[Newspoetry] thanks for opinions / poem take II

[gillespie william k]

[I tried to send this message to the wrong address and then forwarded the
bounced message. If this comes out in italics, or with ragged line breaks
and angle brackets I apologize]

I wanted to respond to a number of responses to the Goff piece that
were sent to me privately and through this list. I'll go out on a shaky
limb and just admit that some of the things Goff pointed out were new to
me. That oil consumption is peaking and that alternative energy sources
can't compensate for the diminishing oil reserves is a new one. To respond
to Sam, I mostly get the sense from (a stereotyped conflation of) leftist
environmentalists that we could all live happily in the suburbs using
solar power and squeaky clean natural gas, and fill our SUVs with manure
and gasahol and burning dollar bills after the peaceful demise of
capitalism. I guess I didn't (as Goff sez) "do the math." Goff also offers
explanations for US intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, two "peacekeeping
missions" for which I had no coherent official or cynical explanation.  I
*liked* the Luxemburg quote and the degree of paranoia Goff managed to
attain. It is very hard to distinguish a sound appraisal of the facts from
a "pessimistic" attitude. To help me with my attitude, I cherish those
moments when people older than me assure me that things used to be worse,
as recently as last century. There is scattered evidence that the human
race is slowly evolving and might someday become civilized.

As one newspoet helpfully pointed out, the part of the article implying
that the Bush administration, either through action or inaction, aided the
September 11th catastrophe, is the weakest part of the argument, however
(and I diverge with Sammy here) I thought it was the msot thrilling
stylistically. The intertwined narratives of the hijacked planes
approaching their targets and Bush posing for photos with the kids is, for
me, good reading. I had always suspected that the plane that hit the
Pentagon must have performed some very difficult maneuvers. The image of
the clipped telephone wires, and the use of the phrase "puddle jumpers,"
float my boat, stylistically speaking. And, to respond to John, I think it
*was* written by two different people, based on what I know about its
author. Goff seemed to have had two personalities in conflict, the military
man performing his patriotic duty, and the observant, articulate, emerging
leftist. I look forward to reading his book about Haiti, published last
year by Soft Skull press (plug) the publishers of Fortunate Son, a book
(whose first pressing was literally burned) I would stridently recommend
to anyone who wants to avoid writing the way Sam accuses Goff of writing.
It is a biography of Bush and, having read it, I would like to disagree
with Goff and make the shocking claim: Bush is not stupid. He ain't
book-smart, despite having received the best education money can buy, but
he is not so dumb as to be entirely without agency and unaccountable for
his actions. He's a dangerous criminal and should be impeached.

In response to Sam's "He then tells us that the evidence against Bin
Laden is shabby, yet he tells us little substantive evidence to counter
it." I guess this means that Goff should have provided evidence that bin
Laden was *not* responsible, but I don't agree. I think it is
acceptable to point out that someone's evidence is weak without having to
put forth evidence to prove a claim opposite to theirs, and I don't know
what evidence could prove that bin Laden was *innocent*, or how a
dissident like Goff might obtain it from the FBI. Mostly, though, I want
to know: what evidence? I read somewhere way back when that Bush had
shown some top secret evidence to Tony Blair, and that Tony Blair found
it entirely convincing. (On NPR this morning in the midst of a report from
the BBC about how Britain was basically a branch of the American federal
government (remember in Warner Brothers cartoons there was this mean
bulldog and a chihuahua that would follow it around saying "what should
we do now, boss?" until the bulldog would smack it and tell it "Aw
shuddup!"), I heard an man with an Isreali accent refer to "Tony Bleah".)
I read another article yesterday that suggested that all of this evidence
had been made publically available (and was indeed unconvincing). If this
evidence proving bin Laden's guilt and justifying the bombing of
Afghanistan has been released to us grubby masses of American citizens
whose taxes are underwriting this foreign policy adventure, I would like
to know what it is, so if anybody knows please tell me. (Or perhaps Sam
meant that Goff didn't give us any evidence that the evidence against bin
Laden was weak, which would be a fairer accusation, but still leaves open
(for me) the question: "Evidence? What evidence? Did I miss that issue of
the Tribune or what?")

It seems implicit to me that Goff thinks that Bush should have blown off
the kids, evacuated the Pentagon, and ordered the air force to take down
the hijacked planes. I don't agree, though, that Bush's failure to
respond in this way is evidence that he was aware of (or complicit in) the
terrorist strike.

To the rest of Sam's critique of Goff I would offer: better an (arguably)
unsophisticated writer for the left than, in this case, a Special Forces
Master Sergeant for the right. I'm glad to see people try to tackle
difficult topics such as capitalism and fascism, amd I don't know that
lack of writing chops is a sufficient cause for dismissing Goff's ideas.
If it seems like he's using these important ideas awkwardly, more power to
him. He probably didn't learn to write political critique in boot camp,
and gaining fluency will take time. He has shown considerable courage in
overcoming his indoctrination, and for this I respect him as much as I
do any college-trained Marxist.

I also thought I should tell John that I dedicated the poem to him solely
because I welcome his presence as a newspoet and because he publically
goaded me (you did! you did!) to write a poem, which is something that any
poet should be shyly grateful for. I have been writing newspoetry since
1995, and any lapses in output are not out of any lack of love for
news or poetry, but mostly due to some odd compulsion to spend those
precious slivers of writing time working on things that are less fun,
less satisying, and less necessary. I have to say that, after spending
time this year making progress on tedious, irrelevant longer works, writing
that newspoem was like a fresh mouthful of Halloween candy. I should also
admit that the manner in which the news screams for poetry has become
exceptionally shrill this year, and this has coincided with a sharp rise
in the apparent futility of trying to get a longer work into print, as
the publishing industry has been hurt and transformed by the tragedy of
the last few months: books about the World Trade Center, the Taliban, and
the prophecies of Nostradmus are doing quite well, but the publishing
industry as a whole has been hurt like every other industry (with some
exceptions, like the arms industry, and Bayer, those [deleted] who
profit off pharmaceuticals used for the treatment of anthrax), and also
publishers are getting afraid to even *open* (much less read with
interest) unsolicited manuscripts from unknown writers because in
addition to bad poetry there is now the risk of bioterrorism.

I digress.

William

PS As another newspoet helpfully pointed out, raw material for pipeline
poetry is available at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CON110A.print.html

PPS Here's a revision of the poem. If it is helpful in overcoming the
newspoetry deficit, I'd prefer this version be used instead of the one
sent yesterday. Because I use pine, there are some unwanted linebreaks.
These can be repaired if you know that all the stanzas save one are
three-line stanzas and the beginnings of lines are all capitalized in the
classic style :)

...

Economics 101
for John Wason

When is freedom worth killing for?
The answer, when it comes from the oil administration
Is less than convincing

When extracted from Che Guevara's
Cuban Revolutionary War diaries
It is internally consistent

The Islamic fundamentalists
(as they have been painted for us)
Have a certain Jihad

The Marxists have another

They see the apocalypse
The final struggle in which good prevails over evil
As a conflict between historic forces

Two abstract economic theories
Like two translucent gods
Are locked in battle, the people of the world taking sides behind them

The world is at war
But the Taliban are not communists
Osama bin Laden is not communist

At first glance it seems
The abstract theories at war here are theological, not economic
(And I'm complimenting it by considering it a war)

It's not clear whether America wants security, revenge, or hegemony
But if the terrorists' motives have to do with abuse of Iraq or Palestine
The conflict can be traced back to private ownership of petroleum

So, then, there are two angry gods locked in battle
With the people of the world taking sides behind them
If our god prevails it will weep tears of oil upon us

Not about communism, but national sovereignty
Which is to me a similar justice
The workers own the means of production; the citizens own their
government, their land, and its resources

And are entitled to their books, their music, their theories
Their homes, their phone calls, their email accounts, their websites,
their poetry
Their election results

It's Halloween
It's a full moon
And I'm good and terrified:

I'm sitting in my darkened house
The moaning wind is making the treelimbs scrape the windowscreen
I'm listening to NPR