Jessica Hill, Cape Cod Times

The Whitewashing, uh, Blackwashing of BLM
Questioning and Challenging the Parrots

This counter-essay was sent to Jessica Hill, News Reporter for the Cape Cod Times.  I do not expect her to respond [and indeed she did NOT respond!] because debate and dialogue are NOT embraced by many, if not most, journalists today.  The free press is NOT free.  It is corporate owned; it is ideologically bound; it tends to despise free debate and free expression.  Such dialogue is certainly not embraced by the editors, past and present, of the Cape Cod Times, who reject any criticism with their regard.  That has certainly been my experience over the past decade.  In essence, a reporter’s job depends on his or her echoing/supporting the editor’s and publisher’s narrative.   How can that be considered freedom of the press?  

Hill’s headline story, Falmouth residents concerned by flyers, theft of Black Lives Matter signs, essentially promotes, rather than challenges, an ideology.  It grabbed my attention because it serves as an egregious example of journalist dereliction of duty, quite common nowadays.  Few questions, if any at all, were raised in the article.  The alleged victim, Adam Subhas, in the story got to tell his story and broadcast his opinions.  That was it.  The incident, however, was alleged—not necessarily based on facts and reality.  Given the number of hate-crime Bubba Wallace-noose and Jussie Smollett-like hoaxes, pushed in an effort to inflate, if not encourage, black victimhood and thus BLM, the reporter ought to have raised that as a possibility.  She did not.

Hill began her reportage with the following statement:  “After a West Falmouth resident’s Black Lives Matter signs were stolen, he says he found flyers in his mailbox promoting white supremacist and racist views.”  Unfortunately, Hill did not bother to examine and discuss what BLM is.  Might it actually be an anti-white racist and black supremacist movement?   Hill does not mention that Subhas is a well-to-do, if not wealthy, scientist employed at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.  Might he also be a Pakistani or Indian immigrant?  If so, why immigrate to such a racist country like the USA?  Why work in such a racist area like Cape Cod?  Money?  Is money more important for Subhas?  Well, maybe he’s not an immigrant.  In any case, Hill omits the information.  BLM is, by the way, a Marxist/communist organization that clearly does NOT advocate for freedom of expression.  It has also apparently broken the law by advocating openly for the removal of President Trump.   Apparently, money donated to BLM has ended up in the coffers of the Democrat Party.  According to Nonprofit Expert:  “For an organization to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) it cannot ‘participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.’”  Will BLM be held accountable in this Age of Unaccountability and have its 501c3 status removed?   

Interestingly, Hill states regarding the alleged three flyers that Subhas allegedly found in his mailbox: “One flyer compared the Black Lives Matter movement to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism. Another described George Floyd as an armed criminal, and another explained that the word racism was created as a ‘method of control’ by Leon Trotsky.”  Hill does not discuss whether each of those thoughts are factually false.  In fact, they might actually be factually true.  Floyd did steal the cop’s taser and aimed it at the cop.  He was also a criminal with a fairly long record.  Communism and Nazism are closely related.  Both reject freedom of the press and freedom of speech.  

Subhas stated, according to Hill, that “I feel like I was targeted, not because of who I am but because I put signs up, not necessarily anything about my identity.  If I’m being targeted indiscriminately, you can just imagine the myriad ways in which people of color and Black people and minorities are targeted because of their color or identity.”  BLM promotes and encourages black victimhood.  That is obvious.  It is an odd situation because I, as a white man, would be more afraid to post a White Lives Matter or All Lives Matter sign in front of my house, than a BLM sign.  I’d also be more afraid to post a sign like Islam Hates Free Speech.  Why?  Well, that would be an interesting point of discussion.  

It seems BLM protest/rioters can be quite violent.  Also, on Cape Cod the white nationalist nazi-hype seems entirely unfounded in reality and seems to be very rare, if at all existent.  But BLM needs it to exist so that it can promote its principle stereotype:  black victim/white victimizer (i.e., black good/white bad).  Now, it has become evident, thanks in part to BLM hype, that whites are being targeted because of their skin color.  Ain’t no way I’d walk in a black neighborhood at night!  Paranoia or reality?  Well, if you’re white and believe the former, then why not prove it by taking that walk?  And sometimes, it doesn’t even have to be night.  Hell, I was beaten and robbed in Baton Rouge by three blacks in the daytime, and the local newspaper, The Advocate, refused to cover the story.  What then is that newspaper advocating?  The narrative!  

The Cape Cod Times has yet to cover my story of being permanently banned w/o warning or due process from my neighborhood library in Barnstable.  Well, I digress… or sort of.  But are those occurrences “deep and systemic” to use Subhas’ words, as in “I think we just need to recognize that, because there’s no way we’re going to get over it unless we recognize how deep and systemic some of this stuff goes.”  Is there deep and systemic racism against whites by blacks?  Why is that question never posed by journalist reporters?  Bias!  Egregious bias!  Why are the latter so afraid to be individuals with backbone?  Why have so many of them become mere pc-parrots?  Parrots for BLM!  The American press has become rotten to the core like Pravda, the state and ideologically-controlled press of the former Soviet Union.  Our democracy cannot continue with a press like that, with a press like the Cape Cod Times!  

Hill notes that “Gwyneth Packard, who is on the leadership team of Engage Falmouth, said a previous member of the organization found similar flyers two years ago when her signs were stolen. She did not feel comfortable going to the police, Packard said.”  Well, does she think I, as a white man, felt comfortable when three cops suddenly entered the room where I was working alone in Sturgis Library, frisked me, and told me to leave or I’d be arrested?  Oh yeah, I must have done something wrong like write an open letter critical of the intrinsic hypocrisy of the library collection development statement, “libraries should provide materials and information that present all points of view.”  Well, my point of view and that of others I publish have been permanently banned!  

Hill notes that “In February, a visiting scientist in Woods Hole found flyers espousing white supremacist ideology attached to a telephone pole. That incident was reported to Falmouth police and the Anti-Defamation League’s New England office, Packard said.”  And so, what happened?  Is it a crime to attach a piece of paper on a telephone pole?  Why doesn’t Hill inform her readers with that regard?  In essence, it might be considered a crime of littering.  How many cops were deployed to investigate it?  Why doesn’t Hill point out that BLM might in fact be a black supremacist ideology like Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam?  Why are so many citizens so willfully ignorant?  How can a democracy, as opposed to communism, possibly survive when the people do not educate themselves?  

According to Packard, as reported by Hill, “The Black Lives Matter sign is about countering acts of violence and about promoting justice.  That’s what the signs symbolize. It’s a collective effort to address longstanding anti-Black racism in our society and asking for an end to the violent death of unarmed black people.”  And yet BLM protesters have been quite violent!  And didn’t one of its prime leaders, Hawk Newsome, state, “if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right?  And I could be speaking ... figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation. […] I don't condone nor do I condemn rioting.”?  And what about the five cops murdered in 2016 by black BLM advocate, Micah Xavier Johnson?  Why is none of this information included in Hill’s reportage?  

Finally, what is legal and what is not legal?  Our laws are extremely vague, which benefits of course the great multi-billion dollar lawyer industry.  Sadly, the press does not help educate the populace regarding that very question.  The hate crime, if it actually occurred, was theft of several pieces of cardboard.  Is it illegal to put a piece of paper into someone else’s mailbox?  I do not know the answer to that.  It is however illegal to intimidate, but intimidating is a vague concept.  And what about all the intimidating and crimes committed by BLM rioting looters, uh, peaceful protesters according to the MSM?  Aren’t some of them also hate crimes?  Why doesn’t the free press report on those crimes too?  

Alternate opinions to those promoted by the press ought to have been included in the report.  

Hill could have encouraged readers to submit such opinions, but she did not.  Perhaps she could have educated readers with facts and statistics that do or do not support the victim’s opinion of ubiquitous anti-black racism on Cape Cod, which is nothing more than an echo of BLM ideology.  The enemies of ideology, of course, are REASON, LOGIC, and FACTS.    Ideology is killing the free press from within.  Hill obviously supports Freedom of the Press, since the only photo of her available on Google depicts her wearing a teeshirt with those very words on it.  But there can really be no such thing if Hill and the press in general continue to mimic Pravda.   So, what might happen if I placed a sign, ALL LIVES MATTER, or worse yet, WHITE LIVES MATTER, on my front lawn?  Would my house be burned down?  Or would Princeton part-time teacher BLM advocate Claira Janover hunt me down and stab me?  “The next person who has the caucasity [sic] to say all lives matter, I’m gonna stab you!  I’m gonna stab you!” she declared on social media.  If anything, Janover serves as an egregious example of the utter failure of the very idea of multiculturalism.  Nonviolent?  Hmm.  Am I even permitted in this Age of Linguistic Multiculti Control to write such a hypothetical deed?  Or might that too be considered a hate crime?

NB:  I cc’d the essay to Northeastern University journalism professor Dan Kennedy.  His response was the following.

From: Dan Kennedy <dan.kennedy@northeastern.edu>

Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 9:40 AM

To: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Cc: jhill@capecodonline.com <jhill@capecodonline.com>; Hilljhill@capecodonline.com <Hilljhill@capecodonline.com>; asubhas@whoi.edu <asubhas@whoi.edu>; jlipkin@capecodonline.com <jlipkin@capecodonline.com>; abrennan@capecodonline.com <abrennan@capecodonline.com>

Subject: Re: Jessica Hill and Adam Subhas satirized in a new P. Maudit cartoon, etc.

 

My response:

Zzzzzzz.

DK

Dan Kennedy

Professors as Information Censors

On a l’impression que le dessin est de moins en moins toléré, que c’est une forme d’expression qui, même au sein des médias, est encombrante. Un peu trop atypique, un peu trop libre…  Même dans les grands journaux, les dessins deviennent extrêmement consensuels, il n’y a pas beaucoup de prise de risque éditoriale, les dessins deviennent un peu insipides.  [You get the impression that cartooning has become less and less tolerated, that it’s a form of expression which, even in the heart of the media, is burdensome.  A bit too uncommon, a little too free…  Even in the big newspapers, cartoons have become extremely consensual, there’s not much editorial risk taking, the cartoons become a bit insipid.  —trans gts]

—Riss, editor of Charlie Hebdo

It is the fifth anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist massacre.  Are Northeastern University students aware of that?  As an alumnus of NU and out of respect for the murdered cartoonists, I request that the student editors of The Huntington News override the decision made by one of their professors, Dan Kennedy, to censor information.  Indeed, Professor Kennedy refused to circulate to his students a cartoon (see wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2020/01/democracy-under-siege.html), which I’d sketched satirizing The Boston Globe.  I’d sent it to the columnists depicted in the cartoon, as well as to the editor and several other journalists.  In a separate email, I’d also sent it to Professor Kennedy, who teaches in the School of Journalism.

To Professor Dan Kennedy, Northeastern University:

It is highly likely you will choose NOT to present the attached cartoon to your Northeastern University journalist students… and that would represent in a nutshell your problem as a professor of journalism.  Why not address it, instead of ignoring it?  

Professor Kennedy was the only one who responded.  For that, I praise him.  From my experience, The Boston Globe tends to ignore/censor hardcore criticism with its regard, something that clearly ought to be a focus for professors of journalism.  Professor Kennedy’s response was brief.

Hi, George —

I like the one of me and Renée Loth much better.

No, I won't be presenting it to my students. It's puerile.

DK

Apropos, the other cartoon, which Professor Kennedy refers to and also refused to circulate amongst his students can be examined here:  wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2020/01/renee-loth-and-dan-kennedy.html.  I just posted it.  “Oh, my God, this cartoon is fantastic,” had written the professor, but again he would not circulate it amongst his students.  In 2013, I’d posted a different cartoon again satirizing the professor, and again he would not circulate it amongst his students (see wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2013/07/rosanna-cavannah-and-dan-kennedy.html).  Moreover, last June I’d posted an “Open Letter to Northeastern University School of Journalism.”  Not one NU professor would circulate the letter to his or her students.  In fact, The Huntington News would not respond.  It can be examined here:  wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2019/06/northeastern-university-school-of.html.  

In any case, rather than issue a general kill-the-messenger message-killing epithet, “puerile,” why not instead contemplate precisely what points are made in the cartoon, then via reason and fact prove the points faulty.  That should be precisely what a professor and any thinking individual does.  But when one is bound by ideology and/or career connections, one tends NOT to do that.  Sadly, to dismiss a message that one does not like with a simple epithet has become a common practice today.  Hopefully, professors are not teaching and encouraging it.  

Was Professor Kennedy’s a worthy response?  Shouldn’t his students be able to make their own determinations?  Should professors serve as academic censors of information?  In essence, would the cartoon NOT encourage debate amongst students of journalism?  And isn’t vigorous debate a prime cornerstone of a thriving democracy, even at a school of journalism?  For a professor to dismiss the clear message in the cartoon as “puerile” is troubling.  

How perchance is it “puerile,” for example, to openly criticize a highly-biased newspaper’s refusal to publish anything highly critical of its editor?  How perchance is it “puerile” to quote the puerile statements of two of its columnists, while simultaneously presenting the newspaper’s latest self-vaunting focus, “Democracy Under Siege”?  Indeed, how does publishing such puerile columns like “Miss Conduct” and “Love Letters” serve to solve the democracy-under-siege problem evoked by the Boston Globe?  How does the latter’s rejection of hardcore criticism/satire like that presented in the cartoon solve the democracy-under-siege problem?  How is it possible that Professor Kennedy seems incapable of grasping these fundamental questions?   Might the Boston Globe constitute one of the hands feeding him?  Any careerist, academic or other, knows and obeys the basic career taboo:  thou shalt not bite the hands that feed.  

How is it “puerile” to criticize/satirize the Boston Globe as a likely contributor to the democracy-under-siege problem?  Might Professor Kennedy (like him or not is irrelevant!) also be a contributor to the problem?  If so, that would explain his dismissal of the satire as “puerile,” thus not worthy of his students’ attention.  Newspapers, like the Boston Globe, publish satirical cartoons, but not when the satire targets them.  With good-taste censors like Professor Kennedy in academic positions and Globe Editor McGrory in journalism positions, democracy will remain under siege.  In fact, one must wonder what Brian McGrory and his journalist colleagues think democracy is.  Do they think it is implementation of ideology, restriction of freedom of expression, and limited debate in accord with the parameters of their particular ideology?  

Finally, for several decades now, as a Northeastern alumnus, I have tried in vain to get the library directors at the university to subscribe (only $20/year) to The American Dissident, a 501c3 nonprofit journal devoted to literature, democracy and dissidence.   So, how can Northeastern, year after year, ask me to contribute money?  Well, instead, I will now contribute a free subscription, but only if the librarian in charge assures that issues will be placed on the shelf and not thrown into the garbage.  The cartoon in question will appear in the next issue of the journal due out in April.  If the librarian in charge accepts the offer, then Professor Kennedy’s students will be able to circumvent his censorship of information and make their own determinations as to the worthiness or unworthiness of that particular expression of freedom of speech.  And the same goes, if the student newspaper editor decides to publish it.  

The American Dissident, unlike the bulk of journals and newspapers, not only brooks tough criticism regarding it and its editor (me), but encourages and publishes the harshest received in each and every issue.  How sad that the Boston Globe rejects that modus operandi, de facto preferring “democracy under siege.”  How about The Huntington News?  Journalism constitutes a part of the democracy-under-siege problem in America.   If it continues to deny that fact, as it tends to do, how can that possibly help resolve the problem?  If student journalists continue in that darkness, how can that help resolve the problem?   In the realm of journalism, careerism and ideology, which ineluctably oppose truth and reason, constitute two of the prime culprits.  

Riss concludes (see above quote), “I think that free expression is in itself a sufficiently fundamental value, which has a future if cartoonists have the courage to inject into their drawings courage and strength.  If it’s only to present nice cartoons which upset nobody, they might as well not sketch at all.”  [« Je pense que la liberté d’expression est déjà une valeur fondamentale suffisante.  Ce genre a de l’avenir si les dessinateurs ont le courage de donner à leur dessin de la force. Si c’est juste pour faire de l’illustration et des dessins gentils qui ne dérangent personne, autant ne rien dessiner du tout » —trans gts]

In sincerity, again, I thank Professor Kennedy for responding… because from his brief criticism, I was inspired to write this essay.  Please, professors, avoid the epithets and embrace vigorous debate and freedom of expression, democracy’s cornerstones.  

Renee Loth and Dan Kennedy

Democracy Under Siege

Northeastern University School of Journalism

Open Letter to 
Northeastern University School of Journalism

Against the taboo, I dared question and challenge Dan Kennedy, Associate Journalism Professor at Northeastern University’s School of Journalism.  Unlike most writers, I always seek to push the envelope.  Truth, not career, is my modus operandi.   I criticized Professor Kennedy’s praise of Boston Globe columnist Renée Loth as “…one of the city’s most accomplished journalists…” and directed the professor to my criticism of Loth, “What Is a Journalist?”  “The fundamental flaw in journalist Renée Loth’s Boston Globe op-ed, “Julian Assange may be a hero to some, but he’s no journalist,” is its failure to define what precisely constitutes a journalist.  Does egregious bias define journalist today?”

To my surprise, the professor actually responded, though quite briefly, and not at all regarding my criticism.  The Boston Globe has yet to publish any of my critiques, regarding its editor, Renée Graham, Loth, Jeff Jacoby et al.  If the Globe were indeed such “powerful journalism on tap,” why can it NOT bear to be questioned and challenged, as I have done periodically?   In fact, the same applies to the School of Journalism and its professors!  

Well, I praised Professor Kennedy for actually responding, which in itself was quite rare in the buffered world of academe.  As a former professor, I am all too aware of that sad—very sad—world, where freedom of speech and real vigorous debate, democracy’s cornerstones, are not at all cherished.  Part of our very brief debate concerned the lack of contact information for Loth.  The professor explained that absence, stipulating Loth to be a “freelancer.”  Well, perhaps one day all the columnists would be “freelancers” and thus fully buffered from outside criticism. The professor also argued, interestingly, that op-eds like Loth’s were somehow independent of the editor:  

Your comments about McGrory indicate that you have no idea how a large newspaper operates. The editor and the editorial-page editor (Shirley Leung, who's interim) both report directly to the publisher, John Henry. Good newspapers separate the news and opinion operations, which is why McGrory has nothing to do with what appears on the opinion pages. 

But I challenged that statement:  “However, does not the publisher have any say at all in the selection of the editor?” I wrote.  “And if indeed he or she does, then how can ‘op-ed’ism’ be truly independent, as you seem to indicate it to be?”  Clearly, for example, most of the op-eds appearing in the New York Times tend to be largely—very largely—in line with the editor’s points of view.  But again, this is a deflection from my criticism.  Why did Professor Kennedy choose to ignore the egregious faults I’d underscored in Loth’s op-ed (as well as in Graham’s racist op-eds)… and thus the conflict of his praise?  

Sadly, journalism seems to have become a milieu of backslapping and self-congratulating.  Does the School of Journalism even discuss that fundamental problem?  Why will Professor Kennedy NOT, as I suggested, expose his students to the criticism I periodically lodge against journalists, often in The American Dissident, a journal of literature, democracy and dissidence?  Silence was his response.  Will silence also be the response of the purportedly independent Huntington News?  [Indeed, that was the response!]

One major conflict of interest is rarely ever evoked, for evident reasons:  CAREERISM vs. TRUTH.  The two, far more often than not, simply do not mesh.  Because I have always chosen TRUTH, my CAREER as a professor eventually terminated… and I’d have it no other way.  Well, I put that quandary to Professor Kennedy:  “And if you think they can [go together], then please, oh, please, tell me why you don’t seem to give a damn about NU’s horrendous speech-code rating, issued by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.”  In effect, how can journalism thrive in such an ambiance?  The professor did not respond.  Does The Huntington News give a damn that NU was designated Speech Code of the Month in November?   [Apparently, it doesn’t give a damn!]  Did it even report on that?  

Sadly, it seems that silence is indeed golden at NU.  The old student newspaper did not respond to my 2005 email.  

Dear Staff, The Northeastern University Voice:  

Your student newspaper does not sound like a newspaper at all.  It sounds like an organ of NU propaganda.  Is that what they teach in your school of journalism?  Why not publish the attached cartoon I did on your president with this email?  Show some backbone!  Show an openness to criticism, free speech, and vigorous debate, cornerstones of democracy.  BTW, I am class of 1972.  I expect not even a response from you.  So, surprise me!  

In 2012, I sent the following:

To First Amendment Center at Northeastern University, Journalism Professor Walter V. Robinson:   

As an NU alumnus, class of 72, can you possibly help me?  Might you know of a pro-bono lawyer?  On June 19, 2012, I was permanently trespassed w/o warning or due process by Sturgis Library director, Lucy Loomis.  The library is publicly funded.  Loomis was apparently angered especially by two letters I’d sent to the directors in the library system the week before.  The letters were partially critical of Loomis, but were written as a last ditch effort to get just one library in the system to subscribe to The American Dissident.   Three police officers accompanied the director to escort me out of the building. One of the cops grabbed and twisted my arm then frisked me because I'd simply asked why three cops were necessary and stated I did not have a weapon.  No written document for the order was issued.  The police report fails to stipulate the duration of the order.   It is ever astonishing to me that a library director could be so scornful of free speech.  One of my subscribers set up the following page on his website regarding my case:  http://sturgisbansdissident.blogspot.com/.  Thank you for your attention.

Well, there was a response, though from Larry Laughlin.  We corresponded a bit, then Laughlin simply and totally disappeared.  Then in 2015, I wrote:

To Justin Silverman, Executive Director, New England First Amendment Center, 

Is there a reason why my alma mater, Northeastern University, would house an organization with your name when said organization proves apathetic to the following? 

Presumption of innocence, as you surely know, is supposed to be a fundament of justice.  Yet I was NOT even charged with anything.  Sturgis Library (Barnstable, MA) director Lucy Loomis simply sentenced me by permanent banning on June 19, 2012, one week after I’d disseminated a critical Open Letter to the directors of the Clams Library System of Cape Cod.  When I asked Loomis for a written document stipulating my crime, the request was rejected.  When I asked for due process, the request was also rejected.  (When I’d offered a free subscription to The American Dissident, the offer was rejected.) 

A FOIA demand made by a friend was approved nine months after the banning by the State Secretary of Records, who then mandated/forced Loomis to open her (i.e., Sturgis Library) records to the public. The only pertinent document in those records was an email Loomis had sent to trustee Ted Lowry, noting that her drastic action was “for the safety of staff and the public.”  Yet I’d NEVER threatened anybody and have no police record!  In fact, I’ve got a doctoral degree and have been a professor for much of my working life.  Almost three years later, not one staff member has been threatened by me and I have not set foot on Loomis’ fiefdom.  How easy it is for corrupt-minded people like Loomis to play the he’s- a-danger-to-society card—no proof needed!  

Today, my civil rights are being denied in Barnstable, since I am not permitted to attend any cultural or political events held at my neighborhood library, the one my taxes help support.  Not one person in Barnstable County has expressed an iota of concern.  In vain, I contacted so many pathetic apathetic people from Town Manager Tom Lynch to County Human Rights Commissioner John Reed, state reps Cleon Turner and Brian Mannal, town councilor Ann Canedy, town attorney Ruth Weil, Susan Corcoran (ACLUM), and Karen Wulf (PEN New England).  Editors Paul Pronovost (Cape Cod Times) and Noah Hoffenberg (Barnstable Patriot) both refuse to publish anything regarding any of this.  Why?  Recently, I requested Loomis and library trustees reconsider the permanent trespass penalty for exercise of freedom of expression.  Not one of them deigned to respond.  

Now, would you please reconsider your past pathetic apathy regarding the above facts and help me regain my civil rights and thus prove that freedom of speech when pertaining to institutions that serve a public function must not be punished, especially without due process?  

Thank you for your hopeful attention.  

Well, Silverman responded, but eventually also disappeared.  In October of 2017, I sent the following:  

To Exec. Dir. Jack McCorkie, Office of Alumni Relations, and Amy Lewontin, Collection Development, Northeastern University:

A couple of years ago, maybe three or four, The American Dissident was put on your short list for periodical acquisitions.  Of course, I haven’t heard a word from you.  In fact, as an NU alumnus (Class of '72), it has almost been two decades of my periodically trying in vain to interest you in subscribing.  

How can NU expect me to donate money as an alumnus, when you will not even subscribe ($20/yr) to the unique 501c3 nonprofit literary journal I’ve been publishing since 1998?  Please do give that a thought next time you call me on the telephone asking for a donation...

No response was ever received.

Rosanna Cavanagh, Dan Kennedy