Seeing as Boyd is turning this site into an anti American propaganda tool, and has informed me that if I think this is inappropriate I can simply unsubscribe, then I guess that is what I'll have to do. Please know that I merely suggested that dragging politics onto the front page of a site supposedly devoted to the memory of CAS was a bad move.
On the other hand, Boyd apparently thinks that Saddam is a great leader who should be allowed to continue exterminating his own people and accumulating weapons once again in order to attack yet another country besides Kuwait or Iran. The truth is that if the United Nations had balls enough to enforce their own resolutions, then the US and Britain would not be forced to do the job themselves.
Boyd, how can you defend a regime which is founded on terrorizing and torturing its people? Can't you see the difference between the intentional extermination of over a million people and the accidental death of Iraqi civilians during the campaign to rid the world of this monster?
Do you really think that Saddam would ever bow to diplomatic pressure? Do you really think the UN inspectors would ever achieve anything other that making fools out of themselves?
What do you suggest we do to resolve this threat to world security? Nothing? Saddam has been actively trying to obtain nuclear weapons, and we have no doubt that his first missile will be aimed at the United States. A clandestine Third World missile such as this will probably not be very accurate; perhaps it will go astray and land in New Zealand. Who knows? Who cares?

I was willing to ignore differences, but the situation has degenerated to the point where I, as an American, a Libertarian, and an Army veteran cannot support a site that by inference supports torture, terrorism, genocide, and dictatorship. I must stand with Ron and Dr. Farmer on this matter. The rest of the world may stand against the Coalition of the Willing, but it is apparent that the rest of the world has no balls and consists of a bunch of left-wing ostriches who will forgive any crime but that of being an American.
Scott Connors

Please clarify something for me, Scott and Ron. Is your concern here entirely as a result of the "Attack Iraq- No" banner on the home page of this site, or is there something else that has occurred onsite that has bothered you?

I did not care for Boyd's response to the email Ron sent him containing Dr. Farmer's objections. I found that reply to be rude and arrogant, especially in comparison to the tone of Ron's email. This embarrassed me profoundly. I'm the nasty right-wing Republican war-monger among my crew, and Ron votes for the Green Party, yet here he is, and quite properly too, getting thoroughly pissed off at Boyd's anti-American attitude. The war with Iraq is about as black and white as you can get: Saddam is a piece of human garbage who would gladly slay every one of his people to retain power, while the US takes casualties to avoid killing innocent Iraqis. If the US isn't perfect morally, for instance in its realpolitik-embrace of dictators like Saddam in the past out of fear of a worse alternative, then it is, in the words of Jack Nicholson in "The Two Jakes," "the leper with the most fingers" morally, certainly beating the hell out of the French and Russians, because we will eventually get rid of them. But I was willing to overlook Boyd's stance, so long as it didn't get too strident. Guess what? It did. Ron is my friend and partner, and Dr. Farmer is a true gentleman and scholar, and I cannot in good conscience stand by and allow them, or my country, to be shown disrespect. Accordingly I will send no further contributions to the site until that banner comes down and Boyd apologizes to Dr. Farmer and Ron. I wont't pull what I have already posted, that would be petty, and I will continue to respond to posts that I have already made, but will probably not issue new ones.
With sorrow, Scott

To all web-warring websters and woe-begotten web-footed wonders, I object to all this politicking on our fantasy-based website - I mean, it keeps turning me off! I leave my attention fixed on topics of unreality because I find current events confusing and not a little troubling. Are we so trouble-bound that we have to seek out our friends to stir up a little strife? Our common interests have nothing to do with current events or political philosophy, so it is no surprise that they will be a source of conflict. Phooey!

I apologise unreservedly for insulting any one - I don't apologise for my political ideology.

Let me point out a few things:

1. I am against this war. I will not go into my reasons, because they are not important to this discussion. This does not make me unpatriotic or un-American, and if anyone thinks that it does, that person has a pretty tenuous grasp of the First Amendment and the whole concept of freedom of expression, and is in fact a jackass. Boyd is also against the war. This does not make him unpatriotic or un-American. It also does not mean that either of us want the US to be defeated or anything bad to happen to our troops.

2. Boyd busts his hump to maintain this website, with no help from me and I suspect little help from most others who use and enjoy it. To the extent that I, or someone else who uses this website, disagrees with Boyd's views, that person should weigh all of the work that Boyd has done for our mutual benefit against the angst that person is caused by the knowledge that Boyd disagrees with him. Boyd, and everyone else here, is welcome to disagree with me as often as they like. Since it is Boyd's website, I do not see how anyone could object to his inclusion of a banner espousing a legitimate viewpoint on the site. It is not like the issue threatens to dominate this, the pre-eminent CAS website of all time.

3. It's rough in the marketplace of ideas guys. Don't be so sensitive.

to quote the single email on this issue

-------------------
My site - my ideology - If you don't like it you don't have to visit. I find Dr F's attack offensive as well - I guess me and the majority of the world are all stupid and ignorant and your right - good luck with that.

Boyd.

P.S the count so far is 2 against and 6 for the anti war stance on my site.


At 21:44 2/04/03 -0800, Ron Hilger wrote:


Hey Boyd-
I'm forwarding this message from Dr. Farmer, and
I have to agree with him. Your site is dedicated to the memory of
Clark Ashton Smith. What does this have to do with the war in Iraq?
Dragging politics onto the front page is a bad move.
-Ron


> Ron - I don't have Boyd Pearson's email address and have no way to contact
> him other than by a post on eldritchdark. His posting of an anti-war
> message on the home page is offensive to me - aside from exhibiting a
> profound ignorance of history, the site should not be an international
> site for that debate, nor for the airing of opinions on matters not
> germane to the purpose of the site. If you can forward that attitude to
him
> for me, or send me an email for him that I may use without posting on the
> site, I would appreciate it. Shortly after his "iron curtain" speech at
> the end of WWII, Churchill noted, "if people had listened to me in 1917
> we might have strangled Bolshevism in its cradle, but everyone threw up
> their hands and said, 'how shocking!'" - again, timely intervention in
> 1938 could have stopped Hitler. How many millions of lives could have
been
> spared by timely action. Perhaps he is listening to profoundly qualified
> political pundits like the "Dixie chicks."
> > Dr F.
----------------------

Dr F said he was offended - so I said the same.
Dr F said i was ignorant - so I said the same.

How you extrapolated the diatribe posted here from that I'll never know.
B.

What an extraordinary thread! I cannot think of a topic less germane to the work of Clark Ashton Smith than that of global politics. I assume that all this bile is over the anti-war banner on the home page? That's been there for quite some time; why all the sudden fuss over it? I should add that I agree with those who feel that it is ill-advised, and even somewhat inappropriate, to post personal political statements that have nothing to do with a Web site's contents. My statement also encompasses the innumerable American flags flying utterly meaninglessly and out of context on Web sites devoted to topics as varied as professional audio hardware and the Brady Bunch television series!

That said, however, to suggest that expression of anti-war sentiments, however inappropriate they may seem here, constitutes "anti-Americanism", or even pro-Hussein commentary, is patently ludicrous. Such comments readily demonstrate the transience of rational thought when it comes to such matters. Are you looking for heartfelt "anti-Americanism?" Then here's a small sample for you:

[Referring to European immigrants] "The criminally insane and viciously imbecile thing called American civilization can't stand many more of the breed. They're like rats gnawing at the foundations of a rotten barn. [...] In the meanwhile, the race goes merrily on. I think the motor-car should be the symbol of American civilization, with the motto, "speed, dust, noise, and stink." Joy-riding, if it's kept up long enough, and fast enough, generally has but one end".

Letter from Clark Ashton Smith to George Sterling, May 26, 1912.


"Truly, as you suggest, America has killed her finest artists. And when she hasn't killed them, she has driven them into exile as in the cases of Hearn and Bierce. Personally I am goddamned sick of the killing process (I seem to die hard) and have fully and absolutely made up my mind to quit the hell-bedunged and heaven-bespitted country when my present responsibilities are over. I haven't any definite plans, but will probably gravitate toward the orient. Anyway, I shall remove myself from Auburn, California and the USA, even if I have to stow away on a tramp steamer".

Letter from Clark Ashton Smith to Robert Barlow, May 16, 1937.


I urge all deeply offended patriots who wish to divest themselves of their Clark Ashton Smith collections to donate them to their local public library.

More seriously, what a shame that, regardless of who initially "insulted" whom, such purely emotional (and therefore meaningless) arguments over the Iraqi war should drive a wedge between highly valued contributors to a Web site that is a model of excellence and thoroughness.

I do not object to the anti-war banner by itself, however it was recently pointed out to me that this is in fact a link to an entire webpage of scurilous left-wing propaganda of the worst sort, the type that equates Bush and Hussein and sees the actions of the United States as a greater threat to "world peace" than the genocidal reign of a megalomaniac who has obtained chemical and biological weapons (they found mustard and cyanide agents in the Euphrates river today, along with stores of Tabun nerve gas)and is trying to obtain nuclear, and who, when faced by the spectacle of Iraqi women being forced to drive their vehicle (filled with kids) into an American checkpoint or else have their remaining children killed by Saddam's thugs, blame the American soldiers who opened fire to defend themselves... . OR, when confronted with the undeniable fact that the Iraqis soldiers are poorly equipped with everything but chemical protective equipment have the unmitigated gall to suggest that this is so they can protect themselves against American first-use of chemical agents! This is the type of bullshit that has no place on a website devoted to a kind and gentle dreamer. Also, Boyd says "my site, my rules." And here I thought that we were a community. Just goes to show, a leftist "community" always ends up ruled by a dictator. Certainly Dr. Farmer, Ron Hilger and I have done as much as anyone here to help Boyd; hell, Ron is such a nice guy that he didn't object to Boyd's selling CD's of the Boulder Relocation Ceremony when this is in direct competition with a one-shot fanzine Ron is working on at the moment, complete with Gahan Wilson cover!
Furthermore, living in the People's Republic of California, it is clear to me that many of the so-called "antiwar protestors" are actually just anti-American: they despise our prosperity (relatively speaking because I am out of work at the moment although I start a new job next week), our freedom, and our power: yes, all of these are qualified, but having lived abroad for several years I can at least make a comparison, and compared to Europe, Asia or the Middle east, America is indeed #1 in everything except supporting poets. The mere equation by the protestors of America with Hussein shows their intellectual and moral depravity, as anyone with a shred of conscience instead of an ideology would prefer us over him. May he be the first of a long-line of dictators that we consign to the ash-heap of history. Baby Kim and Fidel, you're next! (Well, after the French... but that should take only part of the morning.)
The fact is that a lot of the world has grown fat, dumb and happy, metaphorically speaking, on America's watch, and since we're the big dog on the block now we're drawing the ire of the disaffected, disgruntled, disorderly, and disenchanted. Well, somebody's always going to be on top, and as far as Paxes go, Hell, even compared to the Brits we're sweethearts: no crucified rebels every five meters or firing people out of cannons, worst we've done is put terrorists in dog kennels and play games with their sleeping patterns! Well, guys, wake up, as it's a new day after 9/11 and we're not playing games any longer. Anyone, whether in the Baka Valley, Paris, Berkeley or New Zealand who supports terror will find that we can give even better than we can take. And remember that if we gave a crap about what the rest of the world thought about us, we would never have left it to come here. It's up to _you_ to learn to live with _us_. Arrogant? Tough shit. Deal with it.
Now excuse me, I need to go back to reading galleys on CAS' letters. Incidentally, CAS's being down on America was of course only relative, as he generally regarded the entire human race as being made up of half-shaved chimps, a view which I find perhaps overly charitable. During the 1950's his views became almost right-wing paranoid, especially where the Russians and the bomb were concerned. In the meanwhile, if Boyd wants to wave the bloody red banner, fine, but don't expect any more contributions from me. I also found his attitude towards Ron and Dr. Farmer offensive, and as they are my friends I am obliged to back them up. Any besides, I like frightening the bourgeosie.
Long live CAS!
Death to Saddam, Osama, and anybody else who believes murder is a tool of state policy!
Scott Connors, former SGT, US Army (Military Police Corps, Armored Corps), life member NRA, ACLU

Curiouser and curiouser! The emotional vehemence of the tone of this thread continues to amaze me.

Scott:

Quote:

This is the type of bullshit that has no place on a website devoted to a kind and gentle dreamer.

As I mentioned, above, on this we agree, although I wouldn't put it nearly so violently, nor would I use quite the same epithet to epitomize Ashton Smith's personality.

Quote:

but having lived abroad for several years I can at least make a comparison, and compared to Europe, Asia or the Middle east, America is indeed #1 in everything except supporting poets.

I lived in Europe during the '80's, and was based in--let's hear the boos and hisses!--France. I, too, can make a comparison. In my opinion, and according to my values and tastes, the way of life there is superior in most respects to that of the U.S. (And, please, no "Why don't you move there?" remarks. If it were that easy, then I'd have done so years ago, but one of the things that make Europe such a better place is its relatively tighter immigration policies). Of course, I'm a poet, so I suppose that my sentiments are all too predictable. ;-)

Quote:

It's up to _you_ to learn to live with _us_. Arrogant? Tough shit. Deal with it.

And you criticize Boyd's attitude regarding his Web site???

Quote:

Incidentally, CAS's being down on America was of course only relative, as he generally regarded the entire human race as being made up of half-shaved chimps, a view which I find perhaps overly charitable.

Here, we also agree, albeit perhaps for different reasons. Nevertheless, this fact hardly vitiates my previous point.

Quote:

don't expect any more contributions from me.

That's a shame. I, for one, shall miss your contributions to this site.

Quote:

besides, I like frightening the bourgeosie.

????

Quote:

Death to Saddam, Osama, and anybody else who believes murder is a tool of state policy!

Including, I assume, all the dictatorial, human rights-abusing client states, past, present, and future, supported by the United States?

(To anticipate the ad hominem flames that this last statement may incite: I am no Leftist. I agree with the person who wisely observed that politics is not worthy of serious thought, but, to the extent I have any such views, I suppose that I advocate the return of a modernized form of aristocracy. Yes, this puts me foursquare in opposition to democracy, liberal humanism, and capitalism, but it also makes me a reactionary, if anything, and therefore farther to the Right than the lot of you! ;-) )

Time to bow out of this, unless anyone addresses me directly. Do all the Ashton Smith aficionados here remember the Forrest Ackerman-inspired "Boiling Point" controversy, by chance? Wasn't that a productive exchange of ideas!

>>Quick one, Kevin:

Curiouser and curiouser! The emotional vehemence of the tone of this thread continues to amaze me.

>>Well, little things like Good and Evil have a tendency to arouse strong emotions. So do things like having 19-yr old girls tortured, although I'm happy to say she capped several of their buddies before she ran out of ammo. Difference is, we take someone prisoner of war they end up in better shape than they were when we captured them, whereas Saddam's thugs regard them as opportunities for working out all their issues with their parents from the time they were being toilet-trained.

Scott:


Quote:

This is the type of bullshit that has no place on a website devoted to a kind and gentle dreamer.


As I mentioned, above, on this we agree, although I wouldn't put it nearly so violently, nor would I use quite the same epithet to epitomize Ashton Smith's personality.

>>Smith's personality, insofar as I can reconstruct it from speaking with those who knew him, was indeed that of a kind and gentle dreamer. This was most recently put across to me by Voorhees Schenk, Marion Sully's husband, with whom I spent Thursday afternoon. And while I command a vocabulary almost as rich as that of CAS, sometimes words of Anglo-Saxon derivation convey the emotional aspects of my message better than more latinate ones.


Quote:

but having lived abroad for several years I can at least make a comparison, and compared to Europe, Asia or the Middle east, America is indeed #1 in everything except supporting poets.


I lived in Europe during the '80's, and was based in--let's hear the boos and hisses!--France. I, too, can make a comparison. In my opinion, and according to my values and tastes, the way of life there is superior in most respects to that of the U.S. (And, please, no "Why don't you move there?" remarks. If it were that easy, then I'd have done so years ago, but one of the things that make Europe such a better place is its relatively tighter immigration policies). Of course, I'm a poet, so I suppose that my sentiments are all too predictable.

>> As I said, "in everything except supporting poets." With all due respect, though, you are about 19 years old, are you not? That would mean that you were in France in your grammar school years, whereas I lived in Austria and Germany (shows, doesn't it?) in my early twenties, when my critical reasoning skills were just coming up to speed. Europeans are taxed too much, their economies are too controlled and sluggish, their electoral systems designed to fragment societies along social and class boundaries, and they're still willing to kill over something done five hundred years ago. Also, if you defend yourself against a criminal there, you are locked up, meaning that your life belongs to the State since it can deny the most basic right of all, that of self-preservation, "in the interests of society." Of course you also mention another difference between Europe and the US, we'll take just about anyone in (although I do wish they'd do so the proper way, and don't care for illegals). Also, just about everyone wants to come _here, not France.



Quote:

It's up to _you_ to learn to live with _us_. Arrogant? Tough shit. Deal with it.


And you criticize Boyd's attitude regarding his Web site???

Well now, I said that if he wanted to put up the banner that was fine. That's an opinion, everyone is entitled to that. I wasn't pissed off until I discovered it linked to the Daily Worker or such trash. This is enemy propaganda, and so far as I am concerned it serves one function and one function only: to kill Americans. Now I'm not going to try to shut Boyd down, although I probably could make a damn good try if I wanted to (which I don't), but so long as the link is active I chose to exercise my right by not contributing anything else to the site. Fact of the matter is, Boyd needs people like ROn and Bill Farmer and me more than we need him; we can easily set up a website featuring just about everything he has, without any of his less charming features. I'd prefer not to do this. Boyd has been a great deal of help to me, and I am grateful to him, but I am an American first, and to be exact I am a "Red" American, ie from the huge portion of the country that in the last election showed up in red on tv election result maps. The world comes to us because our economy runs theirs, because our cultural products beat the crap out of theres in the marketplace, because we have the most productive workers, etc. Like I said, we're here and we're not going away, and the rest of the world needs us more than we need them. So yeah, deal with it.


Quote:

Incidentally, CAS's being down on America was of course only relative, as he generally regarded the entire human race as being made up of half-shaved chimps, a view which I find perhaps overly charitable.


Here, we also agree, albeit perhaps for different reasons. Nevertheless, this fact hardly vitiates my previous point.


Quote:

don't expect any more contributions from me.


That's a shame. I, for one, shall miss your contributions to this site.

>>It's the leverage I choose to exercise.


Quote:

besides, I like frightening the bourgeosie.


????


Quote:

Death to Saddam, Osama, and anybody else who believes murder is a tool of state policy!


Including, I assume, all the dictatorial, human rights-abusing client states, past, present, and future, supported by the United States?

>>Most definitely! I have always been infuriated that the demands of realpolitik forced upon us by the Cold War made it necessary for us to tolerate scum who should have been the object of a visit from a Marine Expeditionary Force. Don't think we're supporting any at the moment, and I doubt if we will in the future. Of course popular government and democratic government aren't necessarily the same, viz. Algeria, where an Islamist party was voted in but immediately overthrown by the military on the grounds that if the Islamists took power that would be an end to elections. I support extending the part of the constitution guaranteeing each state a republican form of government to foreign policy.

(To anticipate the ad hominem flames that this last statement may incite: I am no Leftist. I agree with the person who wisely observed that politics is not worthy of serious thought, but, to the extent I have any such views, I suppose that I advocate the return of a modernized form of aristocracy. Yes, this puts me foursquare in opposition to democracy, liberal humanism, and capitalism, but it also makes me a reactionary, if anything, and therefore farther to the Right than the lot of you! )

>>I personally prefer Heinlein's system from STARSHIP TROOPERS, but basically any republican form that allows upward mobility and limits the tyranny of the majority suits me fine. And I don't do ad hominem. Note that I have not attacked Boyd directly, only his poor judgement in linking the site to enemy propaganda.

Time to bow out of this, unless anyone addresses me directly. Do all the Ashton Smith aficionados here remember the Forrest Ackerman-inspired "Boiling Point" controversy, by chance? Wasn't that a productive exchange of ideas!

>>Allow me to add this. One of the people with whom Ron and I worked on the Boulder Relocation Committee is a real Bay Area liberal. Outside of occassionally teasing him (for instance, whenever he talks about the plight of the Palestinians I immediately deny the existence of any Palestinians since they are an artificially-created minority forged by Arab refusals to assimulate their brethern in a desire to keep old wounds open, etc.), we get along well by agreeing not to discuss those issues which might cause us to have to kill one another. I've been aware of Boyd's views for sometime, and he of mine, and outside of a little joshing we generally get along well by concentrating on what we have in common, namely Clark. I could even tolerate his banner, after all he does a lot of work on the site and I am more than willing to cut the man some slack. Then I discover that this is a link to what I regard as an attempt to destroy morale on the home front (fifth objective of war, according to von Clausewitz, and the only one that the North Vietnamese beat us on, but it won them the war), and then Boyd gets rude with Ron and Bill Farmer. Not good. The unwritten rule has been violated, and Boyd is the culprit. If this arouses strong, nay even violent emotions, so be it. So no more goodies. And it looks as if I may be about to discover a lost CAS story too. ("The Face by the River," to be precise.)

Scott (other discussions off list)

Oops. You've made 19 posts to the forum, but I mistook that as your age. My apologies!
Scott

Scott:

Quote:

Oops. You've made 19 posts to the forum, but I mistook that as your age. My apologies!

LOL! No problem. I wish I were still 19!

I appreciate your having taken the time to explain your views in detail for those of us who are on the outside of this now-public controversy. Although I do not share your feelings (aside from questioning the use of Web sites to advertise otherwise unrelated political statements), it certainly makes more sense that you and others would take offense at the content to which the anti-war banner links, rather than at the banner itself. As for the rest of it ("good" versus "evil", the relative merits of Europe versus the U.S., etc.), I am afraid that we shall simply have to agree to disagree. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, I shall miss your contributions to this site, and I wish you well in your future endeavors.

It was never my attention to offend any one - so I apologise once again if I did. I have also removed the 'offending' item from the front page.

Boyd.