The last time I did so, Allen, you red-baited me for using the word "comrade" (to refer to Beau Brummell, of all people!), so no thanks.

Like Anne, I got de-railed on C.H.U.D but it led me instead to a terrible/wonderful looking 80s horror movie! (Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller). I love that shit.

As to the original post, I'm not sure I understand the point of it. A lot of right-wing horrible nonsense. Am I supposed to be worried?

Edit: more worried than I already am, that is. What with Trump in the White House, North Korea launching missiles, Islamists putting bombs in tube trains (again). I'm confused.

Yes, Mark - the film with the lady in the shower, and the alternative acronym Contamination Hazard Urban Disposal. That. I have since had a quick check on MAGA, which I might have worked out for myself, given the context.

I am not just being silly here. I am reinforcing Jayne's point. A sentence, even, to flesh out the title, would have helped and saved a lot of embarrassed fumbling for the meaning of the thread, which has the unfortunate effect of trivialising the actual message.

Reading Quincy's reply to Jayne, it seems the main point is that the magazines/journals these articles come from are friendly towards metrical poetry and therefore metrical poetry has an unfortunate association with conservative/right wing ideology. I think. Not being a) published (well hardly) or b) American I'm still missing the nuance. The article about gay marriage is particularly odious though.

Oh well. I'm off to find a bow-tie wearing goateed liberal to prove Quincy's stereotyping wrong. Or maybe a fascist who dresses like something from a Tim Burton movie/early 80s English goth band.

Edit: all in good fun, Quincy, and probably fuelled by envy. I think you're a very stylish gent. ;)

It's true that First Things is a little too conservative-Catholic oriented for my taste, but on the other hand, it's the only magazine that pays real money for poetry whose poetry editor seems to like my work. I can put up with a lot of guff for that.

I published a couple of translations in First Things, and I wasn't then troubled by what I perceived to be a conservative and religious philosophy that I didn't share, but there came a point when I felt they shifted from conservatism as a philosophy I thought wrong, to conservatism that was a rationalization for hateful and thoroughly reprehensible bigotry and intolerance. We all have to draw the line somewhere, and I don't condemn those who draw the line elsewhere than where I draw it, but to my great regret I decided some time ago that I could no longer send them any of my work. It's too bad, since they do publish poetry that has little to do with their hateful agenda, and they do have a large audience, but I don't want to participate in dignifying a magazine whose overall role seems to be justifying bigotry and hatred.

What Roger said. I don't feel I have to share the philosophy of every magazine my poems appear in, but if I am downright appalled with the views being expressed, I would rather go elsewhere. I originally just thought it was a religious magazine, and I have nothing against religion, despite not being religious myself. But reading what was published there (other than the often quite good poetry) put me off. So I stopped sending poetry there.

Susan

What Roger and Susan said. About two years ago, after reading a really horrendous piece in the magazine, I decided to withdraw two poems that already had been accepted. :(

I agree with Jayne, Bob, and Ann. When I see a post containing only links with no clue as to the subject matter, I really can't be bothered to open them. I also feel as though the poster is saying "Hey, I've given you the hoops. All you have to do is jump through them."

(Ha, Mark, that movie came to mind immediately. And never watched it. Maybe it's on a tape with Three Men and a Baby in the closet somewhere.)