Notes on the NEJAR interview with Peter Schumann

As noted earlier, Greg Cook interviewed both Peter Schumann and myself regarding Bread and Puppet's recent show at the Boston Center for the Arts and the controversies surrounding his recent work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In his email interview of me, excerpts of which appear both on this site and on the New England Journal of Aesthetic Research, Cook asked me to respond to some of Schumann's statements.

There were also a series of questions that Cook posed during a face to face conversation on February 1st, which while not transcribed, were thought-provoking and I will attempt to explore these issues as I comment on some of Schumann's other statements. Boldface italics represent Cook's questions; plain italics represent Schumann's responses. The first quotes come from part two of the NEJAR interview:

Well, it’s something that we can’t talk about because it’s so electric. It’s very difficult to even begin a discussion. It seems like you’re consciously going there because of that.

Yeah, I think it’s unfairly so. I think it’s awful that the Western community does not interfere with what Israel’s doing as an occupation force. The Western community does not do anything about it. They don’t even speak up against it. They don’t do anything. They basically serve as the Israeli propaganda for the events there. They give us what the embedded reporters give us from Iraq, which is the picture of the perpetrators.

I'm not certain as to which "Western community" Schumann refers. Given such incidents as the British Broadcasting Corporation's 2002 reports of a "Jenin Massacre" in which hundreds of non-combatants were allegedly slaughtered, was later dispelled as propaganda, it would seem that the largest news agency in the world has for some time been serving as anti-Israeli propaganda. In addition, we can look at the failed attempt to sponsor a boycott of Israel by the National Union of Journalists (a union that serves journalists in both the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland.) Neither conform to the picture Schumann presents. Indeed, if we examine the media of most other Western nations, it is quite probable that we will see quite the opposite of a pro-Israeli bias (I haven't done such a study, and clearly, neither has Schumann-- however the Anti-Defamation League has done a study of European attitudes.) Indeed, this claim that "The Western community [...] serve[s] as [...] Israeli propaganda" seems very similar to the old canard of Jewish or Zionist control of the media.

[Your critics]seem to say your work doesn’t represent that the Israelis are doing this to fight terrorism from the Palestinians. And so that by not representing the Israelis’ problems you’re being unfair.

I don’t know. It’s like when you go to any war naturally the guerillas who rise up against occupation forces are to be blamed for atrocities they commit, but that’s not on the same page with the atrocity of the occupation. Take an extreme case like the Nazis in Poland. Naturally what the Polish and the Russian guerillas probably did against the Nazi soldiers was probably pretty horrible, dismembering them or burning them or putting them into cement walls, or whatever they could to, probably, to punish them. Is that on the same page as the very fact of the invasion?

Leaving aside that Schumann is again comparing Israelis with Germans (which he claims not to be doing) he is conflating the distinction between guerilla warfare and terrorism. Guerilla warfare is generally understood to be the tactics used by small mobile armed groups against larger, less mobile military organizations. Terrorism, on the other hand, is violence against civilians in order to pursue ideological or political objectives, often by irregular forces. While both are acts of violence, it is terrorism, not guerrilla warfare, that the Israeli government considers an obstacle to peace with an entity representing Palestine.

However, this conflation of guerilla warfare with terrorism, is just one conflation among many-- such as the likening of the West Bank Wall with the Warsaw Ghetto Wall, that is, the likening of a non-lethal anti-terrorist strategy with a tool of genocide, that first inspired my parting company with Bread and Puppet, criticism from Rabbi Joshua Chasan, criticism by arts writer, Ric Kasini Kadour, and ultimately a breakdown in civility at last year's ArtHop in Burlington, Vermont.

The other disturbing element of this answer is the repeated word "probably" in the phrase, "what the Polish and the Russian guerillas probably did against the Nazi soldiers was probably pretty horrible, dismembering them or burning them or putting them into cement walls." [My emphasis.] No doubt such behavior would be against the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, but rather than state such atrocities did occur, or that there were contemporary reports of such actions, he stated that such acts of sadism probably happened.

There is no ethical excuse for any of this violent dealings and revenging and so on. There isn’t. Ethically this is wrong. But a state always takes exemptions from these ethics. So as the U.S. does. And so does Israel. It’s a fascist democracy just like the U.S. is. And these fascist democracies that are not real democracies, but fake democracies, they do as they wish. They build their ethics with the help of ethics professors as they go. They just have to find the right ethics professors, and they do all the time. They pay enough and so they find another ethics professor. That’s the sad story.

This is an interesting quote because it forces us to ask several questions of Schumann: If there is no ethical excuse for revenge, then why the opposition to the West Bank Wall, which barring a working peace settlement, is the only non-lethal means of short circuiting any perceived cycle of revenge currently on the table? What are the criteria by which the U.S. and Israel are fascist, not real democracies? If that is the case, are the forces against which Israel is defending itself democratic and anti-fascist? What is the model for "real democracy?" How is this fable of "searching for the right ethics professor" different than Schumann's own pronouncements on truth and ethics?

The sad thing is that "Fascism" has become little more than an epithet and that is precisely how Schumann uses the word-- instead of as an analytical tool to describe ideologies or systems of governance. (Umberto Eco has an excellent essay that attempts to restore some meaning to the term.) However, this an on-going problem with Schumann's rhetoric, as evidenced in this quote from the first part of the interview on NEJAR:

[...]as the show shows [...] Guantanamo is the logical result of the prevailing consumerism and capitalism in its shape as it is right now. It’s not illogical, it’s not an aberration, it’s a totally logical result of that. So I’m saying the School of the Americas or Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo are not ‘rotten apples,’ as Bush called them, but are directly philosophically correct, pin-pointable climaxes of the system.

While I would certainly agree with Schumann that the torture and rendition programs are not aberrations to an otherwise functioning system, as they have been, time and time again, demonstrated to be the direct result of government policy, it is absurd to say that the institutions of torture, "secret" prisons, and detention without due process are products of either capitalism or consumerism. Feudal, communist, fascist and tribal societies have all tortured and held prisoners without due process. The phenomenon is unchecked power over human bodies, and as shown by philosophers from Friedrich Nietzsche to Michel Foucault, there is neither a singular rationale nor a singular meaning. Societies always include elements of the societies that precede them. If capitalism uses torture as a tool, it is because it follows and interacts with societies that have used torture as a tool.

"Stalinist Clown" Strikes Back!

[Notice: George Tod Slone and The American Dissident do not have permission to quote this blog or any other writings of mine in either digital or print editions without either proper citations or links to the appropriate URL. Due to Slone’s improper usage of quotations, I will no longer be responding to him via email or any other non-public forum. I will only respond to G. Tod Slone either through this blog or through a venue moderated, edited, published, or archived by a third party.]

Part I

This past week, Doug Holder handed me a copy of the latest print edition of The American Dissident (Issue 15, Summer/Fall 2007) a publication and website published by Professor G. Tod Slone. Slone reproduced an email criticizing a cartoon he produced under the pseudonym of “P. Maudit” in which he referred to poets Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Andrei Codrescu as fascists. He also reproduced his initial reply and accompanied it with the URL of the cartoon in which he lampooned me.

However, even though I had allowed him to post to my blog, he did not provide a URL for my reply to the cartoon, nor did he acknowledge that this was part of a longer conversation, nor that I had rebutted many of his claims. This is intellectual dishonesty on his part.

As of this writing he has posted some of the correspondence in which I critique his cartoon of me, however, he does not provide a link to my full response nor is this correspondence mentioned in the print edition. He also states that I "[come] off as a rather passionless eunuch" though this photograph indicates that I am neither.

Due to Slone’s unwillingness to give an accurate account, and his tendency to take quotations out of context, twist them often until they have become non-sequiturs, I will no longer be responding to Slone except on my blog or in public fora that provide transparency. Slone is free to submit posts to my blog. If he chooses to continue quoting me, however, it will be with the understanding that he will provide proper citations to either a URL or to a print publication.

While Slone does not appear to think me qualified to criticize him or his work, he has spent much time being quite vague as to which of my criticisms he finds disagreeable. To reiterate, I contend that:

a.) Slone’s cartoons are often poorly drawn.

b.) Slone’s cartoons are rarely funny, unlike the work of Jim Behrle, whose material cuts much closer to the bone of the contemporary poetry scene.

c.) Slone deliberately takes quotations out of context.

d.) Slone makes slanderous claims i.e. "Andrei Codrescu and Lawrence Ferlinghetti are fascists" yet refuses to substantiate this when asked for evidence.

e.) Slone does not substantiate his claims of corruption within the academic-literary world with concrete evidence as done by the now defunct foetry.

f.) Slone routinely redefines words like "fascist" and “Stalinist” to a point where they begin to lose meaning.

g.) Slone’s constant use of terms like "fascist", and "Stalinist" to describe his critics, use of the word, "dissident" to describe himself, frequent accusations of conspiracy between his critics and other perceived enemies, claims to speak "the rude truth," et cetera closely resemble the rhetorical devices of political extremists.

h.) Slone’s coulrophobia (irrational hatred of clowns—specifically directed towards me) indicates that he has a major gap in his understanding of Western literary and theatrical traditions. To which I have had to point out to him that William Shakespeare, Molière, Fredrico Garcia Lorca, and Dario Fo, all wrote for clowns and at least two (possibly all four) of them performed as clowns.

Part II

To summarize the current status on my disagreement with G. Tod Slone (something he will not honestly reproduce or refer to in his own account in the pages of either the print or on line editions of The American Dissident. I will publish an email I wrote on April 24th, 2007 in response to an email Slone wrote earlier that day. Quotations are from that email. Bracketed glosses are my own to enhance readibility. Links have been added.

Professor Slone:

To begin: I suggest you refrain from attributing to me view-points that I do not espouse. Strawman arguments only work when the intended target is incapable of responding.

> how do you explain that my [Codrescu and Ferlinghetti] cartoon
> provoked such hostility on your part?

I would hardly call my comportment towards you "hostility", but since you ask why I so objected to your cartoon regarding Codrescu and Ferlinghetti, I will spell it out again:

1.) I have been engaged in an examination of European political extremism in general, and fascism in particular.

2.) I consider fascism to be an ideology [hostile] to the basic democratic institutions that I value.

3.) While it is important to identify fascist ideology and policies where they exist, it is irresponsible at best and slanderous at worst to accuse individuals of being fascists or espousing fascist when nothing in their behavior indicates this.

4.) You accused Codrescu and Ferlinghetti of being fascists.

5.) You have not once provided evidence to substantiate your claims, despite multiple requests.

Such willy-nilly labeling of anyone one does not like as "fascist" is a rhetorical strategy used on the extreme left. Essentially, I viewed that cartoon as an unethical smear.

Furthermore, your immediate response to my criticism was to liken me to a "Stalinist"-- which, interestingly enough, is a rhetorical strategy generally used by the extreme right when facing criticism.

This is not to say that you are of the extreme right or of the extreme left, as I do not get the impression that you have a clear ideological position.

In fact, you appear to redefine the word "fascist" to conveniently mean whatever suits you at any given moment, which undermines your credibility to speak on political matters.

Again, this is the crux of my argument with you. All other tangents are of your creation-- and I regard [them] as just that: tangential.

In fact, most of the interest I have in your case is as a "control sample" that I can use in comparison to political extremists, in that you use the similar rhetorical strategies but are largely lacking in any coherent ideological content. I am able to examine your rhetoric and never run the risk of being offended by anything but your affronts to logic and evidence.

> I don't think I
> ever met you at those Stone Soup gatherings,

To my knowledge, we never met, and I do not believe I became aware of you until long after I parted ways with Stone Soup. I have stated as such. In fact, I only became aware of you because Doug Holder is a fan of your cartoons and likes to show them to people.

> To mix clown and poet to form clown-poet can
> only diminish the poet part.

Evidently, you are unfamiliar with the work of William Shakespeare, Molière, Fredrico Garcia Lorca, and Dario Fo, to name but a few. It is sad that a learned man such as yourself is so ignorant of Western theatrical and literary traditions. You are too sanctimonious and self-serious to be a good comedian-- so it's for the best that you have never played the clown.

> what is your foet connection?

I read the website at times. I mostly confine myself to the articles that document conflict of interest and cronyism, and have twice (to my memory) read the forums. I do not recall ever posting there. Sorry to bust your bubble, Foetry happens to provide more information about cronyism and patronage in the literary-academic establishment than The American Dissident.

> Why do you keep your blog blocked for members only?

I do not. My blog is set so anyone can comment. Before answering your question, I even checked to see if I had unintentionally blocked it. If you are having technical problems, it probably has to do with your computer or your ISP. However, I will check with blogspot.com tech support to see if there is an error on their end.

[Note: There appeared to be no such error at work, and Slone was able to post.]

> It is quite simple and the evidence that 50 lit journals
> rejected that manuscript of mine is, like it or not,
> definitely a form of proof of that assertion [that
> academic literati are entirely closed to critique.]
> If the manuscript was so bad, as no doubt you would
> declare, why would a stranger have paid $150 to
> publish it? That also, like it or not, is a form
> of proof.

My studies of political extremism also shows that non-academic presses are very happy to pay for articles that fit their own ideological preferences especially when the author claims to have been persecuted or censored by the establishment. However, these articles are often not supported by either a coherent argument or a convergence of evidence-- and thus would not be considered for publication in an academic journal, which is seen as proof that the author and the non-academic press that publishes the work are the targets of a conspiracy amongst the 50 academic journals. 50 is a rather large statistical sample of literary journals and it would seem that if the article was of merit, it would have been accepted for publication is at least one journal. I find it more believable that the article was either sent to the wrong journals or seriously flawed.

Again, I have no reason to believe that you are a political extremist. You just use similar rhetorical strategies.

> I accept your criticism of that cartoon,
> though evidently, it cannot be an objective
> critique since you are its very object.

My criticisms were:

1.) That the technique was lacking,

2.) The quote was out of context,

3.) There were far more interesting options that could have been taken had the cartoonist had greater technical prowess (indeed I pointed out that some of the choices you made appear to be to "make up" for your lack of technique.)

4.) That I was not insulted.

1.) and 2.) are objective. 3.) is a matter of aesthetics, and so not objective.

Trust me, I wasn't offended by anything other than the disappointment that it was not a better cartoon.

Ian Thal

American Dissident outs Stalinist Clown!

Due to many years spent in school, first as a student, and later as a teacher, I have been the subject of a number of informally distributed cartoons and caricatures. I have even caricatured myself at times, however, for the first time to my knowledge, I have been the subject of a cartoon that another illustrator has seen fit to post to the web.

Since the cartoon first appeared I have been stopped on the street by someone who believed that I was the illustrator. Another thought I had been "outed," apparently as a wearer of red shoes.

A lie, I say; I have never owned a pair of red shoes.

(But now the thought seems ever so tempting!)

I have seen fit to respond in four parts:

Part I: In which I say the cartoon is not well drawn.

First, let us examine the cartoon:

P. Maudit is a nom de plume of George Tod Slone, Founding Editor of The American Dissident, which he describes as "A Literary Journal of Critical Thinking In the Samizdat Tradition of Writing against the Machine."

To call the artwork in a simple cartoon bad is akin to shooting the messenger in order to avoid or divert attention from the message.
- G. Tod Slone, in an email dated February 14, 2007

Maudit/Slone's cartoon is crudely drawn and clearly based on two separate photographic sources: the first is a photograph that appeared in The Boston Globe in 2004 in which I was clad and made up as a mime; The second was a portrait of me that was used as a poster for a 2002 performance at Club Passim. Oddly enough he portrays me with four fingers and a thumb on my right hand yet only three fingers and a stub on my left hand, though as of this writing, I have all ten of my digits.

Yeah, that hand sucked.
- G. Tod Slone, ibid.

Slone's inability to render the human form (even a caricature of the human form) is an inability to illustrate me engaged in a genre in which I do perform. I am a mime, a clown, and a commedia dell'arte performer: essentially, my ability to control my body is just as much, if not more, important to my stagecraft than my oratory skills. However, due to his miniscule technique, Slone/Maudit is reduced to portraying me using a microphone at a stand-up comedy venue.

Though I have nothing against stand-up comedians, imagine the comic possibilities if the cartoon portrayed me engaged in my typical stage antics! We could have seen:

1.) Ian Thal in a knot as twisted as his logic!

2.) Ian Thal manipulating an object in an inappropriate manner as he utters a mixed metaphor, non sequitur, or illogical statement!

3.) Ian Thal debating a hand puppet!

4.) a hand puppet agreeing with Ian Thal!

5.) Ian Thal engaged in any of the stereotypical mime routines such "trapped in a glass box" or "tug-o-war" just to show that his arguments are illusionary!

6.) Ian Thal in tights—thus allowing some vulgar humor about his buttocks or "package"!

7.) Ian Thal in a dress!

These are but several suggestions. There are many other possibilities that more talented cartoonists would have chosen had they wanted to lampoon me.

Part II: In which I refute any doubt that I am a clown.

Because the cartoonist represents me speaking as a book critic (something I have not done for a few years) while dressed as a clown sans make-up, one can only conclude that the humor is meant to hinge on the incongruity of being a clown and a critic.

I for one find it pitiful that a poet would choose to masquerade as a clown. It simply emphasizes what little respect Thal holds for the métier…
- G. Tod Slone, ibid.

I do not masquerade as a clown. As anyone familiar with my performances can attest: I am a clown. I am proud to be a clown. I am a serious about clowning, its history, and traditions. In my stage work, I hope to honor the many great clowns who came before me: the countless zanni of the commedia dell'arte, Shakespeare's fleet of fools, and kitchen servants, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers, Bill Irwin, Mump & Smoot, Dario Fo, and (despite a recent matter that resulted in my quitting a production) Peter Schumann.

Clowning is serious business, it is the theatrical art of absurdity, be that the absurdity of our existence, our passions, our endeavors, or our society. Indeed, I find nothing incompatible with my roles as a clown and those of poet, or critic.

Since Slone likes cartooning, I would recommend Joe Lee's The History of Clowns for Beginners. The illustrations are excellent.

So while the insult intended, the bolt has missed the targeted fool.

Most importantly, though, the quote is completely out of context.

Part III: In which I do recount a quarrel upon a lie seven times removed.

How is it that I came to be the subject of Doctor Slone's wrath?

Doug Holder, publisher of the Ibbetson Street Press, brought my attention to a cartoon in which Slone, as "P. Maudit", labeled poets Andrei Codrescu and Lawrence Ferlinghetti as "fascists." I recognized this as a slur, and malicious untruth.

Fascism is an extremist nationalist ideology that celebrates unchecked authoritarianism, a conception of masculine sexuality defined by militarism and violent potential, populist rhetoric combined with contempt for democratic institutions, and contemptuousness for Enlightenment traditions of human dignity and rational inquiry. In the aftermath of the Second World War and the Spanish Civil War, fascism has become such a despised ideology, that even politicians and pundits with fascistic leanings will refuse to be known as "fascists."

(I highly recommend Umberto Eco's essay "Ur-Fascism" which is a discussion of the fascist ideology and the family resemblance between different fascist regimes, as viewed by someone whose childhood was spent under one such regime. Note, that it is not a description of how such regimes govern—but the culture of fascists.)

Obviously, calling either Ferlinghetti or Codrescu “Fascists” is an alarming claim, as nothing in their biographies indicates anything other than anti-authoritarian and anti-militarist tendencies, and so I said so to Holder (in terms perhaps more vehement than necessary), who passed my comments on to Slone, who in turn responded by email on January 28, 2007:

It is the very attitude of the Ian Thal leftists that is destroying the left. In other words, THOU SHALT NOT CRITICIZE THE LEFT! If we heed this ban on critique of the left, how can the left possibly improve? Without criticism, there are no problems, and if there are no problems, there is no need to improve. Sounds like a good Stalinist line, no?

So rather than substantiate his claims that either Codrescu or Ferlinghetti were fascists, he likens me to a Stalinist for defending the reputation of two poets who happen to be leftists. Also note that rather than responding to criticism, he accused me of attempting to censor him. I take freedom of speech so seriously, in that I believe it includes the freedom to criticize the speech of others.

Slone claimed that both Codrescu and Ferlinghetti receive fifteen thousand dollars per speaking engagement and then, while accusing me of hero worship, quoted his own pantheon of heroes as justification for his endeavors:

…life be a counter friction to stop the machine.
- Henry David Thoreau, as quoted by Slone in an email dated January 28, 2007

Go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson, ibid.

Horseshit from the right or horseshit from the left is still horseshit.
- Pierre Falardeau, ibid.

He closed with a demand that I send him a photograph so that he could make the above cartoon. I decided that since there are enough photographs of me on the web, he could simply use Google.

Again, I pointed out to Slone that he had not substantiated his claim that Codrescu and Ferlinghetti were fascists, to which responded with a second email stating that since neither poet had been interested in Slone's criticism of their work, they clearly had fascist tendencies. He then proceeded to claim that Ferlinghetti's Doctorate was an honorary one (Lawrence Ferlinghetti earned his Doctorate from the Sorbonne in 1950, long before he was famous) and continued with his claim that there is a fascism of the left, which I have chosen not to dispute.

That some leftists are also fascists (just as some rightists are fascists) and Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are also both leftists does not necessitate that one conclude that Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are thus fascists. .

- Thal, in an email dated January 28, 2007

Slone turned the discussion to how he had been persecuted by Stone Soup Poets (a literary organization for which I briefly served in an official capacity—though I was not privy of any plans to persecute him), the Lowell Celebrates Kerouac Festival, the authorities at Walden Pond, and apparently the entire literary establishment.

On January 30, 2007 I sent a final email from which the out-of-context quotation in the cartoon appears in the final

Part IV: In which I append the email from which the cartoon takes its quotation.

Doctor Slone:

I find it amazing that it takes a day and a half to craft such a disorganized response filled with attempts to pin the behavior and opinions of others onto my person.

To answer your question regarding [my former affiliation with] Stone Soup [Poets, Inc.] :

For a literary organization to receive tax-deductible donations, and receive grants for activities such as publishing books (which Stone Soup Poetry would do sporadically) it must comply with the 501c3 regulations for non-profit organizations, grant-giving institutions and private donations are less likely to be forthcoming. Having a board of directors is one of those legal requirements-- it provides a level of accountability with regards to grants and donations.

I was elected to the board of Stone Soup in 2000. I began to dissociate myself from the board and from the organization in late 2001. While I have no interest in describing my reasons for leaving. It should be obvious that I do not want to be affiliated with said organization or the behavior of some of its officers. Obviously, they are not my "buddies."

On neither of the two visits I made to Walden Pond during that time period, [did I] witness any protesters. You and I have, to the best of my knowledge, never met. I am not party with your conflicts with the organization and some of its members and I am frankly uninterested. Far too much of my time and energies were wasted on the organization.

Stone Soup is apolitical as an organization (which it must be as a 501c3 non-profit.) Whatever political stances Jack Powers or John-Paul Pirolli (who uses an assortment of aliases, notably "Buddah" [sic]) may take, their stances do not form coherent political ideologies, and are just as likely to express right-wing sentiments as anything else. Neither of them are leftists, though I am certain you may have heard express leftist sentiments from time to time.

Like you, both men have a tendency to divide the world into "us and them" or often "me and everyone else."

* * *

>>That some leftists are also fascists
>> (just as some rightists are fascists)
>> and Ferlinghetti and Codrescu are
>> also both leftists does not necessitate
>> that one conclude that Ferlinghetti
>> and Codrescu are thus fascists.

> Clearly, that statement is accurate. Yet it is really
> irrelevant to the argument.

It is relevant, because it is the argument that I am interested in making.

I do not use the word "fascist" lightly as it is a name of an extremist ideology, and when applied to an individual who is not strictly a member of a certain constellation of extremist groups, movements, regimes, or ideologue, admirer or imitator of the former, then it closes down any form of free debate, which I consider to be essential to a democratic society.

By that standard, some of the people you name [Hilary Clinton, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, Andrei Codrescu, Lawrence Ferlinghetti] are clearly not fascists in any sense that still gives the word some meaning. Two of the folk, by my count, might be seen as fascistic from a certain point of view (but that can be debated.)

You have failed to substantiate your claim that Codrescu and Ferlinghetti are fascists. You have presented no facts, and your line of reasoning is demonstrably filled with errors.

Your ignorance of even the most commonly known biographical details of Codrescu or Ferlinghetti are laughable.

> Are you actually denying that both celebrities
> receive sizeable cachets?

No. I am just pointing out that it was the only fact that you did present, and thus, assuming it is true, and since you mentioned it, seems more likely the cause of your resentment than these unfounded accusations of fascism.

> you apparently did not read that part of
> my email stating both Codrescu and
> Ferlinghetti closed to critique.

Given the general inability you have demonstrated to state your views logically, substantiate your claims, or even state these views without invoking some self-serving tale of how the-powers-that-be are persecuting you, it gives little surprise that some people choose to ignore you. You contribute nothing to any debate.

However, since I have no details about your interactions with Codrescu or Ferlinghetti, there is nothing for me to address.

I generally address people whom I do not know personally by their title. It is an idiosyncrasy of mine-- nothing more.

It's true that many poets do not appreciate honest criticism. Doug Holder can testify to the number of angry letters that he received when I was a reviewer for Ibbetson Street Press. I don't really mind if my criticism is unpopular, but because I present my arguments in a certain manner, and I substantiate my arguments, I am generally taken seriously, even by those who disagree. I don't take your views seriously.

Make any other contrafactual assumptions you wish about my person. However, I request that you cease from insinuating that I am a Christian.

Ian Thal