[Newspoetry] verdict
gillespi
gillespi at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Sat Jul 13 22:14:43 CDT 2002
Dear the Public I,
Your latest issue (2:6) was well worth reading, and I have read every
word. It is only at the insistence of the wonderful Belden Fields that I write
this letter. Specifically, he is calling upon me to do my civic jury duty and
determine whether the Bush administration is innocent or guilty of the
crime of engineering the recent attempted coup in Venezuela. His
argument for the guilt of the Bush administration seems to rest upon the
following evidence: the coverage of the coup was skewed in our national
corporate press, which seemed to follow the lead of the Bush
administration; the temporarily ousted Hugo Chavez had made himself
unpopular with the Bush administration for a number of reasons, which
can be summarized as disobedience; the U.S. has a history of
engineering antidemocratic coups, especially in Latin America; and three
appointees of the Bush administration (Assistant Secretary of State for
Latin American Affairs Otto Reich, National Security Council staff member
Elliot Abrams, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John
Negroponte) have been implicated in antidemocratic, criminal, and
terrorist activities in Latin America. As a reader, thinker, voter, and
Newspoet, I find the reasoning of Belden Fields to be quite convincing.
However, as a jury member, I have to suppress my cynicism and assume
that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, so the question is whether
the evidence presented by Mr. Fields constitutes proof. I have to conclude
that the evidence presented here is all circumstantial. The laserous
Belden Fields has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the current
administration (as well as numerous previous administrations) has the
motive and character to commit the crime of which it has been accused,
but this alone does not constitute proof that they did. Fields has proven
only that the Bush administration could have committed the crime. There
is no smoking gun, no fingerprint, no method. Since you asked.
Nevertheless, the article is fascinating and informative, and it would not
surprise me if more substantial and incontrovertible evidence emerges in
time.
As long as I am writing this letter (you don't have a letters section, and
your paper seems to suffer from no compulsion to offer balanced or
opposing viewpoints, so I fear that this is just a rhetorical exercise on my
part), I thought I'd bring up my opinion of issue 2:6 in general. I have
already mentioned that I like it, and it is only because I like it that I feel
compelled to point out what I consider to be its flaws. It is my hope that
this letter will serve as input to future issues, particularly with regard to
making your arguments convincing for those who don't already agree with
them. I, for example, already agree with much of what is presented here,
but I would hope that the intended audience of the paper and its
arguments is not its writers or those who share their viewpoints, but
rather those who remain yet unconvinced, whether out of skepticism or
apathy.
The paper relies heavily on other sources, which is good, but your
formatting makes it unclear whether you are lifting passages directly from
those sources or paraphrasing. The ambiguity of this leaves you open to
charges of plagiarism (if you care, and you should), and doesn't help your
credibility in the eyes of a skeptical reader. If you are lifting paragraphs
directly from major newspapers, indicate this. Not only will this help orient
the reader as to whose words they are reading (indeed, in addition to it
being unclear whether you are quoting sources directly, many of the
articles bear no explicit authorship), but it will also protect you against
accusations of improper attribution or falsification (if you are directly
quoting a source that happens to be wrong but the reader can't tell that
the quote is direct).
Proofread. Spelling errors may be unimportant, but they are avoidable and
undermine your credibility in the eyes of those who seek reasons to
discredit your efforts. I am aware that the Public I is a volunteer-run
periodical, but none of the typos I found would have required any
professional training to spot. Unfortunately, I cannot offer my services as
proofreader at this time because I am involved in a heated disagreement
with your editor John Wason about whether "grammatic" or "grammatical"
is correct (or, more specifically, whether it makes a difference), and
whether "address poetry to power" is an appropriate or good rewording of
"speak poetry to power." (I shudder to think what corrections he would
make to this letter, but he's still a good man, a true Newspoet, and, as I
mentioned, working for free.)
Within this issue's cover story, there are a lot of arguments made, both
explicitly and implicitly, among them the argument that the Bush
administration had specific foreknowledge of the events of September
11th and allowed these events to happen, or even were somehow
responsible for engineering said events. This is a highly paranoid claim
for which there is only circumstantial evidence (as with the article by the
Belden Fields), and it bothers me to see this argument mixed in with
other paranoid arguments that are clearly and inarguably true: financial
connections between the Bush and bin Laden families, to give just one
example. Please note that I don't think paranoid arguments are
necessarily false: paranoia and veracity are separate things. For example,
it is paranoid to argue that, during the 1980s, the C.I.A., acting on orders
from the White House, facilitated the importation of tons of cocaine into
this country in order to fund an illegal terrorist war whose purpose was to
undermine a democratically elected government in a tiny country no sane
person could possibly consider a military threat, resulting in a nationwide
drug epidemic during what that same White House called a "war on
drugs," but this actually happened, and has by now been thoroughly
documented, even in reports issued by the C.I.A. itself, as well as a
government investigation that occurred quietly in the shadow of the
watery, nationally televised Iran-Contra hearings. What I am arguing for is
not less paranoia, but more separation of arguments than a reader could
get by reading your nonlinear (albeit cleverly-designed) "Who's Who" and
"Connecting the Dots" sections. I think it would have helped the
presentation (again: helped the presentation persuade the yet-
unconvinced) to have more explicit framing of facts and speculation. The
Bush administration is composed of people with ties to large oil
companies, Osama bin Laden's history is intertwined with both the Bush
family and the C.I.A., big U.S. oil has everything to gain from removing the
Taliban government, F.B.I. agents had discovered potential terrorists
enrolled in flight schools, Mohamad Atta (your spelling) was allowed to
cross our border freely with an invalid Visa: all of this is true, and as a
Newspoet, reader, and voter I am ready to expatriate A.S.A.P., but as a jury
member I have to say that this evidence, while overwhelming, still does
not prove that the Bush administration facilitated the attack on the
Pentagon and World Trade Center. I don't want to believe that they did
(though I have nothing but contempt for them), and I am not alone in this.
But this letter isn't about me, it's about your presentation. The War on
Terrorism is an act of terrorism. In order to argue that it is ferociously
unjust and even criminal to bomb one of the poorest countries in the
world because a crime may have been committed by the employees of an
individual who might live there, to argue that the removal of the Taliban
will likely have huge financial benefits for big oil companies with close
ties to the current administration, indeed even to argue for the removal of
the current unelected president and his corrupt administration on the
basis of their history of corporate and international crime, it is not
necessary to make the paranoid and ultimately unsubstantiated claim,
whether implicitly or explicitly, that the Bush administration facilitated the
events of September 11th. In so doing, you are diluting the facts, which
are frightening enough.
Nevertheless, I remain:
Your devoted reader,
William Gillespie
More information about the Newspoetry
mailing list