(Posted January 24, 2007. From the Fall 2006 issue, released October 1)
FRONT SEAT
Welcome,
This page did not exist in the first issue of what was then called The Main Street Rag Poetry Journal. Nor did the Feedback Page. There were no essays, interviews, short fiction. We were strictly poetry.
This issue you hold is a milestone for Main Street Rag. We started out like so many others who have traveled this path, with no idea how long the trip would last. We knew going in that the average life expectancy of a small press publication was less than 3 years because so many of them are done on a shoestring budget, because reaching the masses is difficult and expensive and because putting out a regular publication takes more effort than is envisioned at the onset—often more than those involved are able or willing to provide on a regular basis. Life has a way of setting its own priorities, yet here we are.
Our first issue—the Fall 1996 issue—hit the streets ahead of schedule (early summer) because we were so anxious to announce to the world, We’re here. It was a Plain Jane card cover, but it was our baby. We’ve evolved and grown and in ten years of publishing, we’ve never missed a deadline.
Our goal was simple: to publish a literary magazine that embraced the many voices of Main Street. Voices that were alive with living experience. Life is not always pretty. Nor were we. Our contributors have not come from one perspective but many and we are proud of our inclusiveness and pleased that because we are willing to publish work that represents perspectives and opinions we don’t necessarily share, each issue is a time capsule (of sorts).
I often say we and our while talking about Main Street Rag, while most folks associate this enterprise with me. I am the driving force here, but many people have contributed and continue to contribute to our success. Shawn Pavey was here as an Associate Editor at lift off. You can read an essay by him in this issue reflecting on our origins. Irene Blair Honeycutt was a great inspiration at start up and offered some very sound words of advice that still haunt me every time I prepare an issue for press. In this issue, she becomes the first Charlotte poet we’ve interviewed in our Charlotte-based magazine. Suzanne Baldwin Leitner, commonly referred to as HER, interviewed Irene and has also been around since the early days. Her first published poem appeared in Main Street Rag’s First Anniversary Special.
I’d like to mention folks like Barbara Lawing, Don Mager, Gail Peck, Diana Pinckney, Craig Renfroe, Dede Wilson, who have served as Associate Editors; my business partner, Bill Wesse; good friends Jonathan Rice (Iodine Poetry Journal) and A.A. Jillani (AJ) who have participated in our manuscript selection process since we started publishing chapbooks and books. Cameron Hunter and Michael Cole who have slaved alongside me at the binder and trimmer. There are countless others whose contributions sometimes go unmentioned. When I use the words we and our in reference to Main Street Rag, I’m speaking for all of us including those whose names sometimes get dropped from the credits, but whose efforts have always been appreciated.
In this issue, you will find work by many of our chapbook and poetry book award winners along with work from long-time and regular contributors. When places like Blind Man’s Rainbow see this cover, they may say the front is too busy and you can’t read the names on the back cover. Ah, but there is a method to our madness. Making it difficult for readers to read the back text forces them to open the book and see who’s inside (what a concept).And, yes, the cover is busy. Main Street Rag is the most prolific publisher in the state of North Carolina. By God, WE’RE BUSY!! So what’s wrong with a little imagistic representation? This will be the last (major) anniversary where we will be able to fit all of our covers at a viewable size.
Thank you for stopping in for our ten year bash. Hope to see you again soon.
P.S. Those who come to this section for MSR news and commentaries, will find these items in the The Back Seat section of this issue.
THE BACK SEAT
Hello, again, Readers.
Contests
Congratulations to Stacey Waite of Pittsburgh, PA for winning Main Street Rag’s Eighth Annual Chapbook Contest. Her collection, love poem to androgyny, will be released in October. We also offered publication to fourteen other runners up/finalists whose names can be found listed on the Chapbook Contest Page of our website. Many of them have also agreed to publication and we will be releasing these titles over the next few months as well. For release dates and discount purchases, please visit the Coming Soon page of the Main Street Rag Online Bookstore.We were not as decisive for our Short Fiction Contest. There were some good stories, but when we got down to the last four, we—I—could not choose one over the others. As a result, the prize money will be split among four authors and all four stories will be published in this magazine in 2007. The winners are: “The Yoga Master” by Patrick Tucker, Balitmore, MD, “Burt Halifax” by David Driscoll, Loves Park, IL, “A Fantastic Story about Stitches” by Mary Lopatosky, Providence, RI, and “It’s A Blood Thing” by Jim Finley, Friendswood, TX.
Paying Contributors
Subscribers received a ballot in the summer issue of Main Street Rag. With this, they could vote on which pieces they felt were the best of that issue. If you are a subscriber, you received another one with this issue. I would like to emphasize that, if you choose to vote, list the titles in the order in which you like them best. It’s important. Payment will be based on a point system. Contributors need to receive a certain number of points to be eligible for prize money and how much will be based on a stepped system: the more points an author receives, the greater the reward.By the way, for this to be meaningful, a writer’s work needs to be selected by his or her peers—votes for oneself will not be counted.
Cha-cha-changes
I’m happy to announce an addition to the family. No, I did not get a new dog (and don’t even think about kids). What we have is a new Associate Editor for Main Street Rag. Irene Blair Honeycutt (yes, the same Irene interviewed earlier in this issue) has agreed to help with poetry selection and we are very pleased that she will allow us to interrupt her retirement occasionally to help Main Street Rag be the best magazine it can be.The Shape of Things to Come…
This issue is roughly twice the size of our normal issue. I kept the price the same—intent on losing money—as a way to say, “Hurray, we lasted ten years.” But this is not just a celebration size. This is an audition, a preview of what could be.The numbers say that producing two oversized Main Street Rag issues is more cost effective than the four 100-page issues we currently produce. We could more than double our page count per issue, publish twice a year and it would still cost less to produce and ship than the four 100-page issues we are now publishing. Even better: subscription prices would stay the same, and cover price could actually drop by 15% of an overall cover price comparison.
So what do you think, readers: four 100-page issues at $7 each or two 250-page issues at $12 each? Mind you, while this is not a democratic decision, your input will be most appreciated and influential. Please email your comments to: editor@mainstreetrag.com.
Copyrights and YOU
It might not be a bad idea to offer writers a copyrights competency test that would allow them to earn a certification of sorts that says they know the law. Then, in place of the © symbol that arrives on so many submissions, they could place their license number and we on the publishing end of things could say, “Yep, this one knows the rules,” and feel comfortable about publishing him or her.MSR and Iodine both use Publishing Agreements that state (basically) that the author agrees to abide by existing copyright laws, but time and again, we hear these weird interpretations of the laws. I believe I’ve already written in these pages about the woman who teaches creative writing in Wisconsin and tells her classes about the “two state” law. According to her, a writer can publish a literary piece again without informing the new publisher it was previously published as long as the state in which the magazine is published is at least two states away from the home state of the magazine in which it had previously appeared.
That’s poppycock.
As I write this, I’ve recently become aware of an incident where one of our chapbook contest winners had another nearly identical chapbook published at the same time we published hers and did not inform or credit either publisher. Her excuse is that other poets said it would be okay.
It occurred to me that I could fill an entire volume with the misconceptions and ethical misbehavior of other poets. I could call it The Other Poets Source Book and fill it full of ridiculous anecdotes and ideas that someone out there is spreading to his or her disciples.
The law says an author retains the rights to his or her work except for that portion that he or she gives up. Main Street Rag asks for First North American Rights for our magazine. That means we only want to be the first to put it into print on the continent. To my knowledge, that includes every US state.
For our books, we have what is called a length of contract and it is measured in copies of the book. But the law also requires that we acknowledge every place where the pieces within the book have been published. Not doing so places us in copyright violation—even when we have acted in good faith. And that’s what this author’s actions have done: left one of us in copyright violation.
MSR will list this book as out of print and not sell future copies. The author has also agreed to buy up ALL remainders.
Earlier this year we had a poet agree to have us publish a chapbook, the contents of which were completely included in a book published only a month earlier by another publisher. Not only did this poet not consider copyright laws, but he was perfectly willing to allow us to take a loss on our investment for producing a book that could not possibly pay for itself.
I recently received an emailed “Press Release” that this poet would be leading a workshop on preparing manuscripts for publication and wonder whether he will also dip into ethics (and how deeply).
Stray Thoughts…
Lately I’ve come to realize that the practice of tolerance of others isn’t what it used to mean in America. Tolerance is a tricky thing. In some folks’ minds it means it’s okay to have an opinion as long as it agrees with mine. If it doesn’t, you’re obviously uninformed. I hear people regularly say how they view themselves as tolerant of another’s opinion (until it strays from their own). As soon as that person says something that many people are silently thinking, there is something wrong with him or her.I do it, too. I recently commented to an editor about a review of MSR that I didn’t like. I made (basically) a one-line remark and was immediately labeled a whiner. What I don’t understand is the volatility with which some folks react when you disagree with them. A twenty-word comment from me, and an entire staff goes ballistic. I was over it in ten minutes and they’re railing on for an entire weekend as if I’d lobbed a SCUD into their living room.
I think this tendency to kill the messenger has been heightened by the Bush Administration. If you disagree with their comments or methods, you’re unpatriotic, weak on terrorism, or they’ll leak something about you or your family to the press to deflect their own weak position. In the end, people shut up and do not communicate new ideas and the old dogma prevails.
For future reference: Don’t expect to see opinions squashed in these pages just because they are unpopular or I don’t agree with them.
Until next time…
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Editor
Main Street RagP.S.: VOTE!!! VOTE HARD!!!
(Posted July 6, 2006. From the Summer 2006 issue, released July 1)
Welcome MSR readers,
I have a lot of ground to cover in a small space, so while I did receive some good feedback for this issue, I’m going to hold it for the Fall issue. We will be celebrating our 10th Anniversary this Fall and that issue will be super-sized although we will keep the price the same. Kind of like a Wendy’s™ special.Contest
Congratulations to Jennifer Sweeney of San Francisco, CA for winning the Fifth Annual MSR Poetry Book Award. Her book, Salt Memory, will be released November 1. We’re well ahead of production schedule on this one. The artwork for the cover has already been selected and we will have it up online for advance orders about the same time this issue of MSR is released. Runners up are posted online on the Contest Page.Paying Contributors
In the May installment of our monthly newsletter, I mentioned we were looking for a way to restrict open submission reading and reward contributors (pay them). Here’s the plan: Starting in 2007, we will restrict open reading periods so they don’t compete with our contest reading periods. Poetry will be read from July 1 through February 1. Short Fiction will be read from September 1 through April 1. We receive so few essays that—for now—we don’t need to set an open reading period.
And then there is the question of payment. Starting immediately, we will award “best of issue” honorariums to contributors. Who gets paid and how much will depend on the participation of subscribers. They are permitted to vote. If you are a subscriber, you should have found an insert telling you how and where to cast your vote. We’ll tabulate after the next issue goes to press and pay in the middle of the following quarter.Different Strokes
The day before yesterday it was announced that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been killed. As was the case when Saddam Hussein was captured, there was a notable lack of people dancing in the streets of America. This is in sharp contrast to the reactions of so many Arabs on 9/11. I point this out because I think it demonstrates a fundamental difference in our cultural values. Americans will kill, but as a group, I don’t think we celebrate the act.
Recently, our military people were charged with atrocities in Iraq. It’s not the first time. Americans are not saints. The incidents will be investigated. If crimes have been committed, people will be punished.
Compare that to Arab reactions when al-Zarqawi was killed. There were vigils and parades honoring a martyr. Here is a man who in his lifetime has killed thousands of innocents and some of his fellow Sunnis consider him a martyr. If there are any questions why the world should be concerned about an Arab or fundamentalist Islamic state having a nuclear weapon, focus on the cultural differences I just mentioned.Final Note
During the protests in May when Hispanic immigrants decided to teach America a lesson about how much they influence our economy, I saw a lot of people holding up signs. One in particular caught my attention: “Equal rights under the law.”
I would not argue against the philosophy, but I find it interesting that people who are in this country illegally would choose it as a point on which to make a stand. There are proper legal channels to enter this country and although I believe they need to be re-evaluated and updated, I also believe that the primary purpose of immigration laws is not to prevent folks from coming here and achieving the American Dream or improving their lifestyle. The primary purpose is to document who is here.
American citizens are documented the moment we pop out of the womb. Shouldn’t we have an equal level of knowledge for immigrants?
On the other hand, Americans tend to pick and choose which laws we will follow and which laws we will not. Some folks cheat on their taxes, others cheat on their wives, some cheat on the bar exam. We’re all stealing from our parents, our children, and our grandchildren by not fixing health care and Social Security. Some folks steal from their employer, after all, a few minutes extra here and there at lunch or in the morning isn’t much and taking home a few envelopes or using the postage meter for personal mail isn’t really stealing, is it? For my part, I tend to disregard speed limits. Does that make me an evil person?
The point is: We all have vices. So why would it surprise anyone when those who want to immigrate here have vices as well? The purpose of documentation is to (hopefully) limit those vices to a manageable, non-lethal variety. To that end, we need to know who these people are. If that means building walls and hiring more border patrols to make it harder for those who refuse to work within the system, then let’s do it.
Bottom line: We shouldn’t try to keep folks out, but we need to know who’s in and who wants to come in. Amnesty is not the answer for folks who have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect current laws. Most of all, we need to increase the fines for hiring illegal aliens to something meaningful and give the people who hire illegals some jail time.
Conservatives are fond of letting free enterprise solve our problems. Make jail time mandatory for anyone who hires illegals and let’s see how fast free enterprise finds a viable alternative to the problem.
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Managing Editor
Main Street Rag
(From the Spring 2006 issue, released April 1)Welcome,
We haven’t been receiving feedback lately—not a single comment since the Fall 2006 issue. I enjoy publishing reader feedback—especially when they debate or disagree with my commentary. The Main Street Rag Feedback Section—which is missing from this issue—is a forum for you, the readers and supporters on this magazine, to let your voice be heard.
Most of you are writers. All of you have opinions. I’m providing canvas, paint and brush—all you have to do is put your hand to it. Please don’t allow this section to go dark for lack of interest the way the MSR Contributors’ Pages were discontinued for a lack of creativity.
FYI: I prefer to receive feedback letters by email.
Choices
Often the measure of whether an individual or a society survives is related to choices. In many parts of the world there are natural and economic barriers that limit their choice of options. In America, we praise those who rise from a background of poverty and become successful despite limited options.
There are also those whose choices are not limited, but they choose badly. They fail as a matter of choice. Regardless of what circumstances inspired that choice—whether they were poorly informed, undereducated, oppressed. Perhaps they place such absolute faith in something that they cannot question its validity, its purpose or the consequences that could accompany such choice.
January’s elections proved (to me, at least) that the Palestinians are the craziest mothers on the face of the planet. These folks were about to get almost everything they wanted through negotiation. Instead, they elect a terrorist group to run the country—basically thumbing their collective noses at anyone and everyone involved in the peace process.
What are the Palestinians trying to tell the world? It’s ALL OR NOTHING? Israel must be wiped out of existence or we will die trying?
What is the point of gaining control of a piece of land if there is no one left to live there, if the land itself is no longer livable? That is where Hamas has chosen to take the Palestinian people and a majority of those people have chosen to slide the bandanas down over their eyes and step off a cliff with them. If that doesn’t make them crazy mothers, I don’t know what does.
* * *
Which leads me to the violence over a Danish cartoon. Clearly, Arab Muslims have no understanding of the concept of freedom of speech.
There are those who will say I just made a racial slur — committed an act of stereotyping by attributing the actions of some to an entire group. I feel comfortable doing that here and sharing it with readers here, not because — like Dick Cheney or George Bush — I know I am preaching to the choir. Not because I think that those on the other side of my comments are not listening or will not care. Not because I have an agenda to push. I do so because Main Street Rag is a forum for free-thinkers and that’s what free-thinking people do. They express their thoughts because they are not afraid of those thoughts. They are not afraid when their opinions are in the minority. They know that freedom of expression means freedom for anyone and everyone to say what they think regardless of how unpopular or (in some cases) stupid the thoughts may be.
I understand that the depiction of the prophet Mohammad is blasphemy in the Muslim faith, but I also know what a contradiction this whole episode is. In some Muslim countries it is illegal to bring a Bible into the country. Why? I think the primary reason is to control the masses. It’s easier to maintain control when everyone is on the same page, everyone has the same belief system. This philosophy is not isolated to Muslims, by the way. In America, the religious right has been using Christianity as a means to gain social and political control for years.
But here is the contradiction: Many Islamic nations have laws against proselytizing. They don’t want outsiders converting their citizens to another faith. So then, what gives them the right to force their believes on citizens outside their borders who are not of their faith? Just because it’s blasphemy to them does not make it blasphemy to a non-believer. And if they truly believe — as Islamic leaders have insisted — in the rights of other religions to exist, then by default they believe in an individual’s right to not believe. A person who believes in nothing cannot commit blasphemy.
The angle most media and commentators have taken in regard to the violence that has erupted over this cartoon is how poorly The West understands the Islamic religion. I think it demonstrates a measure of racism emanating from the Middle East and how little those who live there understand the concept of freedom. When have we ever heard an Arab Muslim in a tizzy over a televised beheading let alone seen an organized group demonstrate against them? But show a picture of an Arab man in his underwear…
Mind you, I am not condoning anyone’s actions, I’m merely pointing out the different reactions as a point of discussion. Why would photographs (or a cartoon) be such an insult and televised beheadings acceptable? I think it’s because of who is being beheaded. It’s okay to kill a heathen, an infidel, but take a picture of a nearly naked Arab, draw a picture of the prophet… blasphemy!
If this isn’t an example of racism by Arabs, what is it? Consider this: What would the reaction of Arab Muslims be if an American court found one of the Guantánamo Bay detainees guilty of murder and sentenced him to a beheading that would later be broadcast? Yes, that’s an extreme and absurd example because it would never happen here. We’re too civilized for that kind of punishment.
Set aside your conviction that it could never happen and ask yourselves whether Arab Muslims would sit quietly in their homes and cafes and watch a public display of one of their own — regardless of what he had done — being beheaded on television. Therein lies the contradiction, the double-standard, the racism.
Getting back to the cartoon. Regardless of how distasteful, inaccurate or undesirable, the bottom line is: No one has to look at it. Most of the world would never have learned of this cartoon had Muslims not made an issue of it. I’m not suggesting that offensive actions should be swept under the rug, but there is a reality factor here. By reacting as they did, Muslims only made people more curious. I guarantee at least 100 times more people — probably a thousand of times more people — have seen the cartoon than would have.
In a CNN discussion, William Bennett called the Muslim world’s reaction to the cartoon, “a peek into the soul of that faith.” Spoken like a true believer giving us a peek into America’s own dark, chauvinistic soul — but freedom grants him the right to say this.
In the same debate (and in his blog), Jim Zogby argues that the cartoon was directed at European Muslims specifically, that the paper in question has “a long history of anti-immigrant advocacy” and that these cartoons were meant to “teach a lesson” and “assert authority.”
The primary problem with that conclusion is that the paper has no “authority” to “assert.” He goes on to say that “[the notion that] freedom of the press… is absolute is… nonsense since every culture, by definition has its taboos.” Which may be true, but just because a culture has taboos, does not (and should not) prevent freedom of artistic expression. If a publication crosses the line of decency as defined by individuals, those individuals simply need to stop buying the paper and stop buying the products and/or services from those whose advertisements help to publish it.
The bottom line is this: Just because someone takes the time to express his or her thoughts or feelings doesn’t mean anyone is obligated to acknowledge it. Ignoring something is often the best way to react. It infringes on no one’s rights. If more people in the Middle East understood freedom of speech, they’d know this and they wouldn’t allow extremists to manipulate them into passionate displays of ignorance.
Full Circle
Which brings me back to America and our own self-righteousness. Anyone who can’t see the parallels between the actions of those in the Middle East and some of our own crazies is overlooking the obvious: There is a religious war going on in the world and America is at the center of it because we insist on exporting our faith.
The battle is being fought in classrooms, in churches, in polling places, online and right here in the pages of America’s printed journals and papers. It’s the playoffs on the road to the Super Bowl of dogma and there are people who want to manipulate us by using our faith, our passions and our needs in ways that satisfy their own agendas.
And what are those agendas? As Mark Felt (Deep Throat) allegedly said: “Follow the money.” If you examine who benefits most by instability in the world, you soon understand why there is so much instability in the world.
It’s pretty obvious that most Congressmen and Senators leave office wealthier than when they arrived. You don’t suppose they’re benefiting by ignoring the causes of world instability, do you? I think so.
The Middle East has always been an unstable region of the world as well as the greatest source of the world’s most-valued commodity. I don’t suppose anyone has considered the fact that oil companies’ 2005 record profits amid war, global disasters, and terrorism are a result of manipulated shortages? Sure seems worthy of investigation to me.
Finally, given the fact that oil companies seem to thrive in an unstable environment, how intelligent is the American voting public for electing a President who ran an oil company into the ground? (Your turn to answer.)
Late Addition
In the wake of Mr. Cheney’s February hunting accident, I think it’s most gracious of George W. Bush to express his support of his number two guy, but I think a more fitting example of his support would be for the President to join Mr. Cheney on his next hunting expedition. Hey, I’ll even buy the beer!See you in three,
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Editor
Main Street Rag
(From the Winter 2005/2006 issue, released October 1)
Announcements
January 31 is the deadline for the 2006 Main Street Rag Poetry Book Award. Guidelines are on our website and also on page 88 of this issue. Conquistador by Jay Griswold, winner of the 2005 MSR Poetry Book Award is now available and Jim Ferris, winner of the 2004 MSR Poetry Book Award for The Hospital Poems, will be in Charlotte in March for the CPCC Spring Literary Festival.
Steve Taylor, winner of the 2004 MSR Short Fiction Contest will be touring in support of his new book of short stories, Cut Men (MSR, 2005). He’ll be in Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia in January and conducting readings, signings and a workshop in Charlotte January 20-23. Details are on the Events Page of the MSR website.
Finally, on the last page of the Blue Pages you’ll find an ad for KAKALAK. This is a contest run by some of our local friends (and occasional contributors) for North Carolina and South Carolina poets. The deadline is shortly after this issue ships, but we wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention.
Calling ‘em as I see ‘em
There are several news items that I think need some air time here in this issue.
First, let’s talk about the price of a gallon of gasoline. I’ve railed on many occasions on the subject of oil and how we consumers allow oil companies and nations that control this resource to bleed us dry. Then came Katrina and the worst price spikes in our history. The big oil companies said it was beyond their control—that their production was disrupted, etc.
To one extent, I understand. What I don’t understand is why they were charging us more for a product that was already produced. The gasoline that shot up in price wasn’t produced post-Katrina or even during Katrina and the oil companies were on shutdown during and after the storm. They didn’t have to pay wages or production costs because they weren’t operating. They weren’t buying new oil because they didn’t have any place to refine it since all the places that were online were running at full capacity.
So why did the price spike? Big oil says it was high demand on low supply forcing the price. Which is kind of like auctioning the only generator in town the day after a hurricane knocks out all of the power for two weeks. You are in control of a needed commodity and letting the crazies who have money dictate the selling price. What’s wrong with that? Nothing if you are not in total control of the commodity and pricing it unreasonably during a time of need. That’s called price gouging.
When a tragedy strikes one part of America, we all feel the pain to some extent. We all band together to help those hit the hardest. The oil companies didn’t feel the need to share America’s suffering. Instead, they used it as an opportunity to boost profits. If this is not a case of price fixing and profiteering, explain to me why the cost of a gallon of gasoline has dropped nearly a dollar while these companies are being investigated by 38 states’ Attorneys General and a Congressional Committee. Explain to me how the mere hint of price controls drives the price of a gallon of gasoline down nearly a dollar in less than a month?
I think it’s time to discuss greed in America, whether it IS the market pressure that sets the living conditions for entire world and what we need to do about it.
Next Batter…
In a Sunday, November 20 article in The Charlotte Observer, Wachovia Bank CEO Ken Thompson speaks out in favor of off-shoring labor--a position he argued against only a year ago. Unfortunately, a year ago he also pledged to increase Wachovia’s profits by a billion dollars over the next couple of years and the two positions are apparently in conflict.
On a recent visit to India, he suddenly discovered the poverty in which most of the population lives. He says that it is up to us, the wealthier nations of the world, to lift them out of that poverty. While I don’t dispute the responsibility of the wealthier folks of the world to help the poor, I have issues with his methods. Any time anyone in the top 2% of America’s wage earners suggests a belt tightening, it’s always the folks who work for them--or used to--who have to go out and buy the belts. I don’t see him turning back his multi-million dollar bonus. I don’t see the CEO of Ford or GM cutting their own health benefits.
Why aren’t we sharing equally the burdens of balancing a world economy? Because the decision makers, the Ken Thompsons of the world, are at the top of the pyramid. Do you know what the view from the top of the pyramid is? You see the outer shell. All the catacombs and the inner architecture that holds that bugger up are hidden from view and if you don’t take care of them, the structure will eventually collapse.
I think every CEO of every Fortune 500 company should take a stroll through New Delhi or Calcutta. They might even try New Orleans’ 9th Ward or Little Rock while they’re out and about. There is poverty everywhere and the answer isn’t to avert your eyes or redirect the world’s view, but to look inside and see if you are part of the answer or part of the problem.
It’s interesting how Mr. Thompson (and others in his economic strata) are able to keep a straight face as they rationalize the exportation of American jobs using such noble spin. And yet, they are offended when others suggest their salaries and bonuses are obscenely high. They spend millions to elect folks with the right economic perspective, millions more lobbying against regulations and in favor of lower taxes--money that could be used to help the poor in this country, pay the people who protect this country and maintain this country’s infrastructure, money to ensure everyone in America has an equal opportunity for healthcare.
If Mr. Thompson really wants to convince me of his altruistic rationale, he needs to pay the same wage to overseas labor as he does domestic labor. Right now, they cost him less than half as much [Since originally published, I have learned that the actual ratio is about 1/7th]. If his true purpose is to elevate the poorer nations of the world out of poverty, why pay them less simply because their cost of living says he can?
Refresher Courses
After Scooter Libby got caught lying to a grand jury, Mr. Bush decided that his entire staff needed an ethics refresher course. This got me thinking about all the folks we have working in government and how many of them are qualified simply because so-and-so said they were qualified.
Think about this: to drive a car, you need a license. They give you a book that explains the rules of the road and a written test to prove you read and understand those rules. If you don’t pass the test, you don’t get to drive.
Lawyers, doctors, nurses, teachers, airline pilots, plumbers, electricians, real estate agents—the list goes on for workers whose jobs REQUIRE that they take a test and receive a license to practice. Why is it that politicians and their subordinates are not required to be licensed to practice the nation’s business?
Having to be licensed would not guarantee that our politicians were ethical, but it would at least demonstrate that they read the rule book and if they did get caught breaking one of the rules, they couldn’t fall back on faulty memory or not knowing any better. And wouldn’t this be a great source of revenue? I’m betting that if every politician in America had to be licensed at the meager cost of $10 per politician, we could easily cover the cost of Ken Starr’s pursuit of Bill Clinton. And if we fined them $10 for each time they or one of their spin-doctors misrepresented the truth, we might even be able to rebuild New Orleans. We could do it in a year if it was an election year.See you in three,
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Editor
Main Street Rag
(From the Fall 2005 issue, released October 1)
Welcome,
I usually start this column with contest information when there is some to be had and since we recently announced the winners of all three of our contests, that would normally be here. The problem is: we like to list all the winners and there isn’t enough space here. So let me say Congratulations! to Jay Griswold for winning the MSR Poetry Book Award, Michelle Ross for winning the MSR Short Fiction Contest and Fred Kirchner for winning the MSR Chapbook Contest and steer readers to page XII of the Blue Pages to find a complete list of winners. (Information available online on the individual Contest's page)
Down to Business
Truth is an interesting concept. I hear interviews all the time where some mushroom from the peanut gallery is asked his or her opinion and presents it, then follows with something like, “That’s the truth, but some folks can’t accept the truth.”
The truth is: just because it comes from your mouth, some talking head on TV’s mouth or even the President’s mouth, doesn’t make it truth.
I bring this up because lately I’ve been hearing a lot of contradicting truths. I’ve been witnessing a lot of people pointing fingers, calling others liars, calling others unpatriotic for simply having another opinion.
It’s great to live in a nation where we can express our opinions openly and to be so passionate about that freedom that we would want to share it with the rest of the world, but what kind of an example do we set by trying to shout the other side down when we don’t agree with their perspective?
Cindy Sheehan has every right under the US Constitution to express her opinion of the Iraq conflict whether she’d lost a son there or not. Those who showed up to protest her protest have every right to do so as well. But when we resort to threats of violence and unruly behavior in an attempt to silence the other side, we dishonor the very concept that allows both sides to express themselves in the first place.
I am not in favor of having military people in Iraq. I believe we are there under false pretenses. But the reality is this: It’s our mess. We are obligated to clean it up. We can’t leave until we do.
What bothers me most about issues such as this is the blind faith conservatives have in their leadership. As President Bush’s approval ratings drop under 40% overall, 83% of conservatives still think he’s doing a good job as opposed to 17% of liberals. These numbers were never as polarizing—not during Watergate, Iran-Contra or even the Clinton impeachment hearings. The extreme left would probably never approve of a Republican President no matter how successful he was, but what boggles the mind is the way the religious right is willing to ignore Republican cow patties even when they are standing knee deep in them.
This isn’t limited to their support of President Bush. Look at Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. One minute he’s the poster boy for conservatism, the next he’s the author of a legal brief favoring gay marriage. The conservative leadership shunts it aside as a liberal ploy to prevent confirmation (but won’t release Roberts’ papers, either) and everything is rosy again. That’s okay by me, but what about the core principals we kept hearing about during the last elections?
Then there’s the case of Reverend Pat Robertson stating that he thinks the US should assassinate the President of Venezuela. Let’s forget for a minute that this is a religious icon and former presidential candidate condoning murder on international TV and consider the scarier issue: He made this statement on The 700 Club—one of the longest-running and well-established religious television networks in America.
Why is that so scary? Because conservatives play to their base. They only speak where they expect a welcome response. Clearly Pat Robertson condoned murder on The 700 Club because he felt he was among like-minded people. And when you read some of the emails that were sent to MSNBC the following week in support of his comments, it’s easy to understand why he might believe it. Welcome to the Religious Right!!!
I don’t want to sound flip about an enormous tragedy, but I have to wonder if old Pat isn’t thankful that Katrina came along to yank his face off the front page.
Which brings me to my final point. Conservatives claim they want to keep gu’ment out of people’s lives (unless, of course, they’re homosexual or some other form of sinner). They certainly fulfilled their agenda in this crisis. Bush’s own Department of Homeland Security predicted this scenario last year. What have they done since to help curb the devastation? Nothing. Why? No, it’s not a racial thing. It’s economics. We can’t raise taxes on folks that have money to help those who don’t; to spend on infrastructure, on education, to create better housing for the less fortunate. That wouldn’t be prudent.
So, what is conservative about spending 5 times more for cleaning up a disaster than it would have cost to prevent it? Didn’t a conservative coin the phrase, An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Bet it wasn’t the same guy who came up with compassionate conservatism.
Until next time,
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Editor
Main Street Rag
(From the Summer 2005 issue)
Fellow Raggeteers,
Hello again. Thank you all for returning for another installment of What’s Eating Scott Lately. As usual, I have a great deal on my mind—most of which will remain there out of courtesy to you, dear readers. But I do have a few things I’d like to share and if the cover image wasn’t a clue, then sit back—I’ll get to it.
First let’s discuss the trendy new buzzword for 2005: filibuster. Obviously, it’s not really a new word or concept. I seem to recall having used it in a poem not long ago (in reference to my dogs). What’s new is the way politicians are attempting to manipulate us by the way they use the word. Republicans are whining because Democrats have used filibusters to block judicial appointments (that makes it a bad thing—if you’re keeping score). Democrats claim they are protecting us from the appointment of right wing judges (from their perspective, it’s a good thing, a nurturing thing).
The bottom line is this: Republicans used filibusters for years to force Democrats to compromise. The Democrats could just as easily have changed the rules to force their will, but they did not. Republicans obviously believe—as the President has repeatedly demonstrated—my way or the highway, you’re either “with us or against us.” Compromise doesn’t seem to be part of their vocabulary.
I could hear Jesse Helms crying foul if the rules had been changed to prevent Senator NO from filibustering anything proposed by Democrats when he was in office. If changing the rules to get your way isn’t abuse of power, what is? The simple fact that they would consider a nuclear option to maximize conservative saturation of the court system raises further questions about the morals of the Republican leadership. First they tried to change the rules to protect Speaker of the House, Tom DeLay, from being investigated. Now they want to eliminate filibustering as a tool for the minority. What’s next? Making sure only white guys worth over $5M can vote?
There is more than one reason why they called the Kennedy Administration Camelot. As divisions deepen between America’s two major parties, we should all consider the difference one word can make: Might for right vs. might makes right. And while they’re thinking about that, Republicans might also consider that even though they worked hard to limit the opposition’s ability to raise funds during the 2004 Presidential campaign, Democrats still raised record amounts of money. Republicans won’t always be in power and may one day have to deal with the consequences of having stomped on others while they were.
Perhaps they had that in mind when the MOD Squad (7 moderate Republicans and 7 moderate Democrats) forced a compromise in late May. It’s doubtful if this coalition of the resonable will hold together, but if it does, it’s a win-win for America. With a virtual third body to contend with, the extremists on the right and left will have to concede a certain amount of power and maybe show a little more respect to opposing arguments.
Freedom of Speech Gets Laundered
In January, MSR Publishing Company published a chapbook entitled Laundry by donarkevic. It was a runner-up in the 2004 MSR Chapbook Contest and one of trhe final three. MC Bruce, who reviews for Small Press Review and Ibbetson Street Review (among others), called this collection “brilliant.” On the other hand, the author’s former employer, United Hospital Center in Weston, WV, fired him because some of his co-workers projected themselves into certain less-than-complimentary characters.
The emphasis here should be on the word characters. This collection of poems was based loosely on the sixteen years that the author was employed in the UHC’s laundry room. Like any good writer, he took his personal experiences and expanded them into an artificial world. So the question becomes: At what point does a writer no longer have the right to express himself or herself without the fear of reprisal from an employer? This is creative writing folks—poetry—not investigative reporting.
I tried to put this same question to hospital CEO Bruce Carter, but a hospital spokesperson refused comment. West Virginia is an at-will employment state—which means an employer isn’t required to give reason for dismissal and because there is no money in settlements, lawyers have no incentive to defend an employee dismissed under questionable circumstances.
Having lived in West Virginia in my youth, I would never consider it progressive for anything other than innovative ways to fund highway projects, but I didn’t realize that it would do so little to protect its work force. When I travel through West Virginia—and I do often having family in Pennsylvania—I always try to avoid buying gas since their gas tax is about ten cents higher than the adjacent states. I now have yet another reason to avoid spending money in that state.
Greasing the Economy
Lately I’ve been thinking that perhaps I’ve had it all wrong about petroleum and the way to deal with rising oil prices and shrinking supplies. In the past I’ve questioned why we don’t put more money into research and development of alternative fuels to operate our vehicles. I’ve criticized our goverment for allowing oil-rich nations to hold us hostage.
In an editorial in the December 1999 issue of Independence Boulevard, shortly after it was reported that SUVs had taken over as the best seller among new automobile types, I predicted an increase in oil prices—its cause and effect.
In short, I pointed out how the higher quality of SUVs would cause people to hold onto them longer—driving down new car sales. Auto manufacturers and dealerships would need a spark to reinvigorate sales. I suggested that oil prices might spike abruptly and POW!, the automakers would be there with fuel-efficient cars already designed and ready to replace those nasty gas-guzzlers they sold us only a few years earlier.
That prediction was partially accurate. I was obviously wrong about automakers already having an alternative vehicle ready to go—at least in reference to American automakers. But I’m thinking it doesn’t really matter. The people who have the money are still buying Hummers and although they may complain some, they still fill their tanks even when the cost for a gallon of gasoline reaches $3. Traffic in America hasn’t diminished one bit, either.
I think this is a good thing. I think we should encourage those who have the least fuel-efficient vehicles to drive them more often. Speed a little, even. They’re performing a service to the entire world. It’s their money. They can afford gasoline at any price, why should they conserve? Conservation is for walkers, bicyclists, bus riders.
Some readers are probably shaking their heads thinking I’m either kidding or lost it. I am dead serious. Drill for oil in Alaska, too. Let’s do it. Let’s get it all out of the ground as fast as we possibly can. Why? Because it’s a finite resource. Once it’s gone, it’s gone and we will be forced to use something else.
Automakers and oil companies won’t put any significant amount of research into alternative fuels until the Fat Lady starts singing dirges to their collective bottom lines. The only thing that could force the development of new technology is a lack of fuel to drive old technology.
So, to the extremists out there who are lighting SUVs on fire I say, “Peace, brother. Let nature take its course.”
Sure, the burning of fossil fuels will increase greenhouse gases somewhat, but the planet has a way of healing itself and making things right. We’ll lose a little coast line to higher sea levels, but on the upside, starvation, increased cancer rates and greater storm destruction caused by climatic changes will help offset the population growth in areas of the world where folks don’t have enough sense to practice birth control.
See that... I can find a silver lining anywhere. It’s all a matter of perspective.Until next time,
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Editor
Main Street Rag
(From the Spring 2005 issue)
Welcome to another small press adventure. This is the section where readers catch up on what’s going on in the Main Street Rag universe. It’s also not unusual to find an opinion or two expressed here.
I suppose the big news for this issue is the lack of a Feed Back section. Hopefully, this is temporary. The simple fact is that while we had some well-wishers and grateful contributors drop us notes, for the most part, we haven’t received much feedback. I find that interesting since we do straddle the political line and I made my share of controversial comments in 2004. Oh well, the space is available for those who want to use it.
Clarifying a Concept
I don’t often get specific about what I want in the way of an interview or essay, but the pop media has spawned an idea. I see Paris Hilton everywhere, on magazines, TV—I’ve even seen her interviewed several times. If this isn’t the most vapid human being on the face of the planet, I’m at a loss to know who is. So here’s the assignment: I want to know who Ms. Hilton’s fans are and what about her they find so intriguing. Perhaps an interview with some of the .5% of TV viewers who watch her show to get some insight into what makes them tick. And here’s a real goal: try to find one that can speak in complete sentences.
A Good Thing
I rode Martha Stewart pretty hard in these pages awhile back. Now that she’s out of prison, I’d like to say that she took it like a man—unlike some of her slimy male counterparts in the corporate world who committed even worse crimes and still not paid the price (did I hear someone say “Ken Lay”). She’s done her time. I wish her success. I may even buy a set of towels from the Living collection…as soon as she makes them in Douglass plaid.
Politics (as usual)
No one really believed that once the election was over, the politicians would stop playing politics, so folks can’t be surprised if I continue to give a Monday morning quarterback sort of play-by-play. Having 58 million of my fellow Americans tell me they voted their “values” is just too much fodder to pass up.
For instance, I wonder how they feel about the Bush administration’s paying radio commentators to support the President’s policies on education reform (among other things). This is a perfect example of what conservatives have been claiming for years: that the media is trying to manipulate the way people think.
Or how about the fact that Haliburton misplaced several hundred pounds of nuclear waste material in October 2004—you know, right before the election—and kept it quiet until after the presidential inauguration? To my knowledge, they are still not being investigated or fined because of it.
Finally, isn’t it refreshing to see that thirsty-five percent of Americans are solidly behind Mr. Bush’s “primary goal” for his second term: social security reform. Here’s the problem, folks: we need to reform social security, this just happens to be the wrong way to go about it. I’m not against private accounts—long-term, something like them is necessary, but not this version.
This bill would benefit the youngest of today’s work force, but it gradually decreases the program’s safety net function and comes up short of resolving the solvency issue for those scheduled to retire in the next thirty years or so. If they really want to keep it solvent, they need to remove the cap on earnings.
Currently, social security is only paid on the first $84K worth of wages. That made sense in the 1980s, but not now. They need to increase it to $100K immediately and index future increases to the inflation rate—the same way social security benefits are indexed. That alone would solve the solvency problem. Then we can talk about private accounts.
Play Back
It’s pretty despicable when someone tapes private conversations without letting the other person know. Of course, the Republicans didn’t mind when Linda Tripp was doing the taping. It doesn’t give them much room to complain now, does it?
Hell, I thought the off-the-record recorded George seemed a heck of a lot more human than the one who regurgitates over and over (and over) the same lame phrases his advisors feed him at his morning prep sessions and that’s a problem for me. It’s a problem because I like being able to dislike Mr. Bush.
That aside, he gave new insight to his reasons for not answering questions about drug use and in so doing made a valid point: America’s children are taught to respect and look up to our President. Could knowledge that he smoked marijuana work as an endorsement? Think about it. Reports claim that oral sex is the method of choice among sexually active teens. Can anyone say for certain that Bill and Monica didn’t contribute to this trend?
Apologies…
Last issue I said I was going to hold onto my money. I wasn’t going to buy any big-ticket items that could help—by way of taxes—to fund the Bush War machine. I encouraged all of you to do the same. My friends, I’ve suffered a moment of weakness. Worse than that, I’ve betrayed my lineage. Yes, I’m almost ashamed to admit it, but in March I purchased…a Ford and if you’re in OK, TX, NM, CO—or about 8 other states between here and the Rockies this August, you may see me fly by. Don’t blink.Until next time,
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Editor
(From the Winter 2004/2005 issue)
MSR Readers,
Losses and Gains
The MSR family has shrunken somewhat since our last issue. First, long-time supporter and contributor Gerald Kaminski passed away in September, then good friend Betty Seizinger died in October. Both will be missed.Plans are underway to honor Betty by creating an essay contest for regional students in her name. Details will be online as soon as they have been finalized.
Confessional
Hi. My name is Scott. I live in a red state, but most of my friends are blues. I have some blue sympathies—I guess that places me somewhere between lavender and periwinkle. Some folks might think I’m gay simply because I know what periwinkle looks like. I am not. My significant other is a woman whom the reds allow me to call my wife. Because we are the correct gender combination, we are permitted to call our relationship a marriage. I really don’t care what it’s called, but I do wish everyone were permitted to experience all of the benefits our relationship has to offer.
I wish I lived in a purple state, but there are none of those. It’s hard sometimes for my wife and I to fit into our red environment. The reds have placed so much emphasis on controlling what others learn, how others use their own bodies, and how other’s money is spent—and that’s the most important part—the red ideal: that we keep spending, no matter how far in debt we go.Most of all, the reds make sure that the folks who are pocketing all the money we spend don’t have to waste it on infrastructure. This is another important red ideal. It is a money maker’s entitlement for providing jobs—those that haven’t been exported to third world countries to drive down employee salaries here and make us all so thankful for having a job at all.
The Reds want to paint the entire landscape with the same brush. Red is the color of freedom. Red is the color of the blessed. It worries me sometimes that so many people who live in these red states don’t understand how their lives are being manipulated by the labeling and colorization of values. It’s no real surprise that the red states have the worst educational systems. If there is one thing our country has learned from Islamic countries, it’s that the masses can be convinced of anything if you label it God’s Will.
I’ve decided it might be a good idea to stop spending money for a while—especially in red states. I realize this puts me in a precarious situation since others could choose to do the same and I live in a red state, but my wife and I are particularly valuable to the reds. It’s not the fact that we are unaffiliated with any political party—that no longer matters now that they control everything. No, what makes us most valuable is that we are DINKs: Double Income—No Kids. What’s more, we are DINKs with money to spend; lots of money to spend. They’re counting on us to support the war effort, shoulder the economy and help to shrink the massive deficit they’ve run up by spending, spending, spending.
My wife and I have decided that it’s their debt, let them dig their own way out. We’ve decided that our physical health is more important than this nation’s economic health, so we’re going to hold onto our money, invest in other country’s economies and avoid buying big-ticket items for the next four years. Since 58 million of this nation’s finest don’t feel that the economy and healthcare are as important as we do, we’re just going to go along with them. Let them have what they voted for and let the chips fall where they may. When the stuff hits the fan, we’ll still have our savings to cover medical expenses or the cost of immigration to a country that has some economic common sense. Why, I already know some of that country’s theme song, “Oh, Canada…”
Professional
By now most folks have seen a film clip of the Debacle in Detroit: Ron Artest and a couple other NBA thugs climbing into the stands to beat on fans. That’s not to say the fans are innocent for their behavior, but these guys call themselves professionals.
On the other hand, anyone who didn’t see this coming hasn’t really been paying attention. We pay our professional athletes outrageous amounts of money and make no demands for their behavior. If they act like good citizens, we consider it a bonus. When they step out of line, they get a slap on the wrist. In the NBA, you can be convicted of assault and rape and actually serve your sentence during the off-season. How convenient.
What bothers me most is the way the athletes act as if it’s no big deal. You saw athletes throughout professional sports defending Ron Artest while he was on TV mugging for the camera and more concerned about plugging his music label and its new CD than addressing his repeatedly anti-social behavior. He never even apologized until someone—probably his agent—pointed out that his suspension was going to cost him $5 million.
These so-called professionals are slitting their own throats. There is only so much criminal activity that sponsors will turn a blind eye to. After the sponsors abandon them—especially in regard to the NBA—the cost of tickets will skyrocket and these young punks will be playing to nearly-empty arenas. Empty arenas mean no more bling bling: time to get a real job, bro.
Until next time,
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Editor
Main Street Rag
From the Current Issue (Fall 2004)
For those who receive the MSR News-e, our monthly electronic newsletter, the following announcement concerning the results of our two summer contests will be redundant; bear with me.
First: The 2004 MSR Short Fiction Contest. Congratulations to Steve Taylor of La Crescenta, CA for winning with his story, “Phantom Limb.” Carl Thompson of Annondale, VA and Norm Waksler of Cambridge, MA tied for second and will divide the combined prize money for second and third. All three manuscripts will be published in an anthology from Main Street Rag scheduled for Spring 2005 and tentatively titled Everything but the Baby. In addition to their win/place/show finishes in this contest and the meager cash prizes we award, all three winners will be given the opportunity to submit a full-length collection of short stories for consideration.
Second: The 6th Annual MSR Chapbook Contest. Congratulations to Sylvia Curbelo of Tampa, FL whose manuscript, AMBUSH, was the selected winner. Jennette Barnes, Montgomery, AL, Phillip Sterling, Big Rapids, MI, and Don Narkevic, Weston, WV were named Runners up. All four have been offered publication as have eleven other finalists. Look for MSR Publishing Company to start rolling these out in October/November and continue to publish 3-5 per month right through until April 2004. Publication dates will be announced as they become available. A complete list of winners from all of our contests is available online.
Finally: The MSR Poetry Book Award. The winner, The Hospital Poems by Jim Ferris will be available by mid October. All new releases are first listed on the “New Releases” page on the Main Street Rag Online Bookstore and many offer pre-publication discounts.
Observations
(1) Leave it to Dick Cheney to so succinctly express the feeling I’ve gotten from the Bush Administration since Mr. Bush took office. Isn’t it reassuring to know that a man of such strength and eloquence is only a heartbeat away from the Presidency?
(2) Kellen Winslow, Jr. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh, the poor Brownies. As if having his Daddy wasn’t bad enough, you’d think a second-generation prima donna would at least wait until he’s caught a ball to start flapping his gums. Oh, the poor, poor Brownies. I’m so glad to be a Steelers fan.
(3) The new Dream Team. Anyone who watched the men’s Olympic basketball team play can only wonder what they were dreaming about. It’s no fluke why both professional franchises and colleges are looking overseas for talent. On the college level, foreign student athletes seem to be more willing to stand by a four-year commitment. From a professional perspective, they’re easier to sign because they recognize how ludicrous the salaries really are. And both pros and colleges appreciate the fact that foreign players know that it’s a TEAM sport. Could someone please explain that to Alan Iverson? On second thought, don’t waste your energy.
(4) The real Dream Teams. I’ve watched both women’s soccer and women’s basketball and the ladies are (in some ways) more worth the price of admission than their male counterparts—especially in basketball (hard to compare to men’s soccer since I don’t watch it). I think the difference is money. When you watch children play, there is an enthusiasm, a purity that transcends the sport itself. Much of that seems to be lost to NBA players—where the talent level always seems to be higher than the maturity level and everything is about ME. There are guys I’ve enjoyed watching in college. Suddenly, they become pros and jerks simultaneously. Some, like Iverson, were predictable, but what explains a Kobey Bryant? It’s got to be the money.
There are members of the Women’s professional soccer league who wait tables when they’re not playing—just so they can afford to play. The WNBA pays their players next to nothing and yet you don’t see the kind of thuggery that goes on in the NBA—either on the court or off. With few exceptions, you don’t hear about women players being involved with illegal activities. As a group, they act like professionals. In the NBA, 42% of the players listed on the 2002 rosters whose records were public (there are others whose records are sealed by court order and could not be accessed), 42% had FELONY charges on their records. What’s wrong with this picture?
My suggestion: If you want to see good gamesmanship and TEAM sport, watch the women play. All men’s professional sports have bad actors. If you want to see these leagues force the players to clean up their collective acts, do one thing: stop buying their merchandise. Witness how quickly Kobey Bryant’s sponsors dumped him after the rape accusation.
(5) John McCain, AWOL? Call me naïve, but I’m disappointed in John McCain. I don’t know if he was really offered the VP position on the Kerry ticket or not, but I do know he has no particular love of George Bush, yet he’s out there campaigning for him. He had an opportunity to be a real uniter by being part of a ticket that crossed party lines and he chose his own selfish goals—whatever they are. He’s been mentioned as the next possible Secretary of Defense if Mr. Bush is re-elected. That’s possible, but it’s equally possible that he would replace Dick Cheney halfway through a second Bush term. That would make him the heir-apparent candidate in 2008.
(6) Flip-flopping. Doesn’t anyone else see irony in the fact that the Republicans chose Zell Miller, a Democrat, as their keynote speaker? I mean, with all the energy Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and their entire party have put toward emphasizing how John Kerry is bad for America because he has changed his mind on the issues a number of times, one would think they would keep their distance from someone who has had the kind of drastic mood swing Mr. Miller has had—being the only person ever to be a keynoter at the national convention for both major parties. I guess the President feels there are some occasions when changing your mind is a good thing.
(7) Keeping a straight face. On Thursday, September 9, a representative from the President’s office was on NBC’s Today Show opposite James Carville. Understand, I like Carville because his extreme liberalism makes me laugh and it must make his wife laugh also since they are so far apart on almost every issue and still manage to live together (oh, to be a fly on the wall in that household). But hidden in his rhetoric, one can often find a few nuggets of truth. Such was the case in this interview.
The President got a big bounce from his convention and all of a sudden he decided he didn’t have time for as many debates. Hmm, I wonder why.
Every member of the Republican Party at every camera op takes the time—no matter what the question—to point out that Kerry has changed his position on the Iraq War several times. Even though some of those alleged flops are GOP manufactured rhetoric at their worst, stretches at the very least, when the President said to Matt Lauer on a nationally televised interview that he didn’t think we could win a war against terror, then the very next day in front of a group of military veterans said the war against terror is winnable and we are winning it—is this not the same kind of flip-flop he’s accusing Kerry of doing? What am I missing here?
But the one that took the cake was the president’s man—like all other good conservatives—defending the President’s alleged military record by deflecting it to talk about attack ads. ATTACK ADS!!! These are the same folks who wouldn’t denounce the ads by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (there’s got to be an oxymoron in there somewhere—or at least a few morons).
I honestly don’t know how these guys can say what they say with a straight face. At least Carville chuckles while he’s flinging it.
God Bless America, home to blind, deaf and dumb voters. Hell, even a blind, deaf man could smell his way through the ferlilizer that the GOP is spreading. It’s a shame that such a high percentage of our voting population is so rigidly one-sided or ignorant that they don’t recognize when they are being played. What was it that P.T. Barnum once said?
That’s all I got this time around. Back atcha after the Chad’s fall.
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Editor
Main Street Rag
From the Current Issue (Summer 2004)
Fellow Travelers,
Welcome to another installment of the little magazine that could, coming to you from Charlotte, NC, Nascar Capital of the world. If you’ve ever been to Charlotte you can testify to the fact that driving any street in this city is like being on a test track, but starting in June, 2004, they will be snapping photos and sending speeding tickets by mail—no need to catch us, just fine us. The local conservatives scream about raising taxes, but they do have creative ways to make up for budget shortfalls.
Contests
Congratulations to Jim Ferris of Vernon, Wisconsin. His manuscript, The Hospital Poems (which may be re-titled) was selected by Edward Hirsch as the winner of the third annual MSR Poetry Book Award. It will be Available this fall.
Runners up were Cathryn Essinger of Troy, OH for My Dog Does Not Read Plato; Suzanne Rhodenbaugh of St. Louis, MO for The Whole Shebang, and Heather Smith of Mt. Vernon, IA for Each End of the World and honorable mentions were Tony Trigilio of Chicago,IL, Henrietta Goodman of Missoula, MT, David Craig of Winterville, OH, Gary Leising of Cincinnati, OH, Hugh Ogden of Glastonbury, CT, W. T. Pfeffierle of Georgetown, KY.
The deadline for the Sixth Annual MSR Chapbook Contest has just passed. I am happy to report that we have had a very strong turnout and want to thank everyone who entered, and especially those who entered early. Doing so allowed us to get started reading well in advance of the deadline. We expect to be able to announce winners in the fall issue.
The Short Fiction Contest is also ahead of last year’s pace and indications are that we will have a large late flurry of entries. The short fiction guidelines page on our website has actually received more attention than the chapbook contest page. This issue will be at press when the deadline passes, so we won’t be able to report on whether we have enough entries to justify an anthology until next issue, but it's looking very positive.
Please note that the 2003 MSR Short Fiction Contest winner, Charles Edward Brooks’ story, "Salazar’s Grave," is published in this issue as is runner up, Cyndy Muscatel’s story, "Rush to Judgment."
Road Trip
What road trip? Have you noticed the price of gasoline? Many of you may have received the same email I did, “Don’t buy gas on May 19.” Yeah, that'll fix ‘em.
I’m often intrigued by other peoples’ thought processes and I wonder how they think not buying gasoline for one day will change things. Do they think the oil companies would actually notice a one day drop—if it actually occurred? Wouldn’t people make up for it by buying the day before or the day after?
What we need to do is move away from petroleum reliance. As long as we are addicted to the stuff and it’s price and production are controlled by countries who are not necessarily friendly or would use our reliance to influence our political policies, we will always have this dilemma.
If we want to solve the oil crisis, we should choose the right target. Asking oil companies or the countries that control the supply to cut their prices is ludicrous. They’re in business to make money. Oil is finite. The companies and countries that control its production want to get their money while they can and all the laws in the world won’t force either to do anything other than that which is most profitable for them.
So how do we solve the problem? Stop buying NEW cars until automakers build something that runs on something other than petro-products.
If new car sales in America trickled down to near nothing for a month, six months, a year, what do you think the automakers would do? If research showed that American consumers had decided not to buy NEW until automakers produced a viable alternative to gas-powered vehicles, this problem would be solved overnight. I guarantee it.
Not only do I predict that we would see a whole fleet of alternative cars within a year, but as a result of Detroit announcing it was shifting gears to alternative fuels, those who are resposible for keeping oil prices artificially high would start dumping reserves to grab up profits while they could. The price of gasoline would also go down.
Some folks might ask, “What if I need a new car?” Buy used—there are plenty of them looking for a good home. And many of them are bargains. The idea is to have a lot of inventory build up from the manufacturers. It’s the only way to get them to listen to what the market demands.
In the mean time, if you really want to teach them a lesson: you can always start riding a bicycle, walking. Park your car for a couple of hours a week.
Housekeeping
Last issue I ran long with my comments on politics in America. This month is even longer, so I separated it out and stuck it in the back where you can find Part 2 in the Election Series: Framing the Debate. This series will conclude with Part 3 in the fall issue. Hope you'll be here then.M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Managing Editor
Main Street Rag
From Spring 2004 Issue Fellow Travelers,
As we pass through this presidential election year, readers should expect to see more political commentary in MSR. Yes, MSR is first and foremost a literary magazine, but it has always been a forum for commentary and reader feedback. We hope readers will participate and appreciate the extra page or two we dedicate to politics through this Fall’s issue.
Road Trip
A quick word about our holiday vacation in Colorado. First, if you ever get to Estes Park, I highly recommend the Dunraven Downtown. It looks like another hole in the wall along Souvenir Row, but they prepared the best, most unique presentation of tuna I have ever eaten.
Three doors down is a shop called Nature’s Own, part of a small chain that features fossils, handcrafted stonework, and minerals. Well, it was the slow season so we had a lot of time to talk to a couple of employees. Ah, the Douglass charm, the gift of gab has finally earned me a first: a Poet’s Discount.
Or maybe they were just trying to hustle me out the door.
Housekeeping
A recent issue of Blind Man’s Rainbow praised MSR for our Contributors’ Page. At the same time, one prospective contributor complained that, while we ask for a bio that tells something about the contributor, so many of our bios were simply a list of where folks had been published. I knew without looking that this trend was on the increase.
I wrote (or edited) many of the more colorful bios. In some cases, I even made them up. Why? To add color to a section that in most magazines is an exercise in self-promotion and back-patting. Some folks send me pages of credits, flyers for their newest projects, web page addresses (from which I can use whatever material I want), even information on how to tap their editing services and sign up for workshops.
Free enterprise is a good thing. I try to do my part to help everyone I can in the literary business, but that’s not the purpose of the MSR Contributors’ Page. As a result, we have changed the format. For the time being, we will list a name and hometown; a street and/or web address if the author specifically requests it.
In addition, we will provide a place where contributors can share a greater volume of information about themselves and their work. We have set up an online Contributors’ Page that is linked to MSR’s Back Alley Page. If you’ve ever been published by MSR and would like to have your link added to this page, email us a link to your website and we will make it available to our readers.
Contests
The MSR Poetry Book Award has just begun the reading/judging stage. Before the next issue of Main Street Rag hits the shelves (Summer), the deadline for the 6th Annual MSR Chapbook Contest will also have passed (May 31) as will the rescheduled deadline for the Short Fiction Contest (June 15). We advise those who may enter either contest to check out the guidelines well in advance of the deadline. There are benefits to entering early.
We published seven manuscripts from a pool of 118 entries from last year’s chapbook contest. This is the primary way we select our chapbook manuscripts and we hope to net enough good manuscripts to actually do a few more this year. If having a quality chapbook published by a reputable label is your goal, I suggest you take a chance on Main Street Rag, where your odds for success are greater.
Guidelines are available online or by sending an SASE. Previous winners’ books are available for sale or to read excerpts in the MSR Online Bookstore.From the Current Issue (Winter 2004) Fellow Travelers,
I sometimes forget to thank all the nice folks who read this magazine for their support, but the Fall issue brought it home for me. That last issue had more production problems than any prior to it and through the course of dealing with these problems, I missed a flaw smack dab in the middle of the cover. Others missed it, too, but the cover is my baby and I blew it.
What amazed me is that no one mentioned it when commenting on the magazine. I don’t believe it was because everyone missed it, I think it’s more likely that you were all being tolerant of my mistake and for that, I wanted to thank you and let you know I’ll try very hard not to do it again.
In the meantime, we’ll just refer to that as the French version of the word interview.
MSR News
As you may have noticed, our format has changed again. I’m always on the lookout for ways to save money. Like it or not, Main Street Rag is in competition with magazines that are priced less than us and although in many ways it’s like comparing apples to oranges (production-wise), we have to appeal to readers’ pocket books as well as their hearts.
The 6 X 9 format we had used since Spring 2001 is one of the most expensive. By downsizing to 5.5 X 8.5, we were able to add a few pages, insert a color page, print our review section on different paper, and still save 20% on production.
Subscribers might have also noticed how long it took for the last issue to arrive. They all shipped October 3rd. Many did not arrive until nearly November. Again—cost savings. We purchased a mailing permit that will save us $1200 annually. Unfortunately, the USPS doesn’t give this type of mail very high priority, thus the delays.
So the obvious question becomes: Is there a price decrease in our future?
Not at this time. I made these changes so we could maintain our price. Remember, we are a private company, not a non-profit, and receive no support from educational institutions or public funding in the form of grants, like some magazines. We are also selling on the national shelf at Barnes & Noble, Borders, and major independents. That means we surrender 55% of cover price just to be seen and being seen has little relationship to what actually sells. I’ve seen people stand in front of me, write down our address (for the purpose of submission), set the magazine down and walk away. I'm sure it happens in the stores as well and it's the primary reason people look us up online--so they don't have to buy a copy.
Which brings me to my final subject: distribution. National distribution is a gamble at best for small press magazines. We’re looking for name recognition, hoping those who buy a copy off the shelf eventually subscribe. MSR has been gambling for over two years and taking a loss as a result. A publisher needs to sell well over 50% of what is placed on the shelf to break even (on shelf sales). To date, we have not accomplished that goal.
When I look at the numbers, there are strong indications that attempting to sell literary magazines this way is fast becoming a thing of the past. Even when we get on the shelf, we get buried behind better known magazines. Waste is inevitable. I hate waste.
But the most dramatic indication for the need to rethink national distribution is the MSR Online Bookstore. Because we don’t lose 55% percent of the cover price to the distributor and bookstore owner and because there are no throwaways, we make more per unit by selling this way. Online sales have been very strong in 2003. Even our slowest month outsold the combined bookshelf sales for ALL stores by ALL distributors for the entire year.
Given these numbers, what would you do?
I like being on the national shelf—even if mostly as decoration—so I will try as hard as I can to stay there. Year 2003’s numbers won’t start rolling in until August, 2004. At that time we will decide what the best course is for this magazine. If we decide to pull back from the national shelf, that’s when the cover price will likely decrease. I’ll keep you posted.
MSR Poetry Book Award
There’s an ad on page 88, but I wanted to mention one thing. By publishing multiple winners from The MSR Chapbook Contest, we put more than one worthy manuscript into print. Because of the success of this practice, we plan to extend it to our full-length contest starting this year. How can we do this? The MSR Online Bookstore. Expect us to expand it in the near future as well.
Commentary
I’m sick of lying, self-important, self-promoting politicians; sick of the lobbyists for oil, drug, and insurance companies who manipulate them; sick of automakers who haven’t figured it out yet; sick of textile companies and clothing manufacturers who have figured it out and skipped town; sick of liberal extremists for making a cause out of every pothole, sick of conservative extremists for being obstinate zealots; sick of people who think both major parties are biased, self-serving and owned by special interest groups, BUT STILL remain a member of one of those parties.
If I’ve left anyone out, let me know. Election year is upon us, boys and girls. Are you happy with the status quo?
Back in three,M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Managing Editor
Main Street Rag(From the MSR Fall 2003) Street Folks,
And Da winna is…
We’re pleased to announce that this year’s winner of the MSR Chapbook Contest is Karla Huston of Appleton, WI for her collection, Flight Patterns. Runners-up were Maureen Ryan Griffin of Charlotte, NC and Linda Sienkiewicz of Rochester, MI. Other finalists: Lucinda Grey, Charlotte, NC, Michele Leavitt, Salisbury, MA, Michael Murray, San Francisco, CA, David Tucker, South Orange, NJ, Martin Vest, Pocatello, ID, James R. Whitley, Boston, MA, and Anne Zahran, Fayetteville, NC.
Main Street Rag will also publish the following collections: Big Cotton Sun by Michael Murray, Dear Jim by Linda Sienkiewicz, Martin Flores and the House of Dreams by Lucinda Grey, and This Scatter of Blossoms by Maureen Ryan Griffin—all of which will be in print by the time this issue hits the shelf and available in the MSR Online Bookstore.
Makes No Cents
Since Charlotte is a banking center, it’s no surprise that there are lots of dollars floating around, but there seems to be a shortage of cents. I’m not talking about the “good ol’ North Ca’olina common sense” local politicians are so pleased to praise (especially when folks agree with them). I’m talking about US coins, legal tender. Notice I used the plural instead of “US coin.” Why? Because, out of necessity, we have more than one of them.
We were checking out at a local grocery store. The cashier rang us up, circled an amount on the receipt and said, “Thank you for using your VIC card, today you saved three dollars and fifty cent.”
I said, “Fifty what?” and she repeated, “Three dollars and fifty-cent” obviously missing the subtle way I tried to point out her grammatical error.
This isn’t unusual, by the way. I’ve lived in Charlotte for thirteen years and this is just one of those localisms people use that make you wonder if they do it because they don’t know any better or because it makes them sound home-towny. The semi-word “yunze” as in “yunze guys” from my hometown of Pittsburgh would be another example of a localism.
My concern is that these people are breeding and passing their habits on to impressionable children. If not kept in check, a generation of cents-less individuals could spread across America, and someday this nation will find itself with no cents at all.
Job 1
Henry Ford had it right a century ago when he increased employees’ wages so they could afford to buy the products they made.
I look at American employers today and see people more interested in profits for investors than creating and maintaining customers for the future. Seems short-sighted to me to ship jobs overseas in search of lower production costs when it forces highly-skilled Americans to take lower paying jobs or go on unemployment (or worse)—in many cases, eliminating them from a business’s customer base.
In an ideal world, international economics would be a balancing act. A job lost here may bring multiple jobs somewhere else in the world and those jobs could help lift that country out of poverty so they can buy our products. But there are elements to this economic equation that are not being factored in.
First, cost of living is relative. For instance, in some Third World nations healthcare is free. In some countries, medications developed in the United States with funding from US tax dollars are given away or sold at deep discounts. Compare this to what Americans are paying for healthcare. Would I contend that this benefit makes their standard of living better than ours? No. But I would contend that many of their poverty issues stem from deeper social issues that new and better jobs won’t change.
If a person doesn’t believe in or practice birth control—for whatever reason—overpopulation will result. I would contend that human propagation unchecked has a bigger influence on poverty and is a more serious global problem from the standpoint of pollution and diminishing natural resources, than anything else our species faces.
Second, this assumption that putting more money into the pockets of people in poorer nations will create more discretionary spending for our products, expand our economy and employ more of our workers is simply not proven. For one thing, we manufacture less and less in this country every day and as more manufacturing moves overseas, more of the income from these products goes with it. It’s used to build state-of-the-art facilities and employ foreign laborers most of whom do not buy our products. In fact, some countries back-engineer our products, make cheap knock-offs and sell those instead.
If American companies don’t start placing a higher value on employment at home, they may soon find themselves with lots of product, but no viable consumers.
Holding DADs at Bay
I hate the term “pet-peeve” but at the same time acknowledge that I have a few. My biggest is the lack of common sense and skill required to obtain a driver’s license. There are people out there who have no business behind the wheel and I have a name for them: DADs, short for Dumb Ass Drivers.
These folks are dangerous. We all know it. We’ve all seen them. They cause accidents and drive our insurance rates up and we still can’t seem to prevent them from driving. What we need is a way to identify them and restrict their movements and I have a solution: label roads by grades and disqualify DADs from driving on specific roads.
It could work in conjunction with the point system most states use to establish insurance rates and driving privileges. Points accumulate on a driver’s license for moving violations and accidents. At a certain quantity—let’s say 7 points—instead of revoking a license, the driver would be restricted from traveling on Grade A roads. Grade A, meaning the main arteries where accidents occur more frequently.
Once the DMV identifies a driver as a DAD, he must be identified as such to other drivers (so we can squeal on him). I suggest reflective magnetic signs—four of them—one for each door, the hood and the trunk (Saturn drivers would use double-faced tape). DADs would be required to display these markers in all directions any time he or she is driving regardless of whose vehicle is being driven. Failure to comply could result in vehicle confiscation, the inability to register or rent a vehicle, jail time or all three for repeat offenders.
All new drivers and drivers under the age of 21 would automatically be DADs. Anyone with a note pad mounted on the dashboard must register as a DAD. ALL Dominos Pizza Delivery drivers—DADs. Anyone with a NASCAR sticker on his/her bumper would have to slap a big ol’ reflective DAD right beside it.
This is serious business. The safety of America’s commuters is at stake. My fellow citizens, I urge you to join the cause. Find a road in your community in need of attention and make an effort to have it labeled: DAD-FREE ZONE.
Privacy Issues
Those who know me well know that I am a staunch believer in everyone’s right to privacy—especially mine. To that end, I had intended to devote my comments in this issue to all the ways solicitors invade my personal space and exploit my personal (and business) information. It’s become such a hot issue with me that the surest way to GUARANTEE that you will never get my business is to solicit me by phone.
With that in mind, I watch with great interest to see how well the NATIONAL DO NOT CALL list works. Most important, I watch how those who participate in this breech of my privacy have reacted. After first filing suit against the law claiming they have the right to harass me, they have now started a new tactic. As soon as they have a hint that I’m going to ask to be removed from their list, they hang up. I guess the concept is this: if I don’t get the word REMOVE out before they hang up, then they can claim I never said it.
So I have a new tactic. I play friendly for about 20 seconds—long enough to repeat the name of their company twice and write it down—before I ask to be removed. Now I have a name of a company with which I will not do business.
The only sure way we can make these annoying solicitations stop is to make the process counterproductive. If a movement began to boycott companies that use phone solicitors, sooner or later, they would have to stop or go out of business.
On the other hand, there is the matter of selling personal information. I would never do it, but I don’t have a problem with others doing it with the following stipulation: every name on every mailing list that is sold should be entitled to a royalty payment every time it is sold. If Congress passed and enforced such a law, it would be the end of unwanted solicitations.
The cost of the mailing lists would suddenly become outrageous—to the point that no one would buy them. And then there is the royalty payments. Can you image just the cost of writing a check to 1 million people.
And so I say to you friends, if we want to free ourselves from the capitalist nags at the other end of the line, all we need do is require that they pay royalties on their product. It’s the free market thing to do. It’s the right thing to do. Most of all, it’s the American thing to do.
Side Notes
(1) Californians, I won’t pummel you with the inevitable clichés that the whole nation will suffer through en route to your recall election day, but I have one piece of advice for those thinking of voting for The Terminator: wait to see if he gets any major endorsements. You know, someone important, like Tom Arnold.
(2) The Blackout of the Century: We need a Congressional Committee to investigate this!!??? Damn are we a spoiled lot. I heard one woman whining on NBC Nightly News how she couldn’t see down the hall for a whole night. She should be thankful she’s not in Bagdad.Back in three,
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Editor
(From the MSR Summer 2003) Street Folks,
Thanks for stopping by. Before I get too far into my schtick, I want to thank all the new subscribers. Subscriptions are up over 20% since we opened the online bookstore last October.
Announcements
Congratulations to Matt Morris of Elkview, WV. Matt’s collection, Nearing Narcoma, was chosen by Joy Harjo as the winner of the 2003 Main Street Rag Poetry Book Award and will be published this fall. Runners up included Stephanie Levin of Baltimore, MD, Kip Irwin of Langhorne Manor, PA, and Lisa Zimmerman of Fort Collins, CO.
MSR is also pleased to announce that Edward Hirsch has agreed to judge the 2004 MSR Poetry Book Award.
New Releases
Since the last issue of MSR went out, MSR Publishing Company has published several new books: Book Building 101, A Guide for the Do-it-yourself Publisher; One Paycheck Away, a short fiction anthology; Shooting Pool With A Cellist, a poetry chapbook by Jonathan Rice, Publisher/Editor of Iodine Poetry Journal; Tobacco Blossoms and the Pulled-tight Twine, a full-length collection of poetry by Nancy King; Zen Ironing, a collection of humorous essays by Kathryn Bright Gurkin, and Balancing On Two Wheels by yours truly (M. Scott Douglass). All MSR books are available for sale in our online bookstore.
The Gulf Between Us
As Americans, we are an eclectic and diverse group, and yet when we’re out front in world events we can’t seem to refrain from bundling our flag and Christian symbolism as if the two had been ordained forever inseparable. There are several examples from the most recent war in Iraq.
First, there is Army chaplain Josh Llano of Houston assigned to the US Army’s V Corps at Camp Bushmaster, near Najaf, Iraq. He saw the water shortage that kept thousands of soldiers from bathing for weeks as an opportunity. As the dispenser of a 500-gallon pool of cool, pristine water—presumably brought in by the US Army—his words were, “It’s simple. They want water. I have it, as long as they agree to get baptized.”
Aside from the fact that it is inappropriate given his location, it also goes against Army regulations. As a chaplain in the US armed services he is required to support soldiers in the practice of their own faith, not to indoctrinate them to his and certainly not by using US property as leverage.
In North Carolina, a soldier’s parents sued the postal service for not allowing them to ship a Bible to their son in Iraq. Never mind that the laws of several Middle Eastern countries forbid the import of this item. This American soldier was fighting for his country, he has a right…
On NPR in April, a caller said that the rest of the world needed to be more tolerant of Americans and our lifestyles—even when we’re in their country. I thought I misheard him. So did the radio moderator. This mild mannered man elaborated that because we are the most powerful nation on the planet, the rest of the world needs to respect our customs while we are visiting their homelands.
It seems that Mr. Bush’s smug arrogance may be more contagious than SARS.
Has America become so blinded by its own sense of self-importance that it has lost sight of its basic tenets? One of the fears many Middle Eastern people have is that Americans will come into their countries preaching Christianity. In 2001 Dana Curry and Heather Mercer were arrested by the Taliban in Afghanistan and denied they were proselytizing—until after we rescued them. Then they came home to the TV news circuit and the speaking circuit, and admitted what they were doing and said they would do it again. What does it say about Christian values when they rationalize breaking one of its commandments and then get treated as heroes?
I’m not knocking faith. Faith is a good thing. But faith’s home is in the heart. Having faith doesn’t mean having to shove it in everyone’s face. Wearing it on our sleeve or toting around a religious talisman to deliver us from evil does not ensure religious purity. That’s not even faith. It more closely resembles superstition, and those who practice their faith in this manner may as well be carrying a rabbit’s foot around with them.
As I watch a new wave of Christian American chauvinism expand outward from our borders, I’m reminded of the many historical examples where religious zealotry resulted in war and near genocide. Too many Americans have intertwined religious and patriotic concepts and seemingly believe that draping a flag over something somehow makes it sacred. As a result some feel endowed with the inalienable right to wag the wacky finger of patriotism at anyone who disagrees with their opinion.
As an American, I whole-heartedly believe in the freedom of self-expression—even and especially when what is being said defies popular opinion. If we do not respect and protect the diversity of perspective or the opposition to our own points of view, the values for which our nation fights and young people die will be meaningless.
Keep in mind, it was Christians who nearly annihilated Native Americans, Christians who rationalized enslaving Africans. My intention is not to condemn a group of people, but to point out that religious zealotry of any kind can rationalize nearly all of its actions. We can carry our faith out into the world like a passport or a holy shield or the word of God Himself, but ultimately it is our actions by which we will be judged.Back in three,
M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Editor
Main Street Rag
(From the MSR Spring 2003)Hey, hello, howdy,
CONTEST
We’re pleased to report that 434 people entered our Second Annual Poetry Book Award, but there is a downside to that successful number. Because so many (237) waited until the last minute, processing took longer. As a result, judging will take longer and we probably won’t be able to report a winner until May as opposed to April. We ask for everyone’s patience.
Next year, we will, again, try ways to balance out the reading period so that late entries don’t get short-changed—and make no mistake, all you procrastinators out there—you DO place yourself at a disadvantage by waiting until the last minute.
I know the strategy: last one read, first one remembered. The fact is, because we have readers all over the country and these manuscripts must be read and returned by February 15 (to keep up with the reading schedule worked out in advance with our final judge), last minute entries are being handed to people who may have already read 50 manuscripts the previous week. Think human nature, folks: do you have more energy at the beginning of a daunting task or the end?
Hold that thought as I announce our Fifth Annual Chapbook Contest. Detailed guidelines are posted online and on the inside back cover of this issue. Deadline: May 31.
ONE PAYCHECK AWAY
Fiction Editor Bill Wesse has selected 23 stories to appear in this short fiction anthology. It is not officially scheduled for release until September, but chances are, if you’re reading this, it’s either done or very close to it. We want to thank and congratulate all participants. We hope to make this an annual event—although future versions will be given contest status and likely alternate between publishing an anthology and a collection of one author’s short stories. We’ll keep you posted here, online, and in the monthly newsletter.
COLUMBIA
I was watching when Challenger exploded and aghast at how the press and NASA tried to play it out as, “At this point, we just don’t know.” I’m no rocket scientist, but I knew immediately. I think we all knew immediately when Columbia broke up on reentry February 1.
I’m not one to dwell on tragedies—we all struggle with them in varying degrees—whether major news stories or personal. The measure of our stature as a people is how we function post-tragedy. Even though a staunch advocate of a manned space program, I don’t believe we’ve learned much from our mistakes. The shuttle program has been flawed from the onset. With the exception of a few bright spots, it has not delivered the bang for the buck that was intended and the current equipment will always be susceptible to the type of accidents we have witnessed.
It’s time to move on. If we are destined to become space explorers, we need to put less money into fuel consumption and more into research and development. Perhaps it’s time to turn the wheels of capitalism loose and let the private sector lead the way.
HEROES
These days, I cringe at how frequently and sometimes frivolously we apply the term hero. There are many people I admire greatly, but only a handful that I believe deserve the label. The man who jumped into an ice-covered Potomac River to rescue victims of a plane crash—he’s a hero. The members of the NYPD and FDNY who charged into a burning WTC—they’re heroes. A person who straps a bomb to his chest and walks into a grocery store is a terrorist. And a person propelled into space by six stories of rocket fuel is an explorer, a seeker, an adventurer, but with all due respect to the families and their losses—not a hero. It’s just the way I feel.
ACCESS DENIED
Historically our politicians have only told us what they wanted us to know, whether directly, or indirectly, through unnamed sources. They’ve created whole new vocabularies and changed word definitions to suit their needs. In this respect, one might suspect that they are all poets.
In my lifetime, conservatives have shown more contempt for the media than their liberal brethren, claiming that the media—this massive, sinister, omnipresent structure—is biased against them. In so doing, many have displayed signs of paranoia in public (can anyone say, Tricky Dicky).
This new generation that took control of Washington in 2003 has raised the level of silence to stiflingly inaudible decibels and George Bush is the leader of the pack. In case you haven’t noticed, almost every time he speaks he says the same thing and his words are as fact-vapid as anything spewing from Saddam Hussein’s mouth, full of bravado, full of patriotism, full of…a lot of things other than facts.
From the beginning, Mr. Bush has tried to limit the media’s ability to report. Think back to the reporter who asked him a question about the death penalty during his campaign. He said, blatantly, that he wouldn’t answer any more of her questions because she had “blindsided” him.
I’m not sure how asking a presidential candidate a question about a pertinent subject can be construed as “blindsiding,” but I can tell you the apparent result of that confrontation: soft questions and access limited to those who will ask soft questions. He has scared the press away from doing its job because they know that, if they do, they will be denied access.
I don’t like admitting that what I see happening in Washington scares the hell out of me. It’s not the drumbeats of war, it’s the lack of information. Give me a good reason (and oil is NOT a good reason) and I’ll back you 110%. Show me proof. I’ve heard a lot of pseudo-logic and postulated evidence than sounds more like emotional rhetoric when it comes to Iraq. It makes me wonder if this whole scenario is little more than an unfinished family feud.
But my concern goes deeper than the current saber rattling. This may sound petty, but I think I want the person whose finger is on the button of our nuclear arsenal to—at the very least—be able to pronounce the word correctly. It’s (nü-kle-er), not (nü-Q-ler).
Why do I allow this to bother me? First, his wife is a former librarian. Although her actions and comments regarding the literary symposium scheduled for February place her credentials in question, surely she knows better. All the people around Mr. Bush pronounce this word correctly. The fact that they, collectively, can’t correct his mispronunciation is evidence that he doesn’t tolerate people telling him when he’s wrong and/or that he persists even when he is shown to be wrong.
In my mind these are serious and possibly dangerous character flaws for anyone—especially a President.
That’s just one aspect of Washington that concerns me.
In January, NPR reported another disturbing trend. Leading up to the debacle that would eventually unseat him from his path to the Senate leadership, Trent Lott was telling lobbyists that they would not be permitted to meet with him unless they contributed, solely, to the Republican Party.
Most companies and lobbyists contributed to both parties—it’s part of the political game. What Trent Lott and his fellow Republicans have done is tell those who contribute to both that it’s not good enough. If they give any money to the other side, they won’t get the ear of the Republican Party, the party that is currently in power. Republicans will only speak with lobbyists who are 100% conservative ideologues and place 100% of their money into conservative causes.
I’m not a big fan of lobbyists, but their choice seems clear to me: If they want their issues addressed, they must cut funding to the Democrats.
I have a phrase I use that seems appropriate here, “You can call a horse a pig, but you won’t get pork chops from it.”
Let me sift through the tea leaves for you. The Republicans, upon grasping control of Washington, are attempting to maintain control by limiting the money Democratic candidates are able to raise by legalizing bribery. They can call it whatever they want, but it’s bribery and the Republicans are not only allowing it, they’re promoting it as the only means of access to our political system.
I bring these items to readers’ attention because the ramifications of Republican success are staggeringly scary: control of all legislative branches, control of the press, control of the opposition’s potential funding.
Other versions of this trend started creeping up in the ‘90s. A Republican-controlled Congress started cutting arts budgets so that only “approved” programs would see the light of day. Some small press magazines that were relying on grants that flowed from this source started feeling the pinch years ago. Some are gone. Others will also be squeezed out or forced to go entirely electronic. And our current Congressional leaders are already discussing ways to restrict access to the internet and rake funding from email.
Big Brother isn’t coming, kids, he’s here. He’s not listening through the walls or the doors; he’s not opening your mail, your email, or tapping your phone line. Big Brother is far more insidious. He’s grabbing control of the means of communication, limiting the scope of what is heard and discussed. Beware the narrowing field of debate, the next casualty may be you.
Back in three,M. Scott Douglass
Publisher/Managing Editor
Main Street Rag
(From MSR Winter 2003)
CORRECTIONS
A sincere apology to Robert L. Penick for misspelling his name not once, but three times in the Fall issue. Shortly after being properly scolded by Mr. Penick, I sent out MSR’s monthly electronic newsletter and wouldn’t you know I did it again. At least when I screw up, I’m thorough.
Then there is George Held’s letter complimenting us on the cover of the Fall issue. He never mentioned the fact that, although he’d contributed to our Review section, we failed to list him in the credits or on the cover he liked so much. Again, our apologies.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Pam Bernard’s new book, Across the Dark, winner of the 2002 Main Street Rag Poetry Award is now available from MSR. The deadline for the 2003 contest is also approaching fast (January 31, 2003). Guidelines can be found on the inside of the back cover or at our website.
* * *
If you haven’t checked out our monthly electronic newsletter, I encourage