft, you're dealing with small town nepitism, and that sucks. That doesn't prove to me that you didn't deserve it, however. In any case it is a trifling incident, why would any reporter worth his salt want to waste his time on it? This is your ego and lack of perspective coming through again. My guess is you could fight this no tresspass order and win with ease, just like the last judge threw out your previous case, and this is where the true test of freedom of speech is taken: on the bigger level, in the courts. When it comes right down to it, you DO HAVE freedom of speech, and the tiny penalties that come down on you because of your mouth are simply personal things, if not outright instigated
by you then certainly inflamed by you. Who knows what really happened at Fitchburg? Who knows what kind of language you slung at them or what kind of games you played?
Your problems with the chamber of commerce and cultural council seem sound, it's all a waste of tax dollars and they're all in bed with corporate America. You are not the first one to figure this out, and if you want to solve it you'd better aim a little higher than the Watertown librarian. I agree it's bullshit to exclude things that are "political in nature". But at the same time it is another example of you trying to force feed your brand of literature, your "product", to people who have explicited stated that's not what they want. It's like someone trying to strong-arm you into publishing a love poem in AD. They don't want stuff that is "political in nature". You don't think that's defined enough, but everyone knows what that means, it's at least as clear as
"poems of dissidence".
It's true that almost everything is becoming entertainment, even news, even poetry. And bad entertainment too. It's about buying and selling and advertising, and I don't like it. But, you seem to be insinuating that all poetry and all art must be of this civic investigation type, it must be directly
criticizing the power structure, the "establishment", or else it is kowtowing and false or in the "buk-vein". There's your kind, and then there's everything else, which is conveniently labeled "diversionary entertainment". Before you scream "I never said that!", you have repeatedly called other poetry journals, in a very broad brushstroke, "more of the same" and "same old, same old" as if to speak of every poet published within them as belonging to some entertainment squad separate from you. These narrow definitions and generalizations undermine your logic. Was Van Gogh just
doing "diversionary entertainment"? And who are you to define "entertainment"?
Charlotte is again right, Mather. Stick to the entry in question or I will eliminate your entries… all of them! I have nothing further to say to you, since you do not further the dialogue on journalists. All you do is call me names and call The American Dissident names. My error, yes, I’ll admit it, was having published you. Yes, Mather, you’re a brilliant poet published all over the place and are never "disrespectful" of me or Charlotte or anyone else. Now, get on with it and get over it.
Naturally you do not address any of my points or answer any of my questions.
Naturally, I shall address all of your points and answer all of your questions. You ought to know, Mather, that naturally I tend always to do that!
A number of your baseless points have been made by others over the past decade. Contrary to your opinion, the majority is not necessarily right. Considering your explicit disdain for logic and fact, I respond to your points for myself, not in an effort to try to convince you of anything at all.
It is good to debate different viewpoints, even baseless ones such as yours. Such debate helps hone ones own thoughts… at least for me. Thus, I respond, though to the brick wall of your certain incomprehension, since you will likely not be able to “hear” anything I have to say. Anger covers your ears.
My “escapades,” as you necessarily denigrate my diverse activities, tend to be experiments in free speech and test the waters of democracy, albeit on the local level. It is for that reason journalists should not ignore them, even if I am but an insignificant citizen without connections. They do not always ignore them. The Concord Journal, for example, put my face on its front page this past August regarding my exhibit, which was highly critical of local pillars. Indeed, the head librarian was even a bit concerned regarding the exhibit, but thankfully democracy was strong in her heart and soul.
Like others, you need, for your own shortcomings and inaction, to corrupt reality. Never, for example, have I ever stated that journalists never listen to me or never publish my comments. Also, never have I ever stated that the poetry I tend to write is better than poetry that tends to entertain like that Pinsky poem about a shirt you so loved. What I have stated is that the poetry milieu ought to open its doors to the kind of poetry I tend to write, that is, critical in nature. It ought to do so, if in fact, it seeks and obtains public subsidies.
Your understanding is limited. Regarding Walden, the cop issued a report, which is on my website. Rather than make assumptions that serve your purpose, read it! I did ample research during that time with regards my arrest and discovered that, for example, swearing in public is not illegal in the state of Massachusetts. The pertinent legal cases are also mentioned on the website. In the cop’s report, not much else was mentioned. Thus, the judge was obligated to drop the case against me. If in fact, I had done something illegal, as you suggest, she would not have dropped the case. That is the clear logic that you sadly cannot comprehend. People get arrested everyday in America, even though they didn’t commit crimes. Are you actually unaware of this? I guess so. Besides possible hatred for my long hair, the arresting cop had a nice double-time pay incentive for sitting in the courtroom. Get it? No, your anger will not permit you to get it.
Never did I suggest the arresting cop arrested me “to supress [sic] ideas.” He didn’t even know what they were. What I did do was challenge the cop. I had done nothing wrong. I thus told him to arrest me. And he did. BUT should a cop arrest a citizen because a citizen tells him to arrest him? Of course not. A cop should only arrest a citizen when he breaks the law. This cop failed in that principle.
“Of course you'll just say their [sic] a bunch of ‘liars’.” Learn the difference between “their” and “they’re.” The fact is, and I know you’re not interested in facts, the cop did lie in his report, stating witnesses were present and upset by my presence. At my trial, no cop witnesses appeared. There were none! How could they appear? Also, and I’m certain you’re ignorant of this, to upset others is not an “arrestable” offense in Massachusetts. The cop was simply padding his statement with fluff to somehow justify an arrest that should not have been made. That happens everyday in America. Why are you ignorant of it? As a citizen, you have a responsibility to democracy. You should educate yourself!
You state: “Much of your blogpoint seems to be that you can't get exposure for the great wrong you've been done at the Watertown library.” Yet that is not at all what I stated. What I stated is that journalists ought to be interested in First Amendment issues (“great wrong,” in your words, and really quite correct in that sense), yet many seem not to be. The editor of the Watertown Tab & Press, for example, was not interested. It is true that I cannot prove I did not make threats. Just the same, the issue is that I, a simple citizen, am now prevented from expressing myself in a public space and was not accorded a hearing by the library in which I could express my side of the story and otherwise defend myself. That is a clear breach, no matter what I did or did not do in the library, of norms one would expect in a democratic society. You do not seem/want to grasp that key point.
Again, I tell you these things to set the record straight, not at all to convince you of anything. Anger blinds your intellect and sense of logic. Logic, by the way, is the very substance of the universe.
This makes no sense: “Yes, it sounds like they gave you the shaft, you're dealing with small town nepotism [sic], and that sucks.” Do you not know the meaning of nepotism? Never did I accuse the library of nepotism. How ridiculous can YOU get?!
You state: “That doesn't prove to me that you didn't deserve it, however.” “Deserve it” is not a legal term. It is a subjective one. For you and Francoeur and the head librarian and the newspaper editor, I definitely “deserved it.” Perhaps for Charlotte or someone else, I did not “deserve it.” But that is not the question at all.
“In any case it is a trifling incident, why would any reporter worth his salt want to waste his time on it?” For one thing, focus on “trifling” fait divers is precisely what so many reporters tend to do (tend to HAVE TO do!). And that was part of my blog. You, thus, completely contradict yourself. Just the same, it is a First Amendment concern and not, at least for me or anyone else with a passion for democracy, a “trifling incident.” To be barred from a public space for merely upsetting a thin-skinned librarian is not a “trifling incident.” But this you will not be able to understand. For one thing, I don’t think you’re at all sensitive to the First Amendment. Indeed, didn’t you say you didn’t give a damn about democracy? Evidently, for someone like you, it must thus indeed be “a trifling incident.” Thefire.org compiles many similar “trifling incidents” committed at the nation’s colleges and universities. Take a look at the site and educate yourself! I have and do.
This too makes little sense and is blurred by your need to denigrate me: “When it comes right down to it, you DO HAVE freedom of speech, and the tiny penalties that come down on you because of your mouth are simply personal things, if not outright instigated by you then certainly inflamed by you.”
At the Watertown Free Public Library, for example, I DO NOT HAVE freedom of speech. That right was taken away from me… for exercising freedom of speech. Until you get off your ass and perform experiments in free speech to test your assumptions that we have free speech all over the place, you’ll never live in reality.
You state in full ignorance per usual: “Who knows what really happened at Fitchburg? Who knows what kind of language you slung at them or what kind of games you played?”
Before making such a general and rather stupid statement, you ought to peruse the facts and the many scanned in documents on the website. As for language, educate yourself! Language slinging, as you term it, is not a crime in the state of Massachusetts. Is it in Arizona? You don’t even know, do you! Educate yourself! You don’t have to enroll in a local college to do that! If in fact, I was in the wrong, as you so want to believe, why did the college end up paying me a full year’s salary after the hearings, after my bosses testified? Since I know logic isn’t your forte, allow me to help you: the testimony of the bosses was so bad, so unconvincing, that the college’s Harvard-trained lawyer decided he best offer me a settlement.
Again, your logic is so lacking, as in: “Your problems with the chamber of commerce and cultural council seem sound, it's all a waste of tax dollars and they're all in bed with corporate America. You are not the first one to figure this out, and if you want to solve it you'd better aim a little higher than the Watertown librarian.”
What does the incident at Watertown have to do with my fight with the Concord Cultural Council or Concord Chamber of Commerce? If we don’t have free speech on the local level, what will aiming higher, as you term it, resolve?
This too makes little sense in that you completely contradict yourself: “I agree it's bullshit to exclude things that are ‘political in nature’. But at the same time it is another example of you trying to force feed your brand of literature, your ‘product’, to people who have explicited [sic] stated that's not what they want.”
You seem like the perfect blind citizen the pillars would love to have in their respective communities. The question here is why should a public organization like the Concord Cultural Council eliminate cultural projects of a “political nature”? The question is not my force feeding, as you put it. How ridiculous! Concord has a tradition of dissident writers, including the likes of Thoreau, Emerson, and Alcott. That’s why the Council should not suddenly decide, as it did, to eliminate dissident writers. Logic 101: You would argue they were much better writers! While I would argue how immaterial to the question can one possibly get!
It is really pitiful that you fail to grasp anything at all regarding my grievances. You state: “It's like someone trying to strong-arm you into publishing a love poem in AD. They don't want stuff that is ‘political in nature’. You don't think that's defined enough, but everyone knows what that means, it's at least as clear as ‘poems of dissidence’.”
The AD is not a public agency distributing public monies! Don’t you get it? Their “not wanting” is what must be challenged, since they ARE a public agency, and that is precisely why I’ve challenged it! If it were a private agency, I would not have challenged it. How can you be so blinded? Is it willful?
If citizens like you and so many others don’t question and challenge, one day maybe they’ll put you in gulag, Mather, for writing poems about being a cabbie because those poems fail to sufficiently praise the power structure and are otherwise superficial! That’s what would have happened in Staline’s USSR to someone like you, Mather. I know, you won’t give a damn! And that’s why it makes no sense for me to argue with you about anything.
You state: “There's your kind, and then there's everything else, which is conveniently labeled ‘diversionary entertainment’.” Well, as you also like to state, I am certainly not the first one to talk about “diversionary entertainment.”
Chomsky, for example, has been quite emphatic with that regard. And it is true, most of your writing and that of other poets is “diversionary entertainment” serving the corrupt system quite nicely. You don’t get off your ass to challenge anything. That’s your shame as a citizen. At least I do that, insignificant or not. And you know that damn well, and I think that irritates you. Well, rather than be irritated, why not simply get off your ass and challenge some of the institutions where you live, instead of simply opening your mouth to say ahh regarding anything with which they decide to feed you.
You state: “Before you scream ‘I never said that!’, you have repeatedly called other poetry journals, in a very broad brushstroke, ‘more of the same’ and ‘same old, same old’ as if to speak of every poet published within them as belonging to some entertainment squad separate from you.”
Ah, but I have made that statement and have made it from observation. In fact, as I recall, you too have made that statement! Do you want me to prove it? Just say so, and I will! Did you suddenly change your mind? Can you actually tell me now there’s a big difference between Kenyon Review, Poetry, Ploughshares, Agni, Beloit and, for that matter, Rattle? I’ve read through those journals. Can you actually tell me the examples I cite in my review on Best Poetry 2007 are not bad, but rather “best”? Go ahead. I’d love to “see” you do that. Please, oh please do! Silence… or simply more bullshit from you, that’s what I’ll get here.
As for Van Gogh, he was not a socio-politically engaged artist. Most artists are not and indeed can be categorized as diversionary entertainers. Bukowski, for the most, part was thus. And when he was not, he was quite careful not to name names.
You can’t give the authorities license for lawlessness—you have to protest. It might seem ineffective on the surface, but this approach does eventually put a stop to terror and abuse of power. And most importantly, it protects the individual from coercion.
—Sergei Kovalev, ex-prisoner of the Kolyma gulag
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves...
—Henry David Thoreau
You didn't answer any of my questions in the previous comment, I was especially interested in your definition of censorship, but I guess that's too much to ask.
I was talking about this particular Watertown Library incident. Free speech does not give people the liberty to say anything they want to anyone they want any time they want. You're not supposed to yell in the library, is that a violation of free speech? Can you call the librarian a whore? Can you call her a backslapper? This is ultimately pointless because like I said I wasn't there and like you said you can't prove you didn't insult them. You don't even think you insulted me or half the people in your journal. Anyway just because your free speech was violated does not make it news. It IS a trifling incident. Only your enlarged ego tells you otherwise.
If you don't think your brand of poetry is better than all the "diversionary entertainment" then you could have fooled me, because you make insulting statements to that effect. (Here you're going to want an example, as if you never said anything like that in your life). Just because you do not say "My poetry is better than theirs" means nothing. You think you are better and feel that you are better and that is clear in your voice. Now you try to back away from that opinion. Why?
You think publicly funded magazines are obligated to publish your poetry. Why? Because your poetry is "critical in nature". Yes, it's critical in nature, but it is only critical of certain things and in certain ways, it is extremely limited. Also, you forget that quality is a consideration too. From my perspective you get plenty published. You can't admit your poetry can be rejected because it is not written well or because it is not very original (stating old ideas badly is not original). Or because it is dull.
Just reading your web site doesn't really tell me what happened at Walden. I figured you did something of the sort: TELL the cop to arrest you. I can just hear you now! Did you dare him to? This is the kind of thing bored hippies do when nothing really is going on but they want to feel they are suffering injustice. I knew the arrest was bogus, just as the trespass issue is, and could easily be beaten in court. Again you ignore the human side. When you taunt a cop, something is going to happen, that's how cops are, wherever you go and whatever time you live in. This is why you only work on the local level, because on the higher level they treat you fairly, and this doesn't jive with your woe-is-me groove.
Maybe you could beat the trespass order and then SUE somebody, to add to your "settlement" from the college. Just because you got some money from them does not tell me what really happened at Fitchburg and I know you well enough to firmly believe that there is a whole lot more to the story. Good for you to get some free money, though. Better than being in jail. The completely opposite, actually. What a society, eh?
Logic is the substance of the universe? Well that's just so deep I'm flabbergasted, completely blown away and humbled. Wow... I'm gonna contemplate that for a while...bzzzz...ok I'm done. Is there anything you don't know? Is there any cubby hole of wisdom or knowledge or history that has escaped your inquisitive grasp? Logic is the substance of the universe! Hell yeah it is! All right then...Even logic perfectly executed could not wash away your berzshwa smugness.
The comment about nepotism was because I thought it was a small town and maybe the cops actually knew the librarian personally. I guess that's "ridiculous".
Right, you don't think you ever "deserve" anything that happens to you. You (and apparently Charlotte too) don't think you should be responsible for your actions, because of the spin you put on the definition of those actions. You point to the exact letter of the law, as if that explains everything and all human behavior. The fact is, you go out in public and dance around (you do love to be seen), trying to piss people off while staying BARELY within the boundaries of the law, then people get pissed and forget the law (as is natural) and come down on you. Then you scream and scream and can't figure out why the newspaper reporters aren't knocking down your door. It's pathetic. Many laws are laid down because people forget common sense, common curtesy, common decency and respect, and have to be told exactly how to behave by the fucking government. Cops should not make arrests unless you are breaking the law, you say, that's the whole point, you say. Well, according to that logic, if there had been a law against doing what you were doing at Walden, then it would all be just fine and the cop would only have been doing his job, right?
The first ammendment is limited and always has been. The question is, what exactly do you WANT? If the librarian would have taken your journal and said "Sure, we'll subscribe", would that be the end of it? Would that improve the world? Would that settle your owie? One more journal on the shelves, great, perfect! That's all we need!
You start your blog by lamenting the state of current journalism and you work into the fact that (for your sole example) no one wants to write about your incident at the library. How this makes no sense to you I don't know: you wrote the damn thing. Also, again, it's a fucking LIBRARY! Libraries have one of the most limited environments you can think of when it comes to personal demostration. You're supposed to read and do research and SHUT THE FUCK UP. I'm sure you could get a hearing if you tried hard enough, and get the order cancelled, and that wouldn't make the newspaper either. Farts!
You're right, I don't know if "language slinging" is against the law in Arizona. Good point on my ignorance. I know you have to say "Your honor" when addressing the judge. I know parking tickets are one hundred and sixty bucks. I also know that I will never take your word for anything because I know you don't tell the full story. I was not at Fitchburg, I don't know what happened behind the scenes, and I'm never going to get the full story from you. Who cares. You poor thing, you're still a professor who could get a job anytime you really needed one. I think it's interesting that an unemployed overeducated academic lifer who lives rent free in someone else's house and likes to harass elderly female librarians is telling me I'll "never live in reality".
What do the incident at the library have to do with the Cultural Council, you ask, in all your delighted glee at having detected an inconsistency from the cab driver! I guess you didn't write, "More recently, I brought to the deaf ears of local journalists anomolies also pertinent to the First Amendment regarding the Concord Cultural Council and Watertown Free Public Library." The two are miles apart and I don't know how I could have made the illogical connection.
First of all, since you are so interested in the fucking LAW, you will have to admit that laws are made on the HIGHER LEVEL. That librarian isn't making the law, and if there was a law saying she had to buy your god damned journal, or she had to stand there all day getting bad mouthed by a strange man, well then you could sue her. So, go to the higher levels and get the laws changed. What a utopian democratic world that would be.
Yeah, I'm a perfect citizen. I don't know why they eliminated any writings of "political nature". Jesus Christ, get your shit published somewhere else! If you can't admit Thoreau and Emerson were better writers than yourself, then you're even sicker than I thought. Yes, it's obvious you think quality is "immaterial".
You don't have any public monies now for AD, but that doesn't mean you don't try for them, and if you did have them, would you change the focus of AD to admit every poet with an envelope and an attitude?
If they put me in the Gulag, I hope we're cell mates, old pal.
I liked your thing on "The Best American Poetry". I agree with you that most poetry sucks, yours included. I don't like the division you constantly try to place between you and this "diversionary entertainment" crowd. I've always told you I thought your letters section was the best part of AD, and I like it mainly, guess what, for the ENTERTAINMENT QUALITY of it. You don't prove anything, except that there are a lot of assholes in the academic world, but we already knew that, and you certainly don't change anything. It sure is funny though.
Since you always use "diversionary entertainment" as a denigration, I am logically concluding that you think Van Gogh was not the best he could be. It is true that compared to your cartoons he looks like a hack.
O Mather, as mentioned earlier, we engage here in a dialogue de sourds where you write to yourself and I to myself. In other words, you simply cannot “hear” me. Capiche? Evidently, not!
Read the quote I cited for you on trifling incidents! Once again I urge you to get off your butt and discover some trifling incidents for yourself… they might actually help you grow beyond the limited sphere of your cab and prose!
What is key and pertinent is your willful ignorance regarding Freedom of Speech. Many citizens are equally lazy and do not know what the limits are on Free Speech. Again, I urge you to educate yourself! Does the First Amendment prohibit “insults”? I know the answer to that, but you do not. So educate yourself, rather than whine ad infinitum over my having “insulted” your poor frail ego!
Have you insulted me? Of course you have! Am I whimpering about it like you are ever whimpering about my having insulted you? Of course not. I have a tough skin. You do not! You’re a spineless accepter. Most citizens are. BUT democracy demands more than a spineless accepting citizenry.
Your use of the term “insult” to dismiss anything I say serves as a convenient deflection from the ideas and logic presented. Again, I urge you to make a giant intellectual effort, as in a giant leap forward, to avoid ad hominem and deal with the arguments presented. Yes, “spineless accepter” is a variety of ad hominem and yes, I am not perfect, but yes I do make an extra effort to avoid using ad hominem. Just the same, you do accept. You accept the police. You accept the way how academics tend to be. You accept the way how lit journals tend to be. For if you didn’t, you’d hopefully get off your butt and start your own.
This is truly a sad, pitiful statement: “Anyway just because your free speech was violated does not make it news. It IS a trifling incident. Only your enlarged ego tells you otherwise.”
If the bulk of citizens feel as you do, then indeed the American democracy is in dire trouble. Any infringement on free speech ought to constitute an IMPORTANT incident and never be dismissed, as you so easily do via ad hominem, as in “enlarged ego.” The speech you hate (or find insulting), or the librarian hates (or finds insulting) or I hate (or find insulting) is precisely the speech that we must fight to protect. That is a fundamental argument of democracy! Why are you so ignorant of democracy’s tenets? How did your education fail you so egregiously?
Try finding a synonym for “insulting”! It gets tedious! Websters.com is a great site. Try it out!
If I implied or even stated that publicly funded magazines are obligated to publish my poetry or anyone elses, then I wish to retract that implication. I am flexible. I can admit wrong. But you can’t. Why not?
However, public-funding organizations ought to be held to distribute funds fairly, that is, to all organizations and not simply politically-correct ones. The NEA tends to only distribute funds to the politically correct. The Concord Cultural Council will now not fund organisms that have a political bent. BTW, didn’t you read that excellent Orwell quote… or are you irrevocably blinded to anything that might support my point of view? For Orwell and for me, everything is political. That is why I suggested the cultural council define “political nature.” You simply chose (or your rage and anger chose for you) to ignore that cogent point.
Per usual, you make little sense: “I knew the arrest was bogus, just as the trespass issue is, and could easily be beaten in court.”
An arrest is an arrest. What the hell is a bogus arrest? It is an arrest! The no-trespass order was not bogus. I have a copy of it and put it up on that blog. Didn’t you see it? That was a REAL, not a BOGUS, order!
And what is “the kind of thing bored [cabbies] do when nothing really is going on but they want to feel they are suffering injustice”? Sit on their asses! Well, I much prefer to get off mine and play the hippie, if in fact doing that means getting off ones ass.
I am happy to know that you have been studying my website, which did take countless hours to prepare over the years. No doubt you’re learning positive things from it and no doubt you’d NEVER admit it.
You manifest once again extreme ignorance regarding democracy: “Again you ignore the human side. When you taunt a cop, something is going to happen, that's how cops are, wherever you go and whatever time you live in.”
Yet cops are not supposed to be that way. And indeed, some are not that way. Some actually have learned in cop academies how to deal with those who might taunt them. Others will just shoot the “taunters.” And they need to be prosecuted, and some of them are. The cop who arrested me was not interested in the law or with how to deal properly with “taunters.” He just wanted to put an old hippie behind bars.
But for you to say that’s how they all are, thus we should all accept that, as you evidently imply, is horrendous, lazy, and utterly detrimental to democracy. Thank god not all citizens are like you, Mather. For if they were, we’d be living in an American homologue of the former Soviet Union.
I have no idea what this means or implies: “This is why you only work on the local level, because on the higher level they treat you fairly, and this doesn't jive with your woe-is-me groove.”
It is sad that you must turn everything I do into self-pity. I think you are the real self-pity because you don’t do anything, except try to get published.
I choose my battles. To fight the no-trespass order would require hiring a lawyer. I’d rather put that money into The AD. You seem to think it’s so simple, obviously, because you’ve never had the experience or if you have you’ve ignored it.
As for my private life, I put $81,000 into the house where I am currently living. Again, you prove pitiful in your purposeful ignoring of particulars.
You state: “Good for you to get some free money, though. Better than being in jail. The completely opposite, actually. What a society, eh?”
Actually, I had to work tooth and nail to prepare for those Fitchburg State hearings. Indeed, I worked like a lawyer, prepared my case carefully, documented it, and was successful in that sense by obtaining a monetary settlement. Any thinking person would have to admit that a settlement does imply a certain victory!
You can’t admit that because you find yourself in the most ignorant of positions where everything I do or say MUST be wrong.
Yes, your comment on nepotism was indeed completely ridiculous: “The comment about nepotism was because I thought it was a small town and maybe the cops actually knew the librarian personally. I guess that's "ridiculous".” Learn the definition of “nepotism” prior to using the term! Websters.com!!!
I don’t know what hat you pull some of these things out of (you must be the smug fellow, not I!), as in “You (and apparently Charlotte too) don't think you should be responsible for your actions, because of the spin you put on the definition of those actions.”
Never have I ever stated or implied that I should not be responsible for my actions. Au contraire, mon petit!
You state: “Well, according to that logic, if there had been a law against doing what you were doing at Walden, then it would all be just fine and the cop would only have been doing his job, right?”
Wrong! I’d try to change the law. You would just accept it because you just sit on your ass.
Why ever did you send your stuff to The American Dissident in the first place? I guess I’ll never really know… why you thought you were a dissident. Reread Havel’s excellent quote on what it means to be a dissident. Educate yourself!
You state: “I liked your thing on "The Best American Poetry". I agree with you that most poetry sucks, yours included.”
How wonderful! BUT what about yours? You don’t put it into the “sucks” category. So, who is really the “inflated ego,” Mather?
You make little sense, constantly contradicting yourself: “I've always told you I thought your letters section was the best part of AD, and I like it mainly, guess what, for the ENTERTAINMENT QUALITY of it.”
So, now you find all those insulting things I say to all those lovely people, no longer insulting, but rather entertaining! But not very entertaining at all… when you’re the butt. Yes, yes…
I’m not really into Van Gogh. Must we all be into Van Gogh because he’s what the anonymous pickers of greatness have decided we must be into? Ah, I forgot, you’re a blind accepter, while I am not.
Actually, the only reason I published your poems was because I cannot find enough submissions from people who do get off their butts to challenge the local pillars of society and write about it. Also, you paid me via subscriptions! If you had not subscribed, I would not have published you. Think of how much money you pay to get published!!!
I do publish people who don’t subscribe, however, because their submissions are what I’m looking for. Oh, that’s going to hurt! But that's the name of our little game, n'est-ce pas? You hurt me, I hurt you. You throw a rock at me, I throw one at you. Well, I hope it's a little more than that because I am the one who finds himself on the defensive. You are the one who has been attacking with fury. So, I am really simply defending myself. Look forward to your riposte!
Reread my first blog with regards the seeking of ACTIVIST POEMS!
It is interesting that "hippie" today, as you used it, has a negative connotation, whereas it didn't back in the Sixties. It is also interesting how "old" also has a negative connotation, as you used it in a previous comment. The negative connotation tells us something about our current society and state of the citizenry. Keep in mind that if the hippies hadn't gotten off their asses, we'd probably still be in Vietnam today. Instead, we're in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we need today are more "bored hippies," as you've so eloquently painted them, who will get off their asses and get us out of those two countries.
You're right, neither one of us is really listening to the other. I've heard all you have to say and you've heard all I have to say, yet we keep going, to Charlotte's (almost) mute chagrin.
I am not devastated because you insulted me, numerous times, well before this blog fight we're in now, but it did teach me about who you are. And who you are is someone who can tell me that you only published me because I paid you. The fact that you think that "hurts" me is a nice touch. That's completely lame and desperate, and I almost feel guilty for attacking you now. Almost.
It is true I am politically disengaged like a lot of other crappy writers like Henry Miller, Bukowski. I can't write about academia because I am not involved in that world. I have been critical of the small press and other writers as they come into contact with my life. Maybe I could do more, in that you are correct. I didn't even vote this last time.
The decision not to include political writing seems very random and senseless indeed. Maybe they made this policy expressly for you?
I called the arrest bogus because it could be beaten in court. If it is such a clear violation of the law I don't see why it should be so hard to fight, but you're right I've never done anything like that. I've tried to fight traffic tickets, and that sure didn't go anywhere. But then again I was guilty in the eyes of the law, while you claim to be clearly a victim.
I have learned some things from the AD, like the fact that Poetry got a 175 million buck inheritance. Mainly though I learned the wopping dimensions of the great gargantuan head that sits on your neck. I do find the AD entertaining, even the insults, especially the insults! Even when it's directed at me it's entertaining. I find this entertaining even now! Don't you?
Good lord, yes there are good and bad cops and cops should treat "taunters" better. Again, I don't really know what happened that day at Walden, what your idea of "taunting" is. Based on your condescending attitude towards me I can make a fair guess...It just seems to me with your passion for social injustice you could find something a little more injust.
I stretched the meaning of nepotism like you stretch the meaning of ad hominem. I should have used "cronyism", that would have been clearer to you. What a major mistake! Why don't you try to get the newspaper to write a story about it! CABBIE MISUSES THE WORD NEPOTISM, SHOWS BLATANT DISREGARD FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
You don't want to fight the trespass order. If it is such an egregious violation of the law I don't know why you need a lawyer. I would think that this would be the perfect thing to do, to take it HIGHER, to get a bigger stage, to follow your actions through.
You told me it was a woman's house and that you lived there rent free. If you put 81,000 dollars into it why is it hers?
Yes, the settlement was a victory, that's what I was saying. If the state was so oppressive why did they give you money? How much money, by the way?
You spin, or define, your actions differently than the librarian, the 2 librarians, that's why I made the comment. They said you were upsetting other people, which may have been true even though no one came up to you and said, "Sir, you are upsetting me". You say you were only politely asking the lady to look at your journal. The reason I mentioned Charlotte was because you mentioned her, your little tag team, and anyway it's obvious from her comments that she thinks you're some kind of saint. Do you publish her because she subscribes or is it solely because of her writing? Be honest, you know she's reading this...
I made the comment about the law because you are emphasizing the law instead of human behavior, which is older and deeper than any law of our society or any other society. It is one thing to attack cops, leaders, big business, chamber of commerce, editors of LARGE publicly funded magazines, but when you start attacking cab drivers and librarians, what is that? This taints everything, this paints you a fool and a crank.
I don't know why I sent my stuff to AD. I can't remember. I don't even know where I was living at the time. I know I never called myself a "dissident" or a "Poet" or any other title. It doesn't matter now anyway, you've still got Berriozabal.
When you tell me you only published me because I subscribed it reminds me of what you told me Galing told you: that he only told you he liked the AD because you were publishing him. As I recall you were aghast that he could turn on you like that. How many of your correspondences have ended in bitterness?
I read the AD probably closer than anybody else you send it to. I have for years and you know it. It is entertaining and inspiring because despite your shot-gun spray of hatred and accusation, you do get some of these editors and professors to say some pretty damning and hilarious things. The problem is I was hoping you were a bigger sort of man than the caricature you become when you write. I have realized that you are exactly that little man. I wish you luck though and continued publication of AD.
Mather,
Read that wonderful essay by Orwell on Henry Miller: “Inside the Whale.” You might learn something and perhaps realize maybe you ought to get off your ass and get engaged! Some of Miller’s essays are wonderful. I’m not keen on his novels at all. I like Buk a lot. He is the only author to have inspired me to write poetry.
Well, I didn’t vote either. So we’ve got that in common.
I do believe the Cultural Council created the no “political nature” policy as a direct result of my grant submissions. That is mentioned in my blog. And that belief is not due to my massive ego, but due to research into the files at Town Hall. Not one of the 30 or so applications this year was even remotely political… with my exception of course. I shall get off my ass yet again and go to a Council meeting next week and pose the question to deaf ears. Maybe you ought to go to a Council meeting!
Which arrest? I was only arrested once, not at the library, but as a result of the Walden incident. As mentioned, the judge threw the case out. Now, why would the judge do that? Because I was so guilty of INSULTS, as you imply? Unfortunately, she did not castigate the arresting cop, who was and is an INSULT to democracy. Unfortunately, he earned double time wages for his day in court.
You state: “But then again I was guilty in the eyes of the law, while you claim to be clearly a victim.” Yes, I was clearly victim of cop injustice. The judge’s decision to dump the prosecutor’s case into the garbage tends to back my claim. Don’t you think so, Mather?
Once I fought a traffic ticket and won.
Yes, the letters in The AD are meant to have a certain humorous element. Thus, I agree with you. Where we disagree, however, is that they also contain an educational element in their clear indictment of the indifference to vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, of many, if not most, academics and editors. That is the prime function of the letters. And if you didn’t notice that, then you’re irrevocably blinded. In fact, I’ve been told on at least several occasions by others that I’ve created a new literary genre with their regard. Sklar also finds the letters quite humorous.
You conveniently passed over my comments on INSULTS and your constant INSULTING of me and the First Amendment! Is it because you agreed intellectually, though not viscerally?
“Condescending attitude” is a subjective term and irrelevant in the court of the First Amendment! If you can’t understand that, then indeed you need to educate yourself! For the sake of argumentation, facts outweigh enormously subjective terms like INSULTS and ATTITUDE.
Of course there are things much more unjust than literary corruption. I’ve never stated there weren’t. Sadam’s gassing of thousands of Kurds, for example… and on and on. At least, I’m challenging something. You are not. You sit on your ass. I do not. You’re a passive accepter. I am not. So why not look in the mirror, Mather!
In a sense I think you know in your heart that you should be more than a mere passive accepter… and that’s one reason you detest me because I’ve shoved that into your face.
Cronyism makes sense, nepotism does not. It was a major vocabulary error. But you can’t see that. You have to turn it into a desperate Schneiderian joke.
Again, your utter inability to take criticism amazes. You read one of my blogs and made a little statement that I misspelled a word. I corrected myself and it without getting hostile and INSULTING. I brought to your attention the word nepotism and you go apeshit. If you can’t see this, Mather, there is little hope for you. You need to examine just how amazingly thin your skin!
Well, with your little encouragement, perhaps I shall try to research a little further the no-trespass incident and see where else I can bring it w/o dispensing huge sums of money on legal assistance. With its regard, I am not at all inconvenienced, since I never go to that library (just once!). It is the principle that matters. And in fact I was hoping I’d receive the order in the mail. I even encouraged the library via email to send it. I wanted it as a document to show what libraries are capable of… despite the ALA’s “Library Bill of Rights.”
“If you put 81,000 dollars into it why is it hers?” That’s entirely my business, not yours. What happened to you and that woman in Seattle? Why did she dump you? Well, I don’t give a damn. And you shouldn’t give a damn about my personal life either.
“How much money, by the way?” [RE the settlement] Again, that’s my business, though I already told you. Never did I say the “state was so oppressive.” Get your facts straight, Mather! Clearly, you’re the one who “spins,” not I! You have a NEED to spin. ANGER pushes you to SPIN!
Charlotte had given you a compliment about your writing. Now, you insult her. Can you not write an entry here without INSULTING? I guess not. Charlotte is not desperate to get published like you. She does not send me tonnage of poetry like you. In fact, I ask her to please send something. Charlotte is not a sitter like you. She actually protests wrong when she sees wrong.
I am always honest in my writing. You’re the one who isn’t.
You state: “I made the comment about the law because you are emphasizing the law instead of human behavior, which is older and deeper than any law of our society or any other society.”
Oh, yes, such a profound insightful statement, Mather! See, my man, that would be your remark if I had made it! But you can’t see that. Anger blinds you. Thin skin leaves you naked like a two-year old.
“This taints everything, this paints you a fool and a crank.” Look in the mirror, Mather!
A librarian represents something much bigger than a cabbie. A librarian is supposed to abide by and be aware of the ALA “Library Bill of Rights.” A librarian decides what literature is to be offered to the public and what literature is to be suppressed. That’s why I consider a librarian to be highly pertinent with regards the First Amendment, while a cabbie not pertinent, which is why I do not attack cabbies. Once upon a time, I too was a cabbie. But I attack you, Mather, who happens to be a cabbie. There’s a huge difference, Mather. But you have a hateful need to pervert everything I say and write. That’s your problem, not mine. It is a problem that affects the very clarity of your writing.
Another ridiculous and immaterial statement: “It doesn't matter now anyway, you've still got Berriozabal.” Hatred makes you write such things.
You note: “Galing told you: that he only told you he liked the AD because you were publishing him. As I recall you were aghast that he could turn on you like that.”
Well, your recollection is evidently faulty! Never did I say I was “aghast” or even really upset! In fact, Ed and I still correspond. Get your facts right, Mather! I won’t however publish him any more, and he knows that. I won’t publish poets indifferent to democracy like you and him! Send your stuff elsewhere!
You ask: “How many of your correspondences have ended in bitterness?” Look in the mirror, Mather!!!
You state, as INSULT: “I have realized that you are exactly that little man.” Look in the mirror, Mather!!! Look how LITTLE you are!!!
Well, since I doubt you’re going take the time to educate yourself regarding free speech. I’ll help you. Threats are in fact First Amendment protected speech in the public sphere. Only threats of extreme violence that are likely to be carried out (and it is up to the one threatened to prove that likelihood) are not protected. And I repeat I didn't even make threats.
I read Orwell's essay about Miller and he compliments Miller quite clearly. I like Orwell and Miller both. Miller was politically disengaged but he was a good writer. I can't choose between the two of them and why should I? If you're going to rule out all the artists and writers that have been politically disengaged...
If the library incident was such a clear misuse of power, like what happend at Walden, then I don't know why it should be so hard to fight in court. That's what I said. I find I have to say a lot of things to you twice or three times before you understand. It gets tiring. If you want to talk about clarity then I think we need someone else to read this, besides Charlotte, and give an impartial opinion.
The letters are funny, yes, but letters are not a new genre. Also they do not prove these people are completely against debate. That could be true, but your letters don't prove that. All they prove is they don't want to debate with YOU, they don't want to be forced out of the blue to debate a stranger, a rather half-witted one at that, or to defend their right to publish their own journals in their own way.
I've insulted you? You say insult, I say freedom of speech... You insult me, Charlotte insults me, you sling ad hominem at me like you always have, and that's a fact. Yes, I am an angry person and I am angry with you. I am not afraid of emotion or ashamed of it. Agreeing with you intellectually and disagreeing with you viscerally, that's pretty good. You know my stance: I agree with your ideas but not your methods.
Why do you keep telling me to look in the mirror? I never claimed to be a dissident or politically engaged at all. I never claimed to be a logic professor or a proclaimer of TRUTH. I don't even call myself a POET. You make these claims about yourself, not me. I am trying to point out your hypocrisy and inconsistency and egotism of your methods, the great gulf between your ideas and your behavior.
Well, that's amazing that you "sensed" I know in my "heart" that I should do more politically, since I said that in plain words in the blog. Your a god damned psychic! Yes, I know I could do more. I am not a brave man and never claimed to be. I work 50 hours a week and I try to write and not let my life fall apart. I can't work for six months and then go on unemployment for six months. That, however, does not mean that I detest you, I don't detest you. Do you want me to detest you?
I broke up with my girlfriend from Washington. That's how long you and I have been communicating? I can hardly believe it...and to think it comes to this...
Why do you say "Never did I say that" when I make a statement? I wasn't quoting you, I simply made the statement. According to that logic, I should have responded to the above with: But NEVER did I say that I detest you! Here's a hint: if I'm quoting you I put quotes around the words. When you are fighting policemen and government employees are you not accusing the state of being oppressive?
I made a four word comment on the word "threw" to get your goat. Now, this is the third time you've brought up my capital crime of nepotism misuse! Yet somehow I'm the one going apeshit about it? Logic, logic...I was trying to laugh it off...I could have used a better word, white flag on that one...
Yes, I know you asked them for the trespass warrant just like you asked them to arrest you. You said as much in your blog. You have to beg and plead for your injustices! It's pathetic!
As far as Charlotte goes...I guess she complimented a poem I wrote that you put Pointer's name on, right? How long ago was that? I do believe she has insulted me at least twice here in this blog before I even mentioned her name! And then she did it as if she was talking to you, and not to me, in the third person as if I wasn't even listening! What kind of shit is that? Pesky pest, petulant, what? And anyway, if someone compliments me then I can't insult them? No, I can't say anything without insulting people, just like you can't go to Walden or the library without insulting people.
My statement about laws and human behavior is true, much truer than something like "Logic is the substance of the universe." Is logic a substance?
I am not a crank, in fact I am too much of a jokester, which you point out.
I am a cabbie and you attacked me, yes. I attacked back. So did the librarian. Am I wrong in my facts?I don't know this lady but I assume she's a human being just like I am, just like you and Charlotte are. I've said all I can say about that: I wasn't at the library and I don't know what happened. I can't argue any more about it.
Why is my statement about Berriozabal "riduculous and immaterial"? You publish him quite a bit and I consider him a poor poet. This was in direct response to you telling me that you only publish me because I paid you. What's amazing is you can make a statement like this and not see how that reflects on yourself. Is this really how you run your magazine? And then to brag about it, or use it to try to hurt people? I don't have "hatred" for Berriozabal or you. My words are direct and angry, but that is not hatred. By the way, do you publish Berriozabal because he subscribes or because you consider him a good writer? Or is it because he speaks Spanish? More hatred! Ad hominem! No logic!
When you told me about the Galing incident you were pissed and you couldn't believe how he could do such a thing as change his mind like that. I don't have that letter, that was a while ago and I don't save it. Again, you don't have to say "I'm aghast" when you're upset. I wasn't quoting you directly! According to your logic you are not truly upset until you say "I am upset". Does that hold up in court? YOU WERE UPSET AT GALING'S CHANGE OF OPINION, or supposed change, and that's a FACT. I didn't know you were still communicating with him, from the way you sounded I thought you were done with him. Sorry.
There comes a point when exclamation marks become self defeating and desperate.
Apparently, you need to read that essay again because Orwell is CLEARLY critical of Miller’s lack of purpose and engagement! How could you have possibly missed that? Yes, he also does praise Miller, but for other things.
Never have I stated this or implied it: “If you're going to rule out all the artists and writers that have been politically disengaged...”
That’s just another example of your falsifying what I said or say.
Don’t you understand that COURT COSTS MONEY… LOTS OF IT? Besides, I don’t particularly have faith in judges or our jury system, which is and has been easily corrupted.
Look in the mirror, Mather: “I find I have to say a lot of things to you twice or three times before you understand. It gets tiring.”
Look in the mirror, Mather: “a rather half-witted one at that.”
BTW, half-wits do not have PhDs. You don’t have one. You don’t even have a college degree!
How little sense you make! You state: “I've insulted you? You say insult, I say freedom of speech... You insult me, Charlotte insults me, you sling ad hominem at me like you always have, and that's a fact.”
So, you’ve never insulted me? That’s truly funny… or rather truly sad and entirely ignorant of the facts clearly written right here by you in your very own entries!!!
Well, this is a good one too! You state: “You know my stance: I agree with your ideas but not your methods.”
I thought you didn’t give a damn about my ideas, my devotion to free speech, vigorous debate, and democracy! Do you want me to show you what you wrote about my ideas? Man, you are really so confused!
If you cannot understand when and why I tell you to look in the mirror, it is because your anger blinds you, and no matter what I say I will not be able to penetrate that shield of anger and help you understand why I tell you to look in the mirror!
You note: “I am trying to point out your hypocrisy and inconsistency and egotism of your methods, the great gulf between your ideas and your behavior.”
Well, you’re doing a terrible job at it, one lacking in clarity and concrete supportive evidence!
If you were not an egotist, Mather, you would not be sending out your poems in the hope gaining fame and recognition! So, let’s shake hands, one egotist with another!
You state ad hominesquely: “Your a god damned psychic!”
Learn the difference between “your” and “you’re.” That is taught in English 101 courses. Perhaps you never took one of those in COLLEGE?
You state oddly: “However, does not mean that I detest you, I don't detest you. Do you want me to detest you?”
I really don’t give a damn one way or the other if you detest me. But if you can’t see the egregious evidence that you do detest me here on this very blog site, then you might very well be blind.
You state: “When you are fighting policemen and government employees are you not accusing the state of being oppressive?”
“Oppressive” is much too strong a term! It’s yours, not mine. I’d rather reserve that for life in China. In America, we do enjoy freedoms not enjoyed in places like China. If I were writing what I’ve been writing here in China as a Chinese citizen I’d likely be dead.
You again twist what was actually written: “Yes, I know you asked them for the trespass warrant just like you asked them to arrest you.”
Never did I write that I asked them for the trespass. I wanted to encourage them to send it, since the cops said the library would. What I do is entirely different from what you do. I am an engaged writer. You are not. I’m not saying that’s necessarily bad for literature, though it certainly is for democracy. Conflict with authority inspires my creativity and shows me the reality of democracy in America. You think that’s terrible. So be it.
You state in yet another INSULT: “You have to beg and plead for your injustices! It's pathetic!”
Well, what is really “pathetic” is your inability to comprehend. It is my experience that those who don’t do tend to dislike those who have the courage to do, for the simple reason that those who do make those who don’t do look bad.
You state: “I do believe she has insulted me at least twice here in this blog before I even mentioned her name!” Yes, yes, oh Mather, that’s right, everyone is insulting poor Mather who never insults anyone!
Again you indulge in entirely unfounded gross generalities: “No, I can't say anything without insulting people, just like you can't go to Walden or the library without insulting people.”
Walden is currently carrying The American Dissident, as are about 15 libraries. Thus, a few facts like those discard the nonsense generalities you spew with my regard! I have been to scores of libraries. This is the very first time I’ve ever been told to leave by a librarian and the very first time I’ve ever received a trespass order. But for you, Mather, anger makes you generalize. Yes, librarians have been issuing me trespass orders, right and left and everyday!
You state: “I am not a crank, in fact I am too much of a jokester, which you point out.” Crank says to Jokester: Good for you!
You ignore again the facts and are wrong as to the sequence of the facts, for it was you who attacked me first and on several different occasions prior to my attacks, as noted before on this webblog. Recall I provided tangible proof in your own words.
You state erroneously: “I am a cabbie and you attacked me, yes. I attacked back. So did the librarian. Am I wrong in my facts?” Yes, you’re entirely WRONG! As for the librarian, she attacked me. I only denounced her as indifferent to the First Amendment after her attack. Always you seem like you need the world to stand behind your thin shadow. You can’t seem to stand up like a man without depending others to hold you up. Thus, you need the librarian to help hold you up. See, G. Tod, WE think you’re thus.
You state: “I wasn't at the library and I don't know what happened. I can't argue any more about it.” And yet you keep on doing so over and again and again! Can this really be the end? Let’s hope so!
As for Luis Berriozabal, I haven’t published him in the last two issues. Being a good or bad poet is subjective. Who are you the god determiner of who is good now? Ah, but that’s what you would say about me! Ah, I forgot you’re good at dishing it out, but entirely wimpy about taking it. Luis is a good man, and I prefer not discussing him here. There’s no point in it. Okay, you don’t think he’s good. Fine. Who cares?!
As for the pay to get published and pay to win contests, you certainly know that game better than I. Just the same, when someone subscribes they are supporting the focus of The American Dissident, willingly or not. So, yes, that is important. Anyone, not believing in the focus would be a fool or egomaniac to subscribe. Does that sound familiar, Mather?
You note: “This was in direct response to you telling me that you only publish me because I paid you.” Oh, my, did that hurt you? But isn’t “hurt” the name of our little game here? Isn’t that precisely what you’ve tried to do with my regard from the very beginning?
Ed Galing is 91, and anything is possible at that age. That’s why I forgave him, and why we continue writing. Just the same I’ve criticized his constant boasting of getting published. Others have done the same.
You state: “I don't have that letter, that was a while ago and I don't save it.” Then you have no tangible proof whatsoever! Can you imagine that line in a court of law? Probably not.
You and I are very, very different. Why can’t you understand that? I’m a man who tends not to hold grudges and not to hate people. Just the same, I actively fight the system. It’s that simple. You are not like me. Why do you find it so difficult to believe that not everyone hates and harbors constant anger and grudges? I don’t hate that librarian in the least. It’s just not in my heart. I’ll fight her, I’ll be highly critical of her, but I will not hate her and do my best to avoid calling her names. My criticism, unlike yours, will not be based on anger, but rather on fact and logic.
Look in the mirror, Mather: “There comes a point when exclamation marks become self defeating and desperate.”!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, I admire Miller's Stand Still Like the Hummingbird and The Air-Conditioned Nightmare... great essays, many of them! Thanks to you, I've just pulled them off my shelf. I got into Miller when living in France for evident reasons, then I got into him again later on the advice of some poet.
Anyhow, by mentioning COLLEGE to you here and there, I do so because I know that angers you... and as mentioned that does seem to be the name of our little game. In reality, I don't give a damn who went to college or who didn't. Apparently, you do. It's a soft spot of yours, not of mine. After all, I'm the one with the degrees, while you're the one without them. Often I've stated, I do not particularly respect those with PhDs for I've known far too many of them. When I attach PhD to my name, I normally do so because I'm either looking for a job or addressing something to someone who will likely be influenced by it, as you are influenced by it.
If you heeded Thoreau a bit more, you'd learn it is not such a difficult thing to work 6 months or less each year and survive. One merely has to live simply. You tend to rush out to buy books, whereas I go to the public library, etc.
Well this has become a nice evening routine after I get home from work...
Yes, Orwell praises Miller, THAT'S WHAT I SAID. Everyone knows Miller was politically disengaged. Did you not realize Miller was politically disengaged until Orwell told you so?
You dismiss writers and artists that are politically disengaged all the time, latest being Van Gogh. How can you deny this?
When you say things like "look in the mirror, Mather" over and over again, it is like a child saying "I know you are but what am I?" or "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you." I've heard the neighbor kids saying it and it reminded me of you. Even the Mexican kids have sayings like this. It is not a real argument.
Many, many half wits have phds. A piece of paper of that nature tells me the person was good at following orders and sticking to the code for 8 years or however long it takes to get one, and that's about it. I have talked to many phds who I regarded as having very low natural intelligence.
Well one time you say insults are not against the law and people should have tougher skins, and then you get all over me for insulting you. I said that comment "You call it insult, I call it free speech" because I was MOCKING YOU you fucking moron. I know I've insulted you, I KNOW. It has been deliberate and I'm not denying it, I haven't from the start. You lace almost every paragraph with the same kind of thing, though of a more monotonous kind. We do have a difference of opinion as to who started this whole fiasco, though, and it goes back a lot farther than this blog. I only started talking to you here on the blog because I thought someone else might read it. As it turns out only Charlotte reads your blogs. Speaking of C., you accused me of insulting her, poor lady, and I'm telling you she insulted me twice in this very blog before I ever addressed her. That is a fact. I am not complaining but justifying my actions: when someone calls me a pesky parasite I think I have the right to say something back. Or was I supposed to say "Yazzm!"
I've said I agree with your ideas and not your methods before. I do not think your actions further any of these ideas. I agree with almost all your quotes in your journal, and the writers you claim to emulate, but in your methods and behavior all I see is hypocrisy and ego. I've given many examples right here in this blog about your hypocrisy and failing logic. I'm not going to hunt through all the god damned emails and give you the same examples over and over again just because you missed them the first time or you can't remember them.
I never said I wasn't an egotist, I said that you were an egotist. It's not the same thing.
What is so "odd" about my saying I don't detest you after you accused me of detesting you?
Ok, so you "encouraged" them to send the trespass order, you did not "ask" them to. I can see the tremendous difference there, thank you.
You said I can't say anything without insulting someone, that was YOUR generalization. Of course I can say things without insult, just like you can go to Walden without insulting people or a library without insulting people, THAT WAS MY POINT. What is your reading level anyway? You know what "nepotism" means but you can't understand that my statements are direct responses to your own. There seems to be a problem not with your grammar but with your ability to follow a train of thought and to remember what came before. This is not a good thing for a supposed master of logic.
And you need to recall how I offered my own proof as to who started attacking who FIRST. This is your MO, not mine. I do not have a web site devoted to my fights with people. I do not look for fights, but I defend myself after I've been pushed. Rewrite history all you want, it is really irrelevant now anyway.
In case it is not clear this is me talking to you, man to man. Is anyone here standing with me helping me write this? You are the one who's got Charlotte on your side, who've I got? Normally I would have no trouble believing that librarian was a bitch, but based on your behavior towards ME, I am forced LOGICALLY to question the truth of your version of the events. I bring it up because it was the TOPIC OF YOUR BLOG, yet you act as if I'm bringing it up out of nowhere. I am RESPONDING to your comments, that's all. But let this be clear: I am speaking for myself and myself only.
I am not allowed to say "I think he is a poor poet" without being called a "God determiner"? I think he is a poor poet and I think you are a poor poet. That is my opinion. No logic! Hatred! Ad hominem! God determiner!
That's a great spin on the pay-to-get-published shit you threw at me. Ha! How much did I send you, 20 dollars over a 6 year period? And this only because you guilted me into sending you money. To say you publish people just because they subscribe is to admit you have no respect at all for your own journal. That admission did not "hurt" me. How could it? It simply makes you look bad, not me. I don't need your approval, and I certainly haven't been resting laurels on my being published in the AD. Really, get over yourself, it doesn't hurt me, it just makes you look small and petty. It's your journal and your game. The fact that I stepped into it is my fault, true.
Why is it so hard for you to admit you have emotions? When Galing told you he only liked AD because you published him, that pissed you off and you wrote me about it. You think I save every precious word you write me? I don't know why that's something that has to be so vehemently DENIED. "You have no tangible proof" you cry. Well, that's true. Innocent!
What makes you think I can't understand that we are "very, very different"?
Yes, you're the great logic master, patting yourself on the back again...
I don't believe Thoreau got unemployment benefits when he wasn't working, though I am not a Thoreau scholar. I live a very simple life, I don't even have a car, and as you know I did not even have internet until fairly recently, but I find that most jobs want you to work 40 plus hours a week or they won't hire you, and I can't keep quitting and finding new ones every single year, though I've done enough of that in the past. And don't tell me to "heed" Thoreau, I've tried to talk to you about Walden but all you can say is it's "tedious". What I really would like to see is what Thoreau would think of you (and your writing) if he were alive. Or Emerson. Or Jeffers or Orwell or any of them.
No more for me. Your modus operandi is tedious: constant insult, constant lack of logic, lack of purpose with the exception to insult me, blindness to points I make, and twisting things to fit into your paltry frame of hatred for me. I didn’t even bother reading your entry… just the first few sentences.
Well, I believe you will go back and read my words eventually. If you don't respond I will assume you surrender.
I love the fact that you said you "forgave" Galing. I'm sure he's eternally grateful for your forgiveness! Goude too?
Also I was wondering when you would get around to putting my ad hominems on your page there. What took you so long? You didn't put any of your own on there, though. Anyway, thanks for the exposure. You didn't choose my best one, by far, but I guess that's to be expected.
You paid me a backhanded compliment on your focus page, you should probably get rid of that, like you erased all other evidence of having appreciated my writing. Haw! Didn't the soviets do a same kind of thing?
Interestingly, your complimentary mention of my name follows upon your suggestion that people "get ANGRY". But, I get angry and all you do is accuse me of being "blinded" by it.
Oh, you fought a traffic ticket and won, eh? Maybe you should write a 743 page novel about it?
I would like my contributor's copy, and anyway aren't I still a subscriber? 2519 N. Geronimo, Apt. C, Tucson, AZ 85705
Back to the topic: I am a frequent user of the Watertown Library. I know this "new" librarian known as Ardis. She showed up about the time the new building opened up. She has NO customer service skills. I have seen and heard her be rude and cruel to any one who is old, dressed differently, may have difficulty understanding her or someone she decides she does not like for any reason (but not obvious to the observer as to why). She likes to throw her weight around - too much power for a big frog in a small pond syndrome.
As for your contact with Ardis, your tone did have a defensive attitude. (Maybe after your last few experiences in libraries, it is understandable) but Ardis over reacted! It could have been handled better on so many levels. I don't think she would benefit from a class on customer service because she is one of the entitled group - entitled not to have to deal with anyone she does not like - and that is most of Watertown. I think she still has her job because her supervisors are not paying attention to how she treats the people. I know some people have complained about her but the bosses ignore it - maybe it is too much work to fire her and find someone new. Most anyone would be better. And with the employment market like it is, you'd think they could find a better librarian who has customer service skills. Someone who actually likes people.
If I were you, I would contact American Library Association. They are proponents of free speech. They would probably be interested in how you were treated. They would not guarantee libraries would buy your material but at least you should be treated with respect. That means a honest hearing where no one is prejudged and would be listened to when presenting the "other side" of a situation. I did not hear you threaten anyone, nor did I see anyone upset except Ardis and then you. Nor have I seen you in the library before but then as much as I am there, it is not 24/7. I want to see what you write about after you contact ALA. You might also write an article for ALA about library censorship before topics are provided to the public from the author's point of view. Libraries are so proud of the lack of censorship in their building but obviously this is not true in Watertown, Waltham or other libraries you visited - all very liberal with no or little conservatism allowed, so the whole populace is not served, only those who think like the librarians who have the privilege of using the purchasing power.
Good luck in tying to get justice at the Watertown Library, it is limited to young hip women who Ardis and her posse like.
FirecrackerH20,
Well, that's quite a revealing entry! Much, much appreciated. Actually, I did contact the ALA. Sadly, not one of the 17 staff members contacted replied. The director of the Watertown FREE public library did not reply. The 50 staff members contacted at Library Journal did not reply. No due process was accorded. You are right on target RE censorship. I did find a publisher for a longer article I wrote on my experiences with librarians. The Ardis incident is of course inserted in that article, which I'd be more than happy to forward to you. Just send me your email address. I suppose I ought to return to that library (after the 13th of Feb when the no-trespass order expires) during Banned Books Week and wear a sign Banned Persons Week or Banned Periodicals Week. I've only been at that library ONCE. Thanks again!
Found this as Ardis Francoeur's blog. She is known as Dissa, super llibrarian on vox : "Dissa in a nutshell: the first time I walked was towards a birthday cake. My first sentence was "don't say damnit, say fuck it" (and it's been a love affair with profanity ever since). I cried when I couldn't find a ride to vote for the first time. Buffy rocks. reading IS cool. knowledge is power. subversiveness is fun. I'm not here to change the world, I'm here to complain about it. "
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ByuK4ipzT8YJ:dissa12.vox.com/library/posts/+ardis+francoeur+blog&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Guess this gives you a clear picture of what she is like and why she treats people like she does. She lives to complain.
Thanks for that info. She must have been really happy to get that no-trespass order sent off!
PS: I informed Director I. Cole of the library on several occasions. She simply does not respond. Yet another person in public office who not only doesn't give a damn about, but scorns, vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy.
Post a Comment