[Peace-discuss] Re: Public i article

Mon Apr 9 01:23:00 CDT 2007

Mike--

I thought it would be more fruitful (and thanks for the kind word about
the tree) to shift the discussion from the in-house issue of the Public
i's practices to the substance of the matter.

The suppression of the account offered here seemed to be the motive for
the violation of the understanding with which I submitted the article.

Regards, Carl

Mike Lehman wrote:
> Carl,
> While I might phrase things differently, I doubt if my conclusion apple 
> would fall very far from your far more well-spoken tree on the Clinton 
> years. And this is from someone who had to be convinced on the issue, 
> since I was among those who partially bought into the humanitarian 
> excuses in '99, even though I was already well aware of the shift in 
> Pentagon PR toward humanitarianism well before I had the wisdom to 
> return to college under the fine tutelage of so many scholars I know in 
> the community. I still have my doubts that a solution involving 
> something other than military force iat some level n dealing with Serbia 
> was avoidable. But hindsight is 20/20 for everyone, although I take it 
> sometimes looking in the rear view mirror can still yield somewhat 
> different pictures of what transpired.
> 
> And I don't blame you on standing by it, if that is what is in question. 
> But this is not really about agreeing or disagreeing with you, so much 
> as the conditions under which you granted the Public i the right to 
> publish your article. It's quite clear that you have final editing call 
> according to what everyone has said.
> Mike Lehman
> 
> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> [Although he has still not been willing to tell me, the following 
>> paragraph is apparently the one Bob Illyes objected to.  Is the Public 
>> i  willing to shill for the DLC Democrats by obscuring the history of 
>> the 1990s? --CGE]
>>
>> The Clinton administration (1993-2001), shown the way by Bush-1 in
>> Somalia, where the killing of another thousand people by the US went
>> unremarked, seized on "humanitarian intervention" to bring a
>> recalcitrant Serbia, on the border between Europe and the Middle East,
>> to heel in 1999. Democrats now try to contrast the Clinton
>> administration with that of Bush Jr., but in fact the former in turn 
>> showed the way for the latter. And even if the estimates of more than 
>> a half million people dead in Iraq as a result of Bush's war are 
>> accurate, as they seem to be, it may still be the case that Clinton is 
>> responsible
>> for more dead Iraqis. The sanctions against Iraq imposed by the UN after
>> the Gulf War of 1991 -- in fact administered by the US and the UK --
>> killed at least a half million children alone, according to the two UN
>> administrators who resigned in protest of the "genocidal" US policies.
>>
>>
>> Mike Lehman wrote:
>>> Since I presume someone is interested in what others not directly 
>>> involved think, here's my pfenning.
>>>
>>> I think that Carl's request on editing final approval is a reasonable 
>>> one and the one that has to prevail, since everyone seems to be aware 
>>> of its existence as Carl's requirement for submitting it. Given that 
>>> the agreement was clear from the beginning, even if we somehow 
>>> miscommunicated things and ended up in this spot, then we still need 
>>> to respect it. If the Public i requires final approval over all 
>>> manuscripts, then this should be clearly indicated up front to every 
>>> author. I presume if that had been done -- and it doesn't appear it 
>>> was, although I don't know whether this is somehow a policy already 
>>> in existence that is entangling Bob understanding of where things are 
>>> -- then I imagine Carl would not have submitted the article in the 
>>> first place.
>>>
>>> I would say to pull the article, and then try to adjust things so 
>>> that future misunderstandings along these lines do not occur.
>>> Mike Lehman
>>>
>>> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>> Bob quotes accurately my recent message to Brian (cc to Bob), but he 
>>>> omits what went before.  (And his conflation of this matter with an 
>>>> unrelated issue at WEFT I can only ascribe to personal animus.)
>>>>
>>>> AWARE was contacted on 3/12 by Brian Dolinar, who wrote, "We're 
>>>> planning an anti-war issue of the Public i for April ... Can anyone 
>>>> in AWARE contribute an article?"  I volunteered, and on 3/22 sent 
>>>> him an article with the following note: "Brian-- The article is 
>>>> appended.  I am happy to give publici permission to publish it as it 
>>>> stands or with cuts and/or changes approved by me. I would not want 
>>>> it published with cuts or changes that I haven't approved.  Regards, 
>>>> Carl"
>>>>
>>>> Brian and I in fact discussed two rounds of cuts and changes, one 
>>>> substantial, and I sent him a final text with his proposed changes 
>>>> on 3/23.  Two weeks later, I heard casually that Bob (not Brian) had 
>>>> cut out a paragraph about the Clinton administration that he didn't 
>>>> like.  I wrote to Brian to remind him of the conditions under which 
>>>> the piece had been submitted: "Brian-- ...I'm disturbed by a passing 
>>>> comment I heard about editing the current public i, for which you 
>>>> have a piece from me.  As I told you, I'm willing to have the piece 
>>>> published either as it stands (after the revisions I sent you) or 
>>>> with revisions approved by me, but not otherwise. I trust the casual 
>>>> comment I heard about unauthorized changes in the piece is mistaken. 
>>>> Regards, Carl"
>>>>
>>>> Brian replied "I've passed your article over to Bob due to being so 
>>>> busy with police issues. Bob - please make contact with Carl @ 
>>>> article." There was no mention of the conditions and I did not hear 
>>>> from Bob, so I wrote to Brian (cc to Bob), "Fine, so long as he 
>>>> understands that the public i does not have permission to publish 
>>>> the piece with changes or excisions that I have not approved.  I 
>>>> take this matter seriously and will sue for damages an editor who 
>>>> violates the clear conditions under which I submitted the piece."
>>>>
>>>> Regards, CGE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> illyes at uiuc.edu wrote:
>>>>> I didn't cc Carl's exact threat to the list last night. Here it is:
>>>>>
>>>>> "the public i does not have permission to publish the piece with
>>>>> changes or excisions that I have not approved.  I take this matter
>>>>> seriously and will sue for damages an  editor who violates the clear
>>>>> conditions under which I submitted the  piece. --CGE"
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said yesterday, I think it Carl has submitted a fine article
>>>>> except for one paragraph that needs some work. I've edited articles
>>>>> that I disagree with (with isn't even the case with this article
>>>>> overall) with no complaint from the author. This threat is sufficient
>>>>> reason to reject the article, and an insult to the Public i editorial
>>>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had hoped to talk to Carl at the Main Event yesterday, but didn't
>>>>> see him. I now see that it would have been a waste of breath.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was with Randall and a bunch of supporters including Carl trying to
>>>>> do something about Randall's banishment from WEFT. Carl's comments to
>>>>> the board included a threat to sue! I cannot imagine how Carl thought
>>>>> this would help Randall's case..... This is all too weird for words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMC mailing list
>> IMC at lists.ucimc.org
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>>
> 