[Peace-discuss] Re: Public i article

Mon Apr 9 01:34:49 CDT 2007

It appears to me that what we have is a basic disagreement between two
people and I'm not sure that posting the argument to a public forum is the
best way to encourage healthy dialogue or a constructive resolution. My
suggestion would be to take this up with the other editors at the Public I
and see what can be worked out. 

For what it is worth I have made contributions of my own work and it's been
with the understanding that someone can edit it. If my words lack clarity or
a sentence is awkward I would certainly want someone to fix it before it
goes to print. Additionally there may be times when it is necessary to cut a
paragraph or two in order for the piece to fit. 

Peace, Marti 

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
Estabrook
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 12:26 AM
To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: Public i article

[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

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss