[Peace-discuss] Re: Public i article

Mon Apr 9 10:05:19 CDT 2007

I made extensive editorial changes at the request of the first editor, 
reducing the article by 50%.  But the Public i does not have permission 
to publish it with editorial changes that I have not approved -- which 
they were apparently going to do. --CGE

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