Keeping Them Honest: Poetry Listserve Division.

Cobalt Listers,

The Cobalt Poets lists exists primarily for the promotion of the
Cobalt Cafe Poetry Reading.

I've left it un-moderated to allow folks to feel free to promote
other projects, converse with each other and be mildly annoying, as
we all tend to be on e-mail lists, in our attempts to be humorous,
intelligent or clever. This has strayed, far too often, from far too
many people into the arena of pain causing personal attacks, slander,
insults, unpleasantly :'discussion', and generally an
atmosphere of embarrassment for me at being the host of such a thing
which has served more to damage community than foster it.

Any future posts here which, at my sole discretion, even hint at this
kind of unpleasantness again will cause the poster to me immediately
removed from this list, no second chances, thanks bye.

Rick
--August 27, 2006


Subscribe or unsubscribe to the Cobalt Poets e-mail list. Also sort through the message archive or join in the un-moderated fun by posting anything you want about anything at any time for any reason.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention Terry. That [subscribe or unsubscribe....] was written when the Cobalt Poets email list was created, when, as a naive poetry host I thought having an unmoderated list was possible and before, as you know, so many people, yourself included, used it as a bully pulpit. I'll be editing the description to remove the 'anything goes' implication of the text. More good work sir!

It's a tiny thing as poetry community matters/manners go, but the Cobalt listserve description seen after the reprint of the 8/27/06 message hasn't been changed to reflect the list proprietor's "evolved" viewpoints on acceptable speech/conduct/posting, as promised.  So it appears as if I was subjected to either an untruth or withering "you lesser being" sarcasm.http://poetrysuperhighway.com/cobalt/links.html

UPDATE: The proprietor, via Facebook, addressed this issue.  Here's a portion of his response:

 Regardless of the inaccurate leftover original descriptions on the website, there has been a consistent moderation on the list which has applied to everyone equally specifically designed to avoid the kind of harm that was caused previously and refocus the list on its intended purpose to support and provide information about the Cobalt reading.

Jim Carrey, gun control and Left/Right patronizing of each other.

http://t.entertainment.msn.com/jim-carrey-criticized-by-conservative-media-for-mocking-charlton-heston-gun-owners

For five minutes and fifty-six seconds, the FUNNY OR DIE site (full disclosure: I posted a video there awhile back) gives Jim Carrey a chance to mix outspoken beliefs with a few reminders of the "James Carrey of IN LIVING COLOR" period of two decades previous.

I don't argue with Carrey's pro-gun control stance (and the video's display of prominent gun violence victims as backup band members is one of its more subtle touches).  But I don't think the kind of smirking at Charlton Heston (more of the post-90s determined revisionism stating Heston's NRA presidency wiped away a generally distinguished acting career) and the long-departed "country-and-western LAUGH-IN" series HEE HAW can be said to accomplish anything substantive.  All it proves is that certain people considering themselves liberal/progressive like to mock gun-owning social conservatives for alleged stupidity and liking the "wrong" things; conversely, the folks on the Right get to feel persecuted and defensive (with their hurt/paranoia massaged and exploited by Fox News and prominent talk-radio hosts)--and condescended to in a major way, prompting them to look down on the Left with renewed vigor.

Even a "moderate" Democrat like Bill Clinton (still adored by liberals/progressives, sometimes mystifyingly so) has mentioned that liberals/progressives need to stop sneering at conservatives regarding gun control/gun ownership/ammunition issues if progress is to be achieved.

Here's the exact quote from Clinton: “Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” Clinton said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-86443.html#ixzz2OiWz8sM3

When 60 MINUTES' Lesley Stahl met Pussy Riot.

Judging from the 60 MINUTES coverage of Russian punk protest band Pussy Riot,  the women are merely brave-but-blasphemous, profanity-spewing vandals getting a heavier-than-deserved punishment for their behavior.

Here's a commenter from the JEZEBEL website:
The reporter was such a condescending asshole. Here you have these WOMEN (not girls) risking their lives and freedom to make a political statement and she treats them like angsty teens.

Lesley Stahl's aghast, where-are-my-smelling-salts utterance of the word "pussy" spoke contemptuous volumes.

Even Lara Logan or Anderson Cooper or Scott Pelley (plus producers/writers/researchers) would have tuned in a more insightful segment.

Glenn Greenwald on nonconformist political commentary.

Reprinting the opening paragraphs of Glenn Greenwald's article on how the mainstream media keeps Noam Chomsky away from the Cool Pundits table in the cafeteria of acceptable consensus ideas.  And the words/phrases "poets", "poetry community", "writers" and "literary community" could be plugged into these paragraphs (along with names of writers and artists with works and ideas not considered Mainstream)--and Greenwald's comments make sense in another context.
The entirety of Greenwald's column can be found at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-chomsky-guardian-personality

One very common tactic for enforcing political orthodoxies is to malign the character, "style" and even mental health of those who challenge them. The most extreme version of this was an old Soviet favorite: to declare political dissidents mentally ill and put them in hospitals. In the US, those who take even the tiniest steps outside of political convention are instantly decreed "crazy", as happened to the 2002 anti-war version of Howard Dean and the current iteration of Ron Paul (in most cases, what is actually "crazy" are the political orthodoxies this tactic seeks to shield from challenge).
This method is applied with particular aggression to those who engage in any meaningful dissent against the society's most powerful factions and their institutions. Nixon White House officials sought to steal the files from Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalyst's office precisely because they knew they could best discredit his disclosures with irrelevant attacks on his psyche. Identically, the New York Times and partisan Obama supporters have led the way in depicting both Bradley Manning and Julian Assange as mentally unstable outcasts with serious personality deficiencies. The lesson is clear: only someone plagued by mental afflictions would take such extreme steps to subvert the power of the US government.
A subtler version of this technique is to attack the so-called "style" of the critic as a means of impugning, really avoiding, the substance of the critique. Although Paul Krugman is comfortably within mainstream political thought as a loyal Democrat and a New York Times columnist, his relentless attack against the austerity mindset is threatening to many. As a result, he is barraged with endless, substance-free complaints about his "tone": he is too abrasive, he does not treat opponents with respect, he demonizes those who disagree with him, etc. The complaints are usually devoid of specifics to prevent meaningful refutation; one typical example: "[Krugman] often cloaks his claims in professional authority, overstates them, omits arguments that undermine his case, and is a bit of a bully." All of that enables the substance of the critique to be avoided in lieu of alleged personality flaws.

Commenter on DATELINE.com re Jay Leno.

It's another deja vu moment as Jay Leno is being persuaded to step away from THE TONIGHT SHOW to make room for a younger successor.  My prediction is that NBCUniversal will make another attempt to pacify Jay--maybe by offering him a late-night JAY LENO SHOW on the USA cable network.

Turning the floor over to commenter "ed" who said this on the Deadline.com site:
Leno knows his time is almost up, and he doesn’t care what he says about NBC at this point. And I’ve come to understand that the feeling is mutual from the new NBC brass. I once read a statement from Comcast CEO Brian Roberts that had he been running the show in January 2010, he would have paid Leno off and let Conan keep hosting the Tonight Show. Now they’ve got to deal with either putting Jimmy Fallon on at 11:30, which really, he’s still somewhat green to the whole thing. Or they’ll have to take a big risk and find someone completely fresh; new blood entirely. Conan at least was well tested for a good sixteen years as a late night host, and they could have avoided that entire mess (which in my opinion, completely tainted the legacy of the Tonight Show).
And say what you want on who you think sucks, or who’s really funny (it’s all a matter of opinion), but Leno has only himself to blame. Had he gone quietly into the night in 2009, like he was supposed to; now he’s going to be making a big stink about NBC firing him yet again. The guy can’t take a hint… The Tonight Show is NOT HIS SHOW. He had no problem forcing Johnny Carson into an early retirement or stealing it from Letterman, then pissing on Conan’s parade. He deserves to get his ass kicked to the curb. And when he does, he sure as hell better not have some big goodbye finale when the time comes. He already had that once. No one feels sorry for you Jay.
I encourage everyone to read Bill Carter’s books ‘The Late Shift’ and ‘The War for Late Night.’ Form your own opinions, but Leno is an absolute assbag of a human being. Why wouldn’t Johnny Carson ever do The Tonight Show after he took over? He certainly had no problem appearing on Letterman and writing the occasional jokes for him. Get the hint Jay, even Carson thought you were a douche-bag. Howard Stern is completely right about him, he’s egomaniacal and has absolutely no morals or consideration for his peers. At least the sharks and backstabbers in Hollywood are honest about what they do. Leno blames everyone else, and acts all Bart Simpson all the time… “I didn’t do it.”

Film blogger quote can also apply to poetry/literature communities.

Some context first: Lynne Ramsay, best known for directing the disturbing-in-a-necessary-way school-shooting film WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN, was hired to direct a Western starring Natalie Portman called JANE GOT A GUN.  Ms. Ramsay didn't show up for the start of JANE's filming and the bird-wings of film/media online gossip sites have fluttered. 

Here's an intelligent quote from online film writer Devin Faraci, recently posted to Twitter:
"Lynne Ramsay thing reinforces how often people jump to support authority figures, corporations, money people over individuals and creatives."

Random comments from the CNN website after the Steubenville rape trial verdicts.

Names of the commenters omitted here.  Comments presented intact.

What is remarkable, if only for its absence, is the discussion in the media about those who stood by and did nothing as this happened.
It's frightening to know that we live in a society where when people are in danger or being victimized the accepted social response is to break out the mobile phone and record it happening, rather than intervene. People will dial 911 to report a spanking at a mall, but not one of these teens thought to text or call someone to help this girl, or God forbid, speak up on her behalf?

The blame lies with and only with the sick little freaks who decided to rape this young woman, period, we as a society need to stop trying to blame the victims, and lay the blame at the feet of the sicko's in our midst. I am personally for castration of anyone who is convicted of rape, but perhaps that is just me.

Drunk or sober, no one should be violated. Just like people are trying to say that the boys were just stupid kids that did something stupid, so was she. What she didn't do however was violate another human being. She got drunk...a lot of people get drunk and don't get raped or violated just because they have indulged in too much alcohol. If I drank as much as witnesses say she did, I would not be sober enough to consent to sexual contact and I'm 41, so it's easy to see how someone her age and size could be completely incapacitated by the amount of alcohol in her system. Just because someone CAN NOT say no, doesn't mean yes. I have to wonder however about this series of parties that were going on where the alcohol was being consumed. If there were so many of them, where were all the adults in this town? Did they all go on vacation together and just leave all their teen aged children at home?

While I agree with you, she did break the law. She should also be punished. One could also argue that the boys fell prey to pressure and didn't realize that they were doing anything wrong. Some men aren't taught what consent actually means. I had to explain to a group of young boys what consent meant when this case occurred.

[Direct reply to the previous commenter]No, one really cannot "argue that the boys fell prey to pressure and didn't realize they were doing anything wrong." 16 and 17 are more than old enough to know that what they were doing was not just wrong, but a heinous crime. Rape is an act of violence. She was nothing more than a toy, a thing for them to abuse. They did not view her as a human being. They violated her willingly and in two different locations over a period of time There is no excuse for their behavior.. They are predators. They enjoyed what they were doing. They are criminals. One more thing, you think she should be punished for underage drinking? I find that incomprehensible that anyone would want to "punish" the victim of a rape for a misdemeanor.

So her rape, her body being posted all over the internet isn't punishment enough???

[Direct reply to the previous commenter] NO because these boy's lives were ruined by a classroom slut. they will never see a football career or any decent career because they will be branded as sex offenders. all because of what? a slut whose mom doesn't realize how loose her daughter is? try the same shit when she's in collage and they'll call it ''kids just having fun'' i hope the mother sees more of her whore daughter on the internet'

You see a stupid drunk girl laying down dirty drunk, and assume that because she is drunk she was raped. Where in any video or photo's that were shown does it show these two men raping her. One guy holding her by her hands, and the other holding her by her feet carrying her while she is fully clothed, does not constitute rape. Yes she was drunk, but who fault is it but hers

[Direct reply to the previous commenter]
Rape is an act of violence that objectifies another person, they used her as an object. Next you will say if a woman dresses slutty, or is out too late it is her fault if she is attacked. Why do we assume men have no self control and are unable to stop themselves from raping or assaulting if we tempt them too much? A kid who would do that, and send out pictures of it to laugh with his friends, has a long life of using and abusing women ahead of him. Women sometimes blame a victim because that makes them feel that they are not at risk because they would never do 'something so stupid.' Trust me, an entitled kid who feels he has the right to violate a woman and send pics out if not a safe person to be out and about, and he might not wait until a woman is drunk to do it. He is someone who believes that women are toys and are to be used for his entertainment. You need to try to babystep yourself into the present century.

What appears to be a SoCal poetry community in-joke.

Actual quote from a description of a link to a SoCal poetry listserve, written by the listserve's creator:

"Subscribe or unsubscribe to the Cobalt Poets e-mail list. Also sort through the message archive or join in the un-moderated fun by posting anything you want about anything at any time for any reason."

To the above quote, I can only say:
A lot of people are comfortable with/unquestioning of the "my site, my rules" policies of websites that allow comments after posts--or listserves where, in theory, a member can post on a topic of his/her choosing.
Perhaps this is an oblique way of stating this rather than writing something boring and technical
i.e. "if you post anything that isn't a reading announcement and you criticize the community (or someone in it), even if it doesn't descend into blatant insults/profanity, then I will moderate content and possibly ban you."

So now, as the late commentator Paul Harvey used to say, you know the rest of the story.

UPDATE: The proprietor of the Cobalt Poets list, via Facebook, posted an answer to this post.  And, in the interest of equal time, here it is:
Thanks for bringing this to my attention Terry. That was written when the Cobalt Poets email list was created, when, as a naive poetry host I thought having an unmoderated list was possible and before, as you know, so many people, yourself included, used it as a bully pulpit. I'll be editing the description to remove the 'anything goes' implication of the text. More good work sir!

My reply to the proprietor's statement: Always glad to advocate truth in advertising.