NEWSgrist: *DELVE... ‘Ready for War’ * Vol.4, no.3  (Feb. 10, 2003)

============================

============================

    NEWSgrist

where spin is art

http://newsgrist.net

{bi-weekly news digest}

============================

Vol. 4, no.3  (Feb. 10, 2003)

============================

============================

CONTENTS:

 

- *Splash* DELVE – the Transportation Issue

 - *Quote/s* Art Spiegelman; Laura Bush’s poetry; Guernica

  - *Url/s* Elout  De Kok; CABINET; Errata Erratum

   - *On Target* Barry Blinderman acts locally in Normal Illinois

    - *All’s Fair?* Mirapaul on <wartime> activism

     - *Babel Territories* Architectural layers of conflict

      - *The Non-Conformist* Spiegelman quits The New Yorker

       - *Shock + Awe* Laura Bush cancels poetry symposium

        - *Mapping Empire* Julian LaVerdiere looks up, again

         - *Book Grist* Manuel DeLanda’s Intensive Science

 

============================

============================ 

*Splash* http://newsgrist.net

 

‘fighter bomber’  by renee schacht

‘colorado municipal airports’  by  kevin cooley

 

featured in

DELVE Vol.1, no.2  (WINTER 2002)

THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUE

http://www.delvemagazine.com

produced by paul lombardi , new york city

 

splash archived at: http://www.newsgrist.net/Splash_Lombardi.html

============================

============================ 

*Quote/s*

 

“Our media choose to ignore news that in the rest of the world

receives wide prominence; if it were not for the Internet, even

my view of the world would be extremely limited.”

-- Art Spiegelman (see *The Non-Conformist* below)

 

"While Mrs. Bush respects and believes in the right of all

Americans to express their opinions," Ms. Rodriguez said

today," she, too, has opinions, and believes that it would be

inappropriate to turn what is intended to be a literary event

into a political forum."

(see *Shock + Awe* below)

 

“Mr. Powell can't very well seduce the world into bombing Iraq

surrounded on camera by shrieking and mutilated women, men,

children, bulls and horses.”

--Maureen Dowd, NYTimes 2/5/03: “Powell Without Picasso”

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/05/opinion/05DOWD.html

============================

============================ 

*Url/s*

 

1) Self Portrait by Elout De Kok

http://www.xs4all.nl/~elout/wartime/gow06.html

(produced for <wartime> project – see *All’s Fair?* below)

 

2) Announcing the web launch for CABINET MAGAZINE

A Quarterly Magazine of Arts & Culture

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org

(see excerpt in *Babel Territories* below)

 

3) Errata Erratum @ LA MOCA

http://www.moca.org/museum/dg_detail.php?dgDetail=pmiller

...allows you to create your own remix via Marcel Duchamp and

Paul D. Miller [DJ Spooky] by manipulating rotoreliefs by

Duchamp and tags by Miller...

============================

============================ 

*On Target*

 

"READY FOR WAR" IN ILLINOIS

Artnet Mag Jan 29, 2003

http://www.artnet.com/magazine/news/artnetnews2/artnetnews1-29-03.asp

 

The University Galleries of Illinois State University in Normal,

Ill., has put out a "call for entries" for a show titled "Ready for

War," Feb. 18-Mar. 18, 2003. Among the suggested targets for

this esthetic combat are "terrorism, poverty, environmental

protection, privacy, racism, civil liberties, drugs and reproduct-

ive rights." All works are accepted; high-tech artists must

provide their own equipment. The show is "my way of 'acting

locally'," said gallery director Barry Blinderman, "offering as

many artists as possible a forum for expressing their sentiments

about the grave state our country is in at the moment." The

show is to be posted on the gallery website http://www.orat.ilstu.edu/cfa/galleries/

and exhibited in the museum; for more info, contact gallery@ilstu.edu

============================ 

============================ 

*All’s Fair?*

 

Political Points in the World's Fair of Technology

By MATTHEW MIRAPAUL

NYTimes - ARTS ONLINE Jan. 3, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/03/arts/design/03ARTS.html

 

Guernica," Picasso's great antiwar painting, was first shown at

the 1937 World's Fair in Paris. More than 31 million people

attended. Russell Martin, author of a recent book about

"Guernica," said in a telephone interview, "In an age that was

not given to instant communication, it was a way in which the

painting very soon after its creation was able to be seen by, for

its time, a gigantic number of people.'`

 

Today artists with a political point to make merely put their work

on the Internet, which is truly a world's fair of technology and on

occasion compelling art. Andrew Forbes, an Internet artist in

London, has even opened a virtual gallery for some of these

projects. In November, with talk of an attack on Iraq continuing,

Mr. Forbes issued a public call on the Internet for digital

artworks created in reaction to past, present and future wars.

He has received 83 projects from around the globe. He exhibits

them on the Wartime Project, a Web site that he put online last

month at http://offline.area3.net/wartime

 

With only a month or two to create their works, most artists

submitted what might be deemed miniatures: simple interactive

scenes, small animations or short videos. As one would expect

from an open-call project, the quality of the works varies widely.

Still with its variations on a theme, Wartime provides a snapshot

of the ways that digital artists approach the Internet as a

creative medium.

 

In a telephone interview from his studio in the Brixton neighbor-

hood in South London, Mr. Forbes said, "Wartime was never

designed to be specifically against the war against Iraq." Yet

many contributors have focused on the imminent attack and pro-

duced work that is closer to being propaganda than effective art.

And given the overuse of images of jet fighters, exploding bombs

and wounded victims, clumsy propaganda at that.

 

Mr. Forbes said the site's goal was "to get young people who

haven't experienced war to think about its destructiveness."

From the high level of response he appears to have succeeded.

But Mr. Forbes also has a cultural agenda. Although outsiders

might view the Internet-art world as a small, secret society, its

insiders are familiar with all the major players and their essential

artworks.

 

So by encouraging everyone to submit work, Mr. Forbes said, he

hopes to extend the genre's borders beyond the usual suspects.

"I'm kind of fed up with the in-ness of the Net-art world," he

said. Josephine Bosma, a critic in the Netherlands, said

Wartime's openness to submissions could "lead to the discovery

of new artists outside the now-institutionalized Net-art world."

 

New faces are responsible for some of the site's better works.

For instance Miguel Mendoza, a Mexican artist, contributed an

interactive scene that is surreal. Within a post-nuclear

landscape, the viewer is encircled by mushroom clouds. As an

onscreen button is repeatedly clicked, the clouds are trans-

formed into a bicycling herd of skeletons with disturbing grins.

 

Elout de Kok, a Dutch artist, contributed an animated self-

portrait that is dynamically "painted" on a grid of small squares.

As the viewer's cursor moves across the screen, Mr. de Kok's

head is revealed in silhouette. A self-portrait is not an obvious

choice for a site about war. But Mr. de Kok explained that the

software generating his image had been programmed so that

each square must do battle to determine if it will be black, white

or gray.

 

Mr. Martin, author of "Picasso's War: The Destruction of

Guernica and the Masterpiece that Changed the World" (Dutton,

2002), said the actual painting's "nonspecificity with regard to

the bombing of that town at that time allowed its message to be

readily universalized." And in general Wartime's most success-

ful works are those that are not linked to a particular conflict.

 

Several works on the site adapt the language of technology to

comment on war. For instance the veteran digital artists Auriea

Harvey and Michael Samyn, identified on the site as E8Z!,

created the gamelike "Aliens." In this amusingly subversive

work a blue-suited businessman is threatened by advancing

rows of sheiks. As soon as the viewer shoots at the aliens,

though, the game ends. The artists have distilled the entire

computer-game experience into a single click. The only way to

win is not to play.

 

Similarly "System," a clever piece by the British artist Yara

Elsherbini, purports to be the White House version of a

Microsoft operating system for a computer. So the software is

plagued with politically oriented error messages.

 

Parodies of Microsoft products seem rather retro now, and many

of the site's works will feel familiar to Net-art insiders. Mr.

Forbes said he was pleased that Wartime had "drawn in people

who are pretty new to the medium and don't know the back-

ground to the development of Net art." As a result, though, the

overall site suffers from a certain navet. The most exciting

digital artworks made in the last several years have been those

that rely upon the Internet for their existence, not stand-alone

pieces. While it is true, as Mr. Forbes asserted, that Wartime

could not have been assembled without the Internet, the

majority of its contributions could just as easily be published on

a CD-ROM or projected in a movie theater.

 

This is not the first time that current events have inspired an

online collection of digital art. In 1999 the Balkan conflict

prompted the German artist Reiner Strasser to open Weak Blood,

which included more than 50 topical works. The site remains

online at http://netartefact.de/weakblood  Several small sites

also appeared after 9/11.

 

Mr. Forbes said he did not know if the Wartime site's virtual art

would lead to actual political action. Peter Weibel, on the other

hand, says it might.

 

Mr. Weibel is director of the Center for Art and Media Tech-

nology in Karlsruhe, Germany, as well as co-curator of "M_Ars:

Art and War," an exhibition at the Neue Galerie in Graz, Austria.

One of the questions that the controversial show poses is

whether art can be a platform for brutality as well as for human-

itarian ideals.

 

But Mr. Weibel suggested that virtual art lends itself to ex-

pressions of compassion. Because the Internet's fluidity

encourages people to explore other points of view, positions do

not harden and become contentious. He said, "It could be a

positive space for artists and citizens to fight against war."

============================

============================ 

*Babel Territories*

 

The Wall and the Eye: An Interview with Eyal Weizman

Jeffrey Kastner & Sina Najafi  [excerpted]

CABINET MAGAZINE – Issue 9 Winter 2002/03

full article:

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/9/wall.php

 

[Eyal Weizman is an architect, based in Tel-Aviv and London,

who has conducted research on behalf of the human rights or-

ganization B’tselem on the planning aspects of the Israeli

occupation of the West Bank. Weizman is currently developing

his doctoral thesis “The Politics of Verticality: Architecture

and Occupation in the West Bank” into a TV documentary film

and a book to be published next year.]

 

A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture, a

catalogue and exhibition originally created by Israeli architects

Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman as their country’s official entry to

the 2002 World Congress of Architecture in Berlin, is a ground-

breaking examination of the character of building, planning, and

community in the West Bank. Abruptly cancelled last summer on

the eve of the Congress by its commissioning organization, the

Israel Association of United Architects, the project has stirred

strong opinions in Israel. Although it was dismissed by the

association’s president as “one-sided political propaganda,” A

Civilian Occupation was praised as a “a rare work in its power

and importance for the community of architects and town

planners in Israel” by the daily newspaper Ha’aretz. Since the

cancellation, Segal and Weizman have found other forums for the

work they produced: the catalog is being reprinted by Babel

Press in Tel Aviv and a version of the exhibition will be be

mounted at the Storefront for Art and Architecture, New York, at

the end of January and in the exhibition “Territories” at Kunst-

Werke, Berlin, in May 2003.

 

In the following interview, Weizman, a partner in Tel Aviv-based

Rafi Segal/Eyal Weizman Architects, discusses both the natural

and built environment of the West Bank – from the social, political,

and religious history of the area to issues of photography and

mapping to concepts of strategic building forms and settlement

growth patterns. He also asks pointed ethical questions about

Israeli architectural and planning practice and considerations of

human rights, which he says are central to the research he and

Segal continue to conduct. Weizman spoke by phone to Jeffrey

Kastner and Sina Najafi from Haifa, Israel, in October 2002.

 

Cabinet: Your catalogue cites a 1984 publication by the Israeli

Ministry of Housing that sets guidelines for the construction of

new settlements in the mountain regions of the West Bank. It’s

very concrete: it proposes an inner ring and an outer ring of

houses, discusses the idea of offering the maximal amount of

views to the maximum number of settlers, which obviously also

allows a maximum amount of surveillance of the Palestinian

population beneath, and so on. This is interesting in light of the

interview in your catalogue with the planner and architect

Thomas Leitersdorf about towns he has built in the West Bank,

where you get a sense that sometimes the government offers no

guideline other than “We need a town built here,” and the

architect is completely left on his own to do whatever he wants.

So we have this severe set of guidelines versus no guidelines at

all, apparently at the same time.

 

Eyal Weizman: When Leitersdorf built Ma’ale Edumim in 1977

-78 he was in effect setting the guidelines. Ma’ale Edumim was

essential in creating a benchmark standard for building settle-

ments. In general, Israeli architects and planners had little

experience of building in mountainous regions. Before the

occupation, the Israeli population was located mainly in the

valleys, except in Haifa, which is a mountain city, and in

Jerusalem. The typical new Israeli settlements were the kibbutz

and the moshav, cooperative agricultural and pioneering

settlements built mainly on the fertile plains. It is only after the

occupation, and following the political changes in 1977, that

the mountain enters the public imagination – people write songs

about the mountain, talk about it, lecture on it, research it.

Architects were starting to think about the mountain too, but

they had little experience of building there. So this publication

by the Ministry of Housing was incredibly important because it

ollected different precedents and for the first time set guidelines

for how to build in the mountains. The “mountain” is important in

understanding the ideological transition in Israel after 1977,

when a messianic religious discourse entered the political

debate with the right wing coming to power. Along with it came

a decreasing emphasis on agricultural pioneering and its re-

placement with a new typology of the religious suburb, located

on mountaintops and without agricultural space to cultivate.

[snip!] full article:

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/9/wall.php

[...]

C: You have written that the geometry of the occupation can only

be understood in three dimensions. There are questions of the

underground sewage, archaeology, tunnels, the water reservoirs,

the air space above, and so on. These are issues that came up in

the peace talks, of course. But the map you have produced is two

-dimensional. What would it mean to map this conflict three-

dimensionally? It’s interesting to look at how, for example, an

Israeli highway passes over a Palestinian road or look at how the

tunnels intersect.

 

EW: I am currently working on a computer-based interactive

three-dimensional map of the West Bank with my colleague,

Reed Kram. The over-complication of the surface as shown on

our map-the fact that it’s no longer possible to draw a continuous

line that separates Palestinians from Israelis-made clear to the

negotiating parties during the peace process that a two-

dimensional solution is no longer possible. Shimon Peres’s Oslo

proposal was to give the Palestinians limited sovereignty on the

land but to retain Israeli sovereignty of the subsoil and the air

over it. So you have a kind of sandwich-Israel, Palestine, Israel-

across the vertical dimension. Peace technicians-the people

who are always drawing new maps for a solution-arrive at

completely insane proposals for solving the problem of inter-

national boundaries in three dimensions. And when you have

Jewish enclaves in Palestinian territory, you have to build either

tunnels or bridges that connect them to each other. Both typo-

logies were experimented with and proposed throughout neg-

otiations. The most obvious is the proposed safe passage

between the West Bank and Gaza that has a Palestinian road

with Palestinian sovereignty that goes over Israel’s sovereign

territory-with the international boundary being the thermo-

dynamic joint between the column and the road. We get into

incredibly bizarre and dystopian solutions. Jerusalem itself,

according to the Clinton plan, would have had 64 kilometers of

walls and 40 bridges and tunnels connecting the enclaves to

each other. Imagine an urban environment that operates like

that. It would make L.A.’s highway system look flat. This is the

total collapse of the idea of territory as produced by maps.

Nationalism and mapmaking were always bound together. You

had a map and you drew a boundary. But what you see in the

West Bank is that sovereign relations are attempting to play

themselves out three-dimensionally. And that is obviously an

unworkable absurdity.

 

We do not think that there is a viable "design solution" to the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The perfect line that brilliantly

weaves itself through the terrain and answers in its path both

national demands, the one line that everybody from Ben Gurion

to Barak was looking for, simply does not exist. Nor does it

exist in these three-dimensional boundary contortions. These

just accentuate the exhaustion and the frustration of all possible

lines on the two-dimensional plane. This territorial conflict is

such that it must be addressed in a non-territorial and thus

non-formal way. If you think of similar conflicts between a

settling nation and a native nation, there is no historical

precedent for the idea of partition. We think that the way to

manage this conflict is not through the creation of another

sovereign state but within the realm of law. Instead of thinking

of two states side by side, something that our research shows is

impossible without integration on the planning and infrastructure

level, we would like to propose the idea of a simultaneous

overlap: two states that are not lying side by side but overlap

legally across the same territory. This obviously entails a new

definition of national sovereignty, one in which a choice of more

than one citizenship is available for the same area.

============================ 

============================ 

*The Non-Conformist*

 

Interview with Art Spiegelman

CORRIERE DELLA SERRA, January 9, 2003

 

as noted in France Culture: http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:B2AOcbtGJDgC:www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/revuepresse/index.php+art+spiegelman,+Corriere+della+Sera&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

and Di Arte: http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:B2AOcbtGJDgC:www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/revuepresse/index.php+art+spiegelman,+Corriere+della+Sera&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

It was termed “a divorce of historic proportions,” of the kind that

leaves a  deep cultural mark, and gives rise to debate that

continues for months. Art Spiegelman, the legendary New York

illustrator who for ten full years put his name to the most pro-

vocative and incisive covers of the New Yorker, has decided to

leave the prestigious magazine, in opposition (protest) to what

he calls “the widespread conformism of the mass media in the

Bush era.”

 

“The decision to leave was mine alone,” the author of Maus, the

saga of Jewish mice exterminated by Nazi cats that won him the

Pulitzer Prize (the first given to a comic book), explained in an

interview with the Corriere della Sera; “the director of the New

Yorker, David Remnick, was shocked when I announced my

resignation. He attempted to dissuade me. But I told him that

the kind of work that I'm now interested in doing is not suited to

the present tone of the New Yorker. And, seeing that we are

living in extremely dangerous times, I don't feel like stooping to

compromise.”

 

(Q) Do you also consider yourself a victim of Sept. 11?

 

Exactly so. From the time that the Towers fell, it seems as if

I've been living in internal exile, or like a political dissident

confined to an island. I no longer feel in tune (agreement) with

American culture, especially now that the entire media has

become conservative and tremendously timid. Unfortunately,

even the New Yorker has not escaped this trend: Remnick does

not feel up (able) to accept the challenge, while, on the contrary,

I am more and more inclined to provocation.

 

(Q) What kind of provocation?

 

I am working on the sixth installment of my new strip, “In the

shadow of no tower,” inspired both by memories of Sept. 11 -- on

that day, I had just left  my apt, a few steps from the tragedy –

and a present in which one feels equally threatened by both Bush

and Osama. The series was commissioned by the German news-

paper Die Zeit, but here in the USA, only the Jewish magazine

The Forward has agreed to publish it.

 

(Q) Did you feel snubbed by the refusal of the New Yorker to

publish it?

 

Not at all. I knew from the beginning that the tone and content

of the strip -- what,at this point in time, is of most concern to

me--were not in harmony with those of the New Yorker. A

wonderful magazine, mind you, with delightful and refined covers,

but also incredibly deferential (obsequious) to the present

administration. If I were content to draw harmless strips about

skateboarding and shopping in Manhattan, there would have

been no problem; but, now, my inner life is inflamed with much

different issues.

 

(Q) For what do you reproach the New Yorker?

 

For marching to the same beat as the NYT and all the other

great American media that don't criticize the government for fear

that the administration will take revenge by blocking their

access to sources and information. Mass media today is in the

hands of a limited group of extremely wealthy owners whose

interests don't coincide at all with those of the average soul

living in a country (USA) where the gap between rich and poor is

now unbridgeable. In this context, all criticism of the admin-

istration is automatically branded unpatriotic and un-American.

Our media choose to ignore news that in the rest of the world

receives wide prominence; if it were not for the Internet, even

my view of the world would be extremely limited.

 

(Q) Then the Bush revolution has triumphed?

 

Yes. In Reagan's time, “liberal” was a dirty word and to be

accused of such an offense was an insult. In the Bush jr. era, the

radical right so overwhelmingly dominates the debate that the

democrats have all had to move to the right just to be able to

continue the conversation.

 

(Q) Will the New Yorker be the same without Spiegelman?

 

The New Yorker existed long before I came on board. The great

majority of the readers who adore the warm and relaxing bath of

their accustomed New Yorker (probably, in English, a con-

temptuous illusion to the hot tub) were very upset by the “shock

treatment” of my covers. These readers will feel more at ease

with the calm and subdued (submissive) New Yorker of the

tradition which from the Twenties mixed intelligence, sophistica-

tion, snobbery, and complaisance with the status quo. Every

time that I put pencil to paper, I was flooded with letters of

protest.

 

(Q) Which of your works caused the most controversy?

 

The cover with the atomic bomb issued on the 4th of July. The

one from last Thanksgiving where turkeys fell from military

aircraft. The only one universally well-received was the Sept. 24

cover with the Twin Towers in two-toned black. The censorship

of my work began as soon as I first set foot in the magazine,

long before the 9th of September.

 

(Q) What kind of censorship?

 

Large and small. For the Thanksgiving cover with turkeys

dropped in the place of bombs, I chose the title “Operation

Enduring Turkey” to mimic “Operation Enduring Freedom” then

begun by America in Afghanistan. But David Remnick forced me

to change the title.

 

(Q) Is it possible that the media is more reactionary than their

readers?

 

I don't think so at all, not after reading in the polls that George

W. Bush is the most admired man in America. The world I see is

very different from what they see. Those who think like me are

condemned to the margins because the critical alternative press

of the Vietnam War era no longer exists. The NYT chose to

remain silent about the enormous protest marches that took

place during the summer; and the readers of The Nation, the

only newspaper with any guts, are at most 50 thousand: nothing

in a country as large as ours.

 

(Q) What does your wife Francoise Mouly, the artistic director of

the New Yorker, think of all this.

 

She thinks that I've left her at the New Yorker as a hostage, but

I don't think she wants to follow my example. Sometimes, I think

I would like to emigrate to Europe; and seeing that in America

they won't even let me smoke, the temptation is very great.

 

Q) Your plans after the New Yorker

 

In May, at the Nuage Gallery in Milano, there will be an exhibi-

tion that covers my ten years at the New Yorker. Ten is a better

number than eleven and, who knows, perhaps I left the magazine

simply because it better suited the book and catalog that

accompany the exhibition.

============================

============================

*Shock + Awe*

 

Laura Bush Cancels Symposium on

"Poetry and the American Voice"

Rather than Hear Poems which Speak Out Against the War

NYFA Current – Weekly Arts News – Feb 4, 2003

http://www.nyfa.org/nyfa_current.asp?id=105&fid=6&sid=17#news2

 

"And it's madness
to ask poets to celebrate,
when people can't even
breathe deeply
for fear of war's imminence" -- Gregory Orr, "refusing"

 

PORT TOWNSEND, WA; WASHINGTON, DC -- On January 19,

Founding Editor of Copper Canyon Press, poet Sam Hamill –

who had received an invitation from First Lady Laura Bush to

attend a poetry Symposium on "Poetry and the American Voice"

scheduled for February 12, 2003 -- responded by circulating an

email to poets around the world.

 

He wrote that "Only the day before I had read a lengthy report

on George Bush's proposed 'Shock and Awe' attack on Iraq,

calling for saturation bombing that would be like the firebombing

of Dresden or Tokyo, killing countless innocent civilians. I

believe the only legitimate response to such a morally bankrupt

and unconscionable idea is to reconstitute a Poets Against the

War movement like the one organized to speak out against the

war in Vietnam."

 

Asking poets to speak up "for the conscience of our country"

Hamill called for poems to be included in an anthology which he

would present to the White House on the afternoon of the Poetry

Symposium.

 

"Please join me in making February 12 a day when the White

House can truly hear the voices of American poets," he

requested.  Over 2,000 poets -- including Hayden Carruth,

Yusef Komunyakaa, W.S. Merwin, Philip Levine, Grace Paley,

Galway Kinnell, Gregory Orr, Marilyn Hacker, John Balaban,

Ursula K. Le Guin, and Adrienne Rich -- sent poems to Hamill in

response to his call.

 

But their works will not be heard at the White House. Laura Bush

has postponed the symposium on the "Poetry and the American

Voice", whch had a focus on Emily Dickinson, Langston Hughes

and Walt Whitman.

 

"While Mrs. Bush respects and believes in the right of all

Americans to express their opinions, she, too, has opinions, and

believes that it would be inappropriate to turn what is intended to

be a literary event into a political forum." the NEW YORK TIMES

quotes Noelia Rodriguez, the first lady's press secretary, as

saying.

 

A website -- http://www.poetsagainstthewar.org -- has been set

up and plans "to publish every poem by every poet who wishes to

contribute as a public witness for peace."

 

"The war is ours, now, here, it is our republic
facing its own betraying terror.
And how we tell the story is forever after,"


Ursula K. Le Guin wrote in "American Wars," the poem she sent

Sam Hamill to be presented at the White House symposium.

 

ARGUMENTS + DIFFERING OPINIONS:

"With Antiwar Poetry Set, Mrs. Bush Postpones Event"

By Elisabeth Bumiller, NYTIMES 1/31/03:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/politics/31POET.html

 

"A Song of Themselves"

By LEONARD GARMENT, NYTimes 2/08/03:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/08GARM.html?pagewanted=1