[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

whose official editorial position, as repeated last month

Roger,

Wow! Really? Who are these people? It's like there's a whole network or something. I'm so completely out of touch. Is there a list of these places somewhere?

Anyway, Gail, congrats on all your successes. A rich variety of venues is one key to distinction. Onwards and upwards!

Thanks,

Bill

[Roger Slater]

Bill, they are "paleoconservatives," I believe. Chronicles is run by the Rockford Institute. Some years ago, the founder and editor of First Things, Richard Neuhaus, was thrown out of the Rockford Institute's office in New York for complaining that Chronicles had a racist and anti-semitic tone. Near as I can tell, the paleocoservatives oppose not just gay marriage but gay people in general (like Bachman's husband, who said gays are "barbarians"). They are also against feminism and think that the idea that women often define themselves professionally outside the home is a bad thing and shows profound disrespect for the wisdom of generation after genereation that came before us. Read their Wiki articles. Or just go to the Chronicles web site and read what they say about themselves. They do not pussyfoot around these views.

[Maryann Corbett]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Bill, they are "paleoconservatives," I believe. Chronicles is run by the Rockford Institute. Some years ago, the founder and editor of First Things, Richard Neuhaus, was thrown out of the Rockford Institute's office in New York for complaining that Chronicles had a racist and anti-semitic tone. Near as I can tell, the paleocoservatives oppose not just gay marriage but gay people in general (like Bachman's husband, who said gays are "barbarians"). They are also against feminism and think that the idea that women often define themselves professionally outside the home is a bad thing and shows profound disrespect for the wisdom of generation after genereation that came before us. Read their Wiki articles. Or just go to the Chronicles web site and read what they say about themselves. They do not pussyfoot around these views.

This is all true. I look at it this way: a page in their magazine that's filled by one of Gail's poems is saner than much else they might print. They pay for poetry, so if we take their money and don't subscribe, we're costing them, not supporting them.

Onward, Gail.

[Michael Cantor]

Thanks for the shout-out, Roger.

[Ed Shacklee]

Originally Posted by Michael Cantor

Thanks for the shout-out, Roger.

Though the place might be a lot better off if it were otherwise, 'Cantor' doesn't show up anywhere using the site's search engine. Granted, my research skills are notoriously bad and I live in a cave, but this comment went over my head.

I love the term 'paleoconservatives,' by the way.

Ed

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Ed Shacklee

my research skills are notoriously bad and I live in a cave, but this comment went over my head.

Ed,

Me, I live in a forest. But even there, I can get to this page: http://www.rockfordinstitute.org/?page_id=2

There, you'll find perfectly lovely things like this:

"The Institute has worked to preserve the institutions of the Christian West: the family, the Church, and the rule of law; private property, free enterprise, and moral discipline; high standards of learning, art, and literature."

Oh, and please don't miss the passage entitled "Defending Christendom." Yes, it's on the same page. The real joke here is that there's actually a place too neolithic reactionary for the people at first things!

So I think Gail is actually a revolutionary here, storming the bastille of obscurantist revisionism!

Thanks,

Bill

[Michael Cantor]

That link proves it! Lantry and Lehr are one and the same person. Has anybody ever seen them together? (Well maybe at West Chester, now that I think of it, but that doesn't count, because what happens at West Chester stays at West Chester.) Alert Joe Salemi!

(Bill - Ed and I straightened it out by PM. I intended "shout-out" to mean general dissemination of information and he took it as the more traditional personal mention.)

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Michael Cantor

I intended "shout-out" to mean general dissemination of information and he took it as the more traditional personal mention.

Michael,

Um, for the last thirty years shout out has had the Ed meaning! Hasn't it filtered up to New England yet?

Oh, and Quincy doesn't use smilies. Likes this one:

Or this one:

Thanks,

Bill

(ps. Hey, look: I've got one left:

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by Maryann Corbett

This is all true. I look at it this way: a page in their magazine that's filled by one of Gail's poems is saner than much else they might print. They pay for poetry, so if we take their money and don't subscribe, we're costing them, not supporting them.

Onward, Gail.

I didn't mean to criticize Gail for publishing there, but I don't quite agree with your reasoning. After all, in some circles you could imagine someone saying that the folks at Chronicles are nuts, only to be told, "How bad can they be? People like Gail White publish there." To say that one does't support a magazine by publishing one's work in it strikes me as taking a very narrow view of the word "support."

But as someone who published in First Things, I understand that publishing a poem is not the same as endorsing the editor's political or theological views. I only brought it up after Mary mentioned that Gail is also in Lavender Review, which seemed too fine an irony not to mention.

[Julie Steiner]

This thread beautifully illustrates why I rarely, rarely submit poems for publication, and when I do finally savor some success I typically don't dare to announce it here, for fear of having overlooked sinister consequences patently obvious to everyone else.

Congratulations, Gail, for being made of sterner stuff than I am.