[Newspoetry] second opinion

[John Wason]

>Message: 5
>Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 01:34:36 -0800
>From: Sam Markewich 2 <s7markew at earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: s7markew at earthlink.net
>To: gillespie william k <gillespi at uiuc.edu>,
>	news poetry <newspoetry at lists.groogroo.com>
>Subject: [Newspoetry] second opinion
>
>Yo William,
>	I read the piece.  Here's what I think:  Much of what the author writes
>is compelling and may well be true, even probably is true.  Certainly,
>what he states about the impending oil crisis is accurate to my
>knowledge.  Yet, his style argues against the validity of his theses, so
>it's hard for me to find credence in what he writes.  What I mean is
>this: He first legitimizes himself by telling us that he's a former
>special forces person.  He then tells us that the evidence against Bin
>Laden is shabby, yet he tells us little substantive evidence to counter
>it.  The rest of the piece is mostly his opinion, which seems to be
>formed out of a combination of his knowledge and his uncritical
>adherence to traditional socialist/leftist language (the use of the word
>fascist, blanket references to capitalism, dumbed-down critical language
>against the character of politicians, etc.).  This is highly
>problematical stylistically, as he writes his admixture of opinion and
>dogmatic language as if it were fact.  And, because his claims are so
>very plausable it's easy for me to feel and think they are indeed fact,
>expecially since he's told us he's an expert.  However, his recounting
>of the play-by-play of the hijackings and crashes demonstrates a lack of
>any real expertise on his part, as he doesn't manage at all to convince
>me that any of G.W.'s responses were wrong or dubious.  After all, he
>seems to think that anyone who is president should have some instant and
>proficient way to respond to such a series of events.  Yet, he doesn't
>tell us why that would be so.  Then, when he ends with a quotation by
>Luxemburg juxtaposing socialism with barbarism I know something isn't
>right here.  Not that I disagree with the quotation, but it really has
>no tight formal relationship to the particular writing offered here and
>in fact could be an ending for almost any piece of leftist writing that
>is stylistically sloppy in the way his is.  So, while I wouldn't be
>surprised if everything the author claims is in fact the case, I also
>wouldn't take action in response to the piece as if it were true or even
>compelling enough to inform my action beyond the fact that it does state
>the obvious: that we can't at all trust that the government is telling
>us the truth, and that the mass media manufacture consent.  But, I
>already knew that, and, in fact, the stylistic limitations of any
>leftist argument written as this piece is written make little more than
>this possible to credibly assert.  I hope this second opinion helps you, dude.
>
>- Sammy

In response to both William and Sammy:

1) I'm flattered that you would dedicate a poem to me, William.

2) Sammy's 'stylistic' analysis here is fascinating, in that if suffers from
exactly the same flaws that it points out.  

As I was reading the initial piece by the Marine guy - Stan Goff, was it? -
I couldn't fail to notice that in one place he would use a pretty
sophisticated word like "excoriate", and then in another place he would
refer to "towing (sic) the line".  It sounded almost as if it was written,
in sections, by two or three different people.

But then here is Sammy Markevich the Second, coming up with a pretty
sophisticated analysis of Stan Goff's original piece and then, on the other
hand, saying things like "Yo William" and "dude".  :)

Incidentally, many years ago I dated a woman named Pat Markevich, who at the
time was 3rd runner-up in the Miss Teenage Chicago contest.  Probably no
relation, though.  :)

3) I'm a sucker for conspiracy theories.  They always have at least a ring
of truth,  And, as Carl Estabrook pointed out in the Octopus a while back,
there actually ARE conpiracies.

I've seen several other articles arguing either (a) that the U.S. destroyed
its own buildings to further its nefarious agenda, or (b) that the U.S. KNEW
ahead of time that the 'terrorist' attacks were going to happen, and did
nothing to stop it, again in furtherance of its own agenda.  I don't know
whether either scenario is true, but compelling evidence has been advanced
for each theory.

Regardless of which details of Stan Goff's essay are true or not true, I
know that the titans of Capital, of multinational corporations, have an
agenda.  The agenda involves oil, among other things.  And the agenda does
not serve the best interests of ordinary people.  Bush and his cohorts are a
part of that cabal of Big Capital and Big Oil.

For at least 10 years I have referred to Ronald Reagan and Chief Justice
William Rehnquist as the twin Spawns of Satan.  Reagan's philosophy and
policies ushered in the end of a brief golden age of expanding civil
liberties, and the beginnings of total corporate hegemony.  Rehnquist has
presided over Supreme Court rulings that have furthered that agenda. All
successive Presidents have done is to continue and consolidate Reagan's
agenda, and Rehnquist continues to preside over the dismantling of our civil
liberties.  Congress has been too wimpy to do much of anything over than
just go along with the program.

I don't know what we as ordinary citizens can do about it, but I agree with
Stan Goff that the time is now or never.  I see the handwriting clearly on
the wall indicating a radical alteration, for the worse, in life as we have
known it.  But then, I've always been a pessimist.

John