e n d n o t e s k a t h e r i n e m c n a m a r a
“I never imagined I would live to see the day when the United States and its satellites would use precisely the same arguments that the apartheid government used for detention without trial. It is disgraceful ... One cannot find strong enough words to condemn what Britain and the United States and some of their allies have accepted.”
Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
quoted in “Blair Calls Camp in Cuba an ‘Anomaly,’”
New York Times, Feb. 18, 2006
“America’s idea of what is torture is not the same as ours and does not appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations,” – British High Court Judge, Justice Collins,1 yesterday. The British High Court is not al Jazeera. It’s the highest legal authority in America’s closest ally. By endorsing and practising torture, as defined by U.S. law and international treaties, the Bush administration is turning this country into a rogue nation.
For the last year, Archipelago has been on hiatus. We needed a rest; we needed to reassess what Archipelago stood for and hoped to accomplish; we were ready to try something new. We asked, Can Archipelago learn to stand on its own? We thought: we need a board, and regular funding, and salaries, and a staff. Oh how furiously we mused, and read, and daydreamed, and wrote proposals.
After all that, we don’t yet know whether Archipelago will have a future. But if it is to have one, we realized, we had to learn some hard new facts. Then we reminded ourselves of old ways of thinking, about the good, the true, the beautiful. We recalled where we came from and what we stood for.
Archipelago has been published on the World Wide Web since March 1997. I envisioned it as a kind of threshold between traditional print journals and the Web, bringing literary and (even) print values to the digital media. Serious publishing had changed, even, it seemed, become endangered, with the conglomeration of media corporations, their fear of the Internet, and the corrosive effects of commercial mass entertainment on the old high and popular cultures, all of these combining in darkling ways to devalue whatever “literary publishing” was thought to be.
This journal’s intention was to offer works of literature, the arts, and opinion to a cosmopolitan readership which, often, had been formed in or influenced by more than one culture or society. Did such people exist, and did they actually look for good writing on the Web? I thought so; I was pretty certain I wasn’t alone. Archipelago opened with an idea, a little money, some very good writers, and no publicity. By last summer, 17,000-19,000 of you, ‘unique visitors,’ pointed your browsers here every month. About three-fourths of you were located in North America; the rest, around the world: very nice for a journal that did its best to be international in its outlook.
Archipelago was fortunate, having had just enough financial backing, in enjoying a remarkable, essential, editorial independence. We kept costs of production fairly low by keeping technology as simple as possible, and because good people donated time and services. The Internet proved truly a swift means of distribution by which this journal crossed borders social, political, economic, and of genre.
However, the technology we used has changed. We work now in high-speed (cable or DSL) Internet access, called, for short, broadband. This technology enables speed of access and complexity of presentation. Archipelago began trying out the possibilities several years ago, and we are ready, we think, to expand fully into broadband production.
But broadband is not only technology, it is alsopart of our social infrastructure: it is a public asset. Broadband resides on the public airwaves, to which rights of access are granted or leased by the body politic for the sake of the greater or common good. Around the world, commentators and practitioners are saying insistently that broadband access to the Internet is, and ought to be recognized as, a public utility, like electricity and clean water, and so, routinely available to all of us.
Perhaps most important, however, we should recognize that broadband means a critical cultural space. It is the only international commons that has not been wholly taken over by commercial, corporate, or governmental ownership. As editor and publisher, I am aware that in some small way this journal helps shape and preserve the common culture, or the cultural commons, of the arts, literature, and opinion. These “cultural commons” are the most direct, uncensored2 way individual, shaped voices can be heard across borders, the voices of writers, artists, and thinkers, who speak out of their particularity. They represent us to ourselves, as we are, for good or ill, and as we might become.
As of June 2005, sixty-eight percent of the American population had Internet access; nationally, thirty-six percent of users were connected to the Internet via broadband; but the U.S. is listed as only sixteenth in the world for our access per person to high-speed connection to the Web. Canada and the United Kingdom have instituted public programs for providing nationwide broadband access, particularly to rural areas, rather like our great national rural electrification projects of the ‘Thirties. In the European Union, even in the new accession states, broadband is common. Internet access is taken as a public utility in wired cities like Ennis, Ireland, while in the U.S., Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have provided WiFi, or public-access wireless spaces, as an essential part of their municipal infrastructure, and Manassas, Virginia, operates its own broadband-over-powerlines Internet service. In August 2005, eleven rural counties in Virginia were named as candidates for a similar b.o.p.i. connection. For the rebuilding of the wrecked New Orleans, someone in an official position proposed building public WiFi into their new infrastructure; but – this is to be expected, unfortunately – the local phone carrier, Bell South, immediately opposed the plan as a threat to corporate profits.
As I wrote above, the Web is also an instrument and medium of the cultural commons, the unenclosed space in which artists and thinkers encounter and converse with their diverse audiences. We should have learned from the disaster that television became – the vast wasteland, Fred Friendly called it early on – that any new technology can quickly be bent to supremely commercial interests. While there are many excellent web sites, we have no national public broadband, as we have (or had) National Public Radio and the Public Broadcast System. At this moment in our history, when “public” has come to mean dumbed down and exploited, that is just as well.
America is almost universally regarded as a cultural wasteland: “. . . [I]ts governance, its cultural heritage and its people are no longer widely respected or admired in the world. . . Although the US received high marks for its popular culture, it ranked last in cultural heritage, a measure of a country’s ‘wisdom, intelligence, and integrity’ . . . .” This, from a recent article in the Financial Times, reporting on a business poll taken world-wide, conducted for marketers and executives.
The US is increasingly viewed as a “culture-free zone” inhabited by arrogant and unfriendly people, according to study of 25 countries’ brand reputations.
The findings, published online today, will add to concerns that anti-Americanism is hurting companies whose products are considered to be distinctly “American”.
The Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index found that although US foreign policy remained a key driver of hostility, dissatisfaction with the world’s sole superpower might run deeper.
“The US is still recognised as a leading place to do business, the home of desirable brands and popular culture,” said Simon Anholt, author of the survey. “But its governance, its cultural heritage and its people are no longer widely respected or admired by the world....”
Although the US received high marks for its popular culture, it ranked last in cultural heritage, a measure of a country’s “wisdom, intelligence, and integrity”, according to Mr Anholt.3
In 1999, an energetic professor of management named Jim Collins pointed out in managerial language what was by then obvious: that international corporations were more powerful and influential than any government, including ours, indeed, that governments were losing even their moral authority; and so:
The point is that well-managed corporate entities—be they for-profit or not-for-profit—have become the dominant productive vehicle in society. And now we’ve reached a point where a leading chief executive can conceive of his company having three times the importance and relevance to the world of the U.S. federal government.
This raises profound questions of executive responsibility. . . .4
Indeed, it does. We lived now, wrote Collins, in the “corporate state,” a phrase that should have given pause to anyone familiar with the twentieth century. All, or most, organizations, even non-profits, he said, are “well-managed,” and the largest corporations have the force to influence, even cause, social change, “[f]or good or bad.” “But is social responsibility a high enough standard?” he went on to ask.
With the corporate model becoming the dominant vehicle of human productivity, might corporations need to shift from being socially responsible (adhering to society’s values and rules) to socially progressive (consciously shaping societal values)?
Jim Collins’s idea – that corporations are going to shape our values; or rather, that it is corporations which will give moral and ethical direction to societies – is startling, for at least three reasons that I observe: because of the grim history of corporate states; because of the unpleasant implications for whatever our notions of democracy are (who elected corporations to have such power over our lives?); and because, although he proposes that corporations ought well to promote “progressive” ideas, such as green thinking and community service, it is entirely possible that they would (and do) promote reactionary and sociopathic values, such as eliminating health care benefits and declaring their pension funds bankrupt. In short, such corporations have broken the social contract by which we the people have long agreed to share our common risk. These ungoverned corporations are changing our societies so that each of us must look out for himself, all risk on his own shoulders and no fall-back position.
Fortunately, Jim Collins discovered another big idea, in fact, a mitigating, major social truth: that socially (or mission)-directed organizations are not “like businesses.” “Socially-directed organizations” include, for instance, small publishers, colleges and universities, arts and cultural organizations, religious groups, and charities, and, surely, governments.
Most of us in the non-commercial world knew that. Collins’s service was to translate it into a fact-based language that might ring true to the corporate planners, accountants, and marketers who have flooded the boards of non-commercial organizations. And not only non-commercial ones: our occasional series “Institutional Memory”5 has looked into the huge change of purpose within the trade book industry. The publisher Michael Bessie, an old-fashioned man, told me, “The important question about the publishing industry is: how well does it serve literature?”
Book publishers have never lived in a pretty world, but they once served literature with a certain functional modesty. They chose their business, or it chose them, because they preferred to live a bookish, so to speak, life. Their return on investment was counter-cyclical to the economy. They distributed costs across the list, rather than (as, crazily, as is now the case) expecting every book they publish to make a profit. They kept their debt service low. They – the memorable ones – were like W.W. Norton, the estimable employee-owned house that promised, “The Norton imprint on a book means that in the publisher's estimation it is a book not for a single season but for the years.”6
When you’ve made a good book, or a good journal, you must turn your resources toward publishing it to the world; that is your purpose, and what you must do well. It is knowing what you do well, what your taste, education, and experience make possible; it is doing the very best you can for the best of what is available to you. In these socially-directed and cultural organizations, distributive power, not the corporate hierarchy is the proper form of relationship. This does not mean that strong minds will not operate; it means you do not treat your colleagues as employees, or imagine you can make them more “efficient” by asking them to time their tasks the way lawyers and accountants do, or spend more time in meetings than on the work at hand. You don’t distract them with irrelevant nonsense. If they are editors, for instance, they ought to edit, and know how to do it.
Not long ago I learned about another small, fine, non-profit magazine that is about to become mediocre, because it has pushed away the editor that made it into a thoughtful, well-written publication. The new board treated her as an employee instead of the colleague she was, interfered with her relations with her authors, and asked her to reorganize her editorial staff in a way that was bound to undermine their spirit. Marketers and organizational experts have many skills, but if they don’t know how to bend them to the service of the non-commercial, non-profit organization they want to make “more efficient,” or more “responsive,” or more “economically viable” in profit-oriented terms, they will ruin what they govern.
Jim Collins put this another way: “We must reject the idea – well-intentioned, but dead wrong—
that the primary path to greatness in the social sectors is to become “more like a business.” Most businesses—like most of anything else in life—fall somewhere between mediocre and good. Few are great. When you compare great companies with good ones, many widely practiced business norms turn out to correlate with mediocrity, not greatness. So, then, why would we want to import the practices of mediocrity into the social sectors?
“The critical question,” he writes, “is not ‘How much money do we make?’ but ‘How can we develop a sustainable resource engine to deliver superior performance relative to our mission?’” Of course, as in the case of the small magazine and its good editor, now gone, the mission and performance were already in place. The board made a mess of them. If they would not listen to their editor, they might at least have read Collins, who argues for the necessity of good judgment. “Lack of resources is no excuse for lack of rigor—it makes selectivity all the more vital.”7
For some time, people have been telling me that Archipelago is partisan. They disagreed with the political commentaries in my Endnotes, or thought I was advocating the election of generic Democrats rather than the best candidates for the good of the country. Friendly advisors warned sotto voce that potential funders and board members would not care to contribute to this journal. “Your politics are your biggest problem,” a well-wisher said. I was sure she was right. Rather more often, others have written in agreement and support. From Europe, especially after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, came e-mails from readers heartened to learn that not everyone in America approved of our president. According to polls and the mainstream media, Bush was immensely popular; in those years, public dissent was rarely heard or reported, except in a minor key, or among people who knew and trusted each other. Even so, now and then came the quiet, approving word that an Endnote had been read by a distinguished Washington editor or an old Pentagon hand, who had passed it on to colleagues.
All along, I have not been writing about party politics. Since the election of 2000, I have been writing about the state of the nation and the undisputed direction in which this president was turning it. In June 2002, let us remember, the president spoke at West Point about national security and declared it was his official policy, without precedent in our history, to make preemptive war if he thought it necessary.9 Some months later, during what was clearly – despite presidential denials – the run-up to an invasion of Iraq, I was driving to Washington, while listening to one of those earnestly compelling radio discussions that make a dull drive almost lively. The topic was the new Bush Doctrine and the coming war of choice. A clip was played from Bush’s West Point speech.8 That was my moment of revelation. In my mind’s eye I saw, as if on a graph, a red line peaked at the instant “preemptive war” was uttered. America had just been tipped into a precipitous decline of power and prestige, and she would never be so great again as at that moment, because this president had undermined her moral bearings. “I will not be a good German,” I found myself saying. Archipelago would become – this was required of one privileged to hold such an instrument – a point of opposition, however small this literary journal was.
The corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement, the lying and secrecy and warmongering, are so pervasive in the higher reaches of government, and so evident, that the New York Times and Washington Post have now all but abolished their habitual euphemisms and, mostly, stopped looking away. In Washington, you hear the word “impeachment” spoken seriously, regularly; the right-wing, Moon-owned paper Washington Times reports that the White House has an impeachment strategy team.9 This administration may be the very model of the corporate state, as Jim Collins called it: not the responsible one he envisioned, but mediocre, thrown up from the dark side, having come to office intending to expand its own power and deploy it for the benefit of its kind rather than the larger good.
I have never wanted to write about politics; but, as the president has told us repeatedly, this country has changed. We are known in the world as being a nation that condones torture. We have the highest prison population per capita in the world. Capital punishment is legal at the federal and state levels. People of conscience, I read, who oppose abortion as a sin and a crime against humanity, and would earn respect for their principled beliefs, voted for Bush because he stood with them on that moral issue. Perhaps therein lies the ground of the true American tragedy, for in doing so, they opened the door to preemptive war, torture as official policy, warrantless spying, lying and secrecy at the very highest level of the American government. Our Constitution is gravely threatened; our president enlarges executive power beyond legal bounds, and argues that his powers of war – a war he initiated – authorize illegal and ungoverned power, with no accountability to the citizenry. His party is the monopoly party of the federal government. I think that it is for other people of conscience within that party to work at turning this nation back from the precipice to which Bush and Cheney and their cohort have driven us.
I did not expect to write about politics. Politics is the work of the polity, the citizenry, in whom sovereignty resides under our Constitution. It is not the work of literature or the arts. It is, however, a subject of informed, carefully considered opinion. In some unimaginable future it may become evident that I have been wrong, these last five years, in my judgment of Bush and his government, and, equally, of how to publish this journal; but in the present danger it seems to me a publisher’s responsibility to have taken that risk. What I saw, read, and was told gave me a perspective and language not always available to our readers, when the mainstream media were not, with certain exceptions, reporting the story accurately. It was our early sense that the narrative had changed: that this nation rapidly lost both power and influence in the world, that our moral standing had been brought shockingly low, that the very basis of our governance was being altered without our consent. This was not a matter of mere personality; the changes in our governance since the Reagan-Thatcher years are structural. I was educated in the history of Europe and am haunted by the specter of the “good German” who went along with law and authority while his murderous government made (preventive) war on the world and its own citizens. I do not make this analogy lightly, but in sadness.10 I think this nation will be called to account for Bush’s war and the havoc his government has let loose in the world. When I am called to account, I can only hope I will have answered.
Last autumn in Dublin, Theo Dorgan,11 the poet and broadcaster whose writing appeared in our last issue, suggested we add a “Politics” page with links to reputable blogs and media reporting, edited by a sharp reporter. From his side of the Atlantic, America looks both monolithic and confusing: where should Internet readers look for reliable information and analysis? A digest in Archipelago would, he proposed, make this journal even more authoritative. I admit, I was taken by the idea; but, in fact, other sites have done it better. We will continue to offer thoughtful commentaries and incisive polemics, however, hoping to widen our growing national recognition of why we are in a very bad place. It’s going to take a long time and strong political will to move ourselves out.
A clever man observed that there are, generally speaking, three types of magazines: “mass market general interest magazines [which are] focus-grouped and market-tested to within an inch of their lives”; “[s]pecialist interest magazines [which] know their audiences intimately”; and a third, “more nebulous category, one where the subject matter varies but the governing sensibility remains consistent. . . . The linking thread [of this last category], of course is that the magazine’s editor . . . is interested in all [sorts of] things and has the courage to assert that his readers will find themselves similarly fascinated.”12
I hope that Archipelago belongs to this last, wonderfully “nebulous” category. It is the best and most pleasing of categories we could aspire to, and so, we hope, of benefit to the international cultural commons – and to our “archipelago of readers” – that has come to make inventive use of the World Wide Web.
With our next issue, Archipelago will begin its tenth year of publication. Nine years of Archipelago, its archive always available, surely have exhibited a range, depth, and quality of well-made offerings, backed by editorial judgment and attractive design; and shown that we are prepared for this next step, the reconfiguration of Archipelago as a broadband publication. By this I mean that we share with our friends and colleagues the keeping of the cultural commons, and the civic responsibility of opening access to the Internet everywhere as a public utility.
But perhaps most important, at Archipelago we would thereby examine and test the absolutely crucial idea that an independent, international, public broadband publication of quality can be sustained as a non-commercial enterprise, and thus, would do our part to help restore the historic American standard of “public” as meaning the highest common good.
Write to us:
Letters to the Editor
I am grateful to the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities for a special projects award that has allowed me the leisure to think about Archipelago and its future.
April is National Poetry Month
1 From Richard Norton-Taylor and Suzanne Goldenberg, “Judge’s anger at US torture, Stinging comments come as America dismisses UN report on Guantánamo” The Guardian, Feb. 17, 2006:
A high court judge yesterday delivered a stinging attack on America, saying its idea of what constituted torture was out of step with that of "most civilised nations".
The criticism, directed at the Bush administration's approach to human rights, was made by Mr Justice Collins during a hearing over the refusal by ministers to request the release of three British residents held at Guantánamo Bay. (con’t.)
Kevin Drum, political blogger for the Washington Monthly, summarizes four serious, well-researched reports about prisoners kept at Guantánamo, and provides links:
Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay really the "worst of the worst"? Some surely are, but for the most part we really don't know. And the reason we don't know is that we know almost nothing about most of the detainees in the first place.
Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall University has co-authored a study of 517 reviews written by the government for use at Combatant Status Review Tribunal hearings, and … one of the study's findings is that only 11% of the Guantánamo prisoners were captured on the battlefield by coalition forces. A full two-thirds of them were rounded up in Pakistan and turned over to the United States, likely in response to flyers like this distributed by the United States:
Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people…. (con’t)
Here, he links to the four reports about the U.S. prison in Guantánamo:
The basic message from these four pieces is that the evidence against an awful lot of the Guantanamo prisoners isn't just weak, it's known to be flatly false.
See, also, the essential story by Jane Mayer, “The Memo, How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted,” The New Yorker, posted 2-2-06.
2 But watch the continuing story of China’s subordination of Yahoo, which was complicit in causing the arrest and incarceration of at least one (although possibly more) Chinese citizen, for allowing access to “forbidden” sites. Simultaneously, old Party stalwarts have written a public letter denouncing the Party’s regular censorship. Yahoo is an international, capitalist company willing to allow its market values overcome whatever social responsibility it may have to western constitutional values of freedom of speech. See, for instance, Rebecca McKinnon regularly at Rconversation; and Global Voices, an aggregator published out of Harvard of blogs from around the world.
3 “World turning its back on America,” Financial Times.
4 Jim Collins, “Corporations Will Shape Our Future Values,” jimcollins.com.
5 “Institutional Memory”
6 Their logo now says “Books That Live”: the same intention, not so stuffy.
7 Jim Collins, “Text excerpts from Good to Great and the Social Sectors, Why Business Thinking Is Not the Answer.” Business writers like Jim Collins are most helpful to managers like me, who must persuade funders and others that the work they do and the organization they direct have their own proper structures, without our having to adopt a language and way of thinking that subverts our purpose. More than helpful, too: Collins and his like are our tutors in the rigors of organizing so as to flourish amid global corporatism.
8 George W. Bush, Graduation Speech at West Point, June 2002.
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002.
9 I have searched for the article on-line, but only seen excerpts republished on Daily Kos, which obtained it/them by way of another source. The article is “Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst,” Insight Magazine, January 29, 2006, excerpted (with explanation of source) here.
10 See Jane Mayer, “The Memo, How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted,” The New Yorker, posted Feb. 2, 2006:
Just a few months ago, Mora attended a meeting in Rumsfeld’s private conference room at the Pentagon, called by Gordon England, the Deputy Defense Secretary, to discuss a proposed new directive defining the military’s detention policy. The civilian Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy were present, along with the highest-ranking officers of each service, and some half-dozen military lawyers. Matthew Waxman, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, had proposed making it official Pentagon policy to treat detainees in accordance with Common Article Three of the Geneva conventions, which bars cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against human dignity. Going around the huge wooden conference table, where the officials sat in double rows, England asked for a consensus on whether the Pentagon should support Waxman’s proposal.
This standard had been in effect for fifty years, and all members of the U.S. armed services were trained to follow it. One by one, the military officers argued for returning the U.S. to what they called the high ground. But two people opposed it. One was Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of defense for intelligence; the other was Haynes. They argued that the articulated standard would limit America’s “flexibility.” It also might expose Administration officials to charges of war crimes: if Common Article Three became the standard for treatment, then it might become a crime to violate it. Their opposition was enough to scuttle the proposal…. (con’t.)
The memo of her title, by Alberto J. Mora, the former Navy general counsel, to the Inspector General of the Navy, is “Statement for the Record: Office of General Counsel Involvement in Interrogation Issues.”
See also, Gregory Djerdjian, The Belgravia Dispatch, for a conservative’s principled reading of Jane Mayer’s article .
11 Theo Dorgan, “Sailing for Home,” Archipelago, Vol. 8, No. 4.
12 David Honigman, “Brain Waves,” Financial Times August 10, 2005.
A selected miscellany of press watchdogs, international forums, and sharp commentary on the media:
Nieman Watchdog “Questions the Press Should Ask” “With all the manipulated news and information, reporters need all the help they can get.”
Jay Rosen, PressThink
Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine
World International Forum
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Editor & Publisher
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Reporting and Analysis:
Christian Science Monitor, “Empire Builders: Neoconservatives and their blueprint for US power” – primer on the principle formers of this government’s foreign policy and instigators of the invasion of Iraq
Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau. K-R consistently covered Iraq with more skepticism than the nation’s major papers.
Council on Foreign Relations
Blogs and Aggregators:
Juan Cole, Informed Comment
Helena Cobban, Just World News
Steve Clemons, The Washington Note (New America Foundation)
Laura Rozen, War and Piece
Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo
Rebecca McKinnon, R Conversation
Steve Gilliard, The News Blog
Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish
Links to a range of blogs can be found on most of these sites.
Other kinds of fun:
Astronomy Picture of the Day
Center for American Places
Paris DJs Podcast
Virginia Arts of the Book Center
In the Fortified City , Vol. 8 No. 4
Some Notes on the Election, and Afterward, Vol. 8 No. 3
A World That Begins in Art, Vol. 8, No. 2
Incoming, Vol. 8, No. 1
The Only God Is the God of War, Vol. 7, No. 3.
Where Are the Weapons?, Vol. 7, No. 2.
Patriotism and the Right of Free Speech in Wartime, Vol. 7, No. 1.
A Year in Washington, Vol. 6, Nos. 3/4
Lies, Damn Lies, Vol. 6, No. 2
The Colossus, Vol. 6, No. 1
The Bear, Vol. 5 No. 4
Sasha Choi Goes Home, Vol. 5, No. 3
Sasha Choi in America,Vol. 5, No. 1
A Local Habitation and A Name, Vol. 5, No. 1
The Blank Page, Vol. 4, No. 4
The Poem of the Grand Inquisitor, Vol. 4, No. 3
On the Marionette Theater, Vol. 4, Nos. 1/2
The Double, Vol. 3, No. 4
Folly, Love, St. Augustine, Vol. 3, No. 3
On Memory, Vol. 3, No. 2
Passion, Vol. 3, No. 1
A Flea, Vol. 2, No. 4
On Love, Vol. 2, No. 3
Fantastic Design, with Nooses, Vol. 2, No. 1
Kundera’s Music Teacher, Vol. 1, No. 4
The Devil’s Dictionary; Economics for Poets, Vol. 1, No. 3
Hecuba in New York; Déformation Professionnelle, Vol. 1, No. 2
Art, Capitalist Relations, and Publishing on the Web, Vol. 1, No. 1