Matthew Schivone: In 1969, addressing a community of mostly students
during a public forum at the steps of MIT, you said: "This
particular community is a very relevant one to consider at a place
like MIT because, of course, youre all free to enter this
community - in fact, youre invited and encouraged to enter
it. The community of technical intelligentsia, and weapons designers,
and counterinsurgency experts, and pragmatic planners of an American
empire is one that you have a great deal of inducement to become
associated with. The inducements, in fact, are very real; their
rewards in power, and affluence, and prestige and authority are
quite significant." Lets start off talking about the
significance of these inducements, on both a university and societal
level. How crucial is it that students understand the function
of this highly technocratic social order of the academic community?
How important it is, to an individual, depends on what that individuals
goals in life are. If the goals are to enrich yourself, gain privilege,
do technically interesting work - in brief, if the goals are self-satisfaction
- then these questions are of no particular relevance. If you
care about the consequences of your actions, whats happening
in the world, what the future will be like for your grandchildren
and so on, then theyre very crucial. So, its a question
of what choices people make.
students a natural audience to speak to? And do you think its
worth speaking truth to the professional scholars?
always uneasy about the concept of "speaking truth,"
as if we somehow know the truth and only have to enlighten others
who have not risen to our elevated level. The search for truth
is a cooperative, unending endeavor. We can, and should, engage
in it to the extent we can and encourage others to do so as well,
seeking to free ourselves from constraints imposed by coercive
institutions, dogma, irrationality, excessive conformity and lack
of initiative and imagination, and numerous other obstacles.
As for possibilities,
they are limited only by will and choice.
are at a stage of their lives where these choices are most urgent
and compelling, and when they also enjoy unusual, if not unique,
freedom and opportunity to explore the choices available, to evaluate
them, and to pursue them.
you put side-by-side, say,
statements by people like
Robert McNamara and V.I. Lenin,
theyre strikingly similar. In both
cases theres a conception of a
vanguard of rational planners
who know the direction that
society ought to go and can make
efficient decisions, and have to be
allowed to do so without
interference from, what one
of them, Walter Lippmann, called
the meddlesome and ignorant
outsiders , namely, the population,
who just get in the way.
it about the privileges within university education and academic
scholarship which correlate with a greater responsibility for
catastrophic atrocities such as the Vietnam War or those in the
Middle East in which the United States is now involved?
really some moral truisms. One of them is that opportunity confers
responsibility. If you have very limited opportunities, then you
have limited responsibility for what you do. If you have substantial
opportunity you have greater responsibility for what you do. I
mean, thats kind of elementary, I dont know how it
can be discussed.
And the people
who we call intellectuals are just those who happen
to have substantial opportunity. They have privilege, they have
resources, they have training. In our society, they have a high
degree of freedom - not a hundred percent, but quite a lot - and
that gives them a range of choices that they can pursue with a
fair degree of freedom, and that hence simply confers responsibility
for the predictable consequences of the choices they make.
may we trace the development of this strong coterie of technical
experts in the schools, and elsewhere, sometimes referred to as
a bought or secular priesthood?
goes back to the latter-part of the 19th century, when there was
substantial discussion - not just in the United States but in
Europe, too - of what was then sometimes called a new class
of scientific intellectuals. In that period of time there was
a level of knowledge and technical expertise accumulating that
allowed a kind of managerial class of educated, trained people
to have a greater share in decision-making and planning. It was
thought that they were a new class displacing the aristocracy,
the owners, political leaders and so on, and they could have a
larger role - and, of course, they liked that idea.
Out of this
group developed an ideology of technocratic planning. In industry
it was called scientific management. It developed
in intellectual life with a concept of what was called a responsible
class of technocratic, serious intellectuals who could solve
the worlds problems rationally, and would have to be protected
from the vulgar masses who might interfere with them.
And, it goes right up until the present.
realistic this is, is another question, but for the class of technical
intellectuals, its a very attractive conception that, We
are the rational, intelligent people, and management and decision-making
should be in our hands.
any reader of Orwell would
expect, these two things
tend to correlate. The more
you hate democracy, the more
you talk about how wonderful
it is and how much youre dedicated
to it. Its one of the clearer
expressions of the visceral fear
and dislike of democracy,
and of allowing, again, going back
to Lippmann, the ignorant and
meddlesome outsiders to get
in our way. They have to be
distracted and marginalized
omehow while we can take care
of the serious questions.
as Ive pointed out in some of the things Ive written,
its very close to Bolshevism. And, in fact, if you put side-by-side,
say, statements by people like Robert McNamara and V.I. Lenin,
theyre strikingly similar. In both cases theres a
conception of a vanguard of rational planners who know the direction
that society ought to go and can make efficient decisions, and
have to be allowed to do so without interference from, what one
of them, Walter Lippmann, called the meddlesome and ignorant
outsiders , namely, the population, who just get in the
not an entirely new conception: its just a new category
of people. Two hundred years ago you didnt have an easily
identifiable class of technical intellectuals, just generally
educated people. But as scientific and technical progress increased
there were people who felt they can appropriate it and become
the proper managers of the society, in every domain. That, as
I said, goes from scientific management in industry, to social
and political control.
periods in history, for example, during the Kennedy years, when
these ideas really flourished. There were, as they called themselves,
the best and the brightest. The smart guys
who could run everything if only they were allowed to; who could
do things scientifically without people getting in their way.
a pretty constant strain, and understandable. And it underlies
the fear and dislike of democracy that runs through elite culture
always, and very dramatically right now. It often correlates closely
with posturing about love of democracy.
As any reader of Orwell would expect, these two things tend to
correlate. The more you hate democracy, the more you talk about
how wonderful it is and how much youre dedicated to it.
Its one of the clearer expressions of the visceral fear
and dislike of democracy, and of allowing, again, going back to
Lippmann, the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders to
get in our way. They have to be distracted and marginalized somehow
while we can take care of the serious questions.
the basic strain. And you find it all the time, but increasingly
in the modern period when, at least, claims to expertise become
somewhat more plausible. Whether theyre authentic or not
is, again, a different question. But, the claims to expertise
are very striking. So, economists tell you, We know how
to run the economy; the political scientists tell you, We
know how to run the world, and you keep out of it because you
dont have special knowledge and training. [Editor's
note: Anyone in $ingapore reading this?]
look at it, the claims tend to erode pretty quickly. Its
not quantum physics; there is, at least, a pretense, and sometimes,
some justification for the claims. But, what matters for human
life is, typically, well within the reach of the concerned person
who is willing to undertake some effort.
the self-proclaimed notion that this new class is entitled to
decision-making, how close are they to actual policy, then?
is that theyre nowhere near as powerful as they think they
are. So, when, say, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote about the technocratic
elite which is taking over the running of society - or when McNamara
wrote about it, or others - theres a lot of illusion there.
Meaning, they can gain positions of authority and decision-making
when they act in the interests of those who really own and run
the society. You can have people that are just as competent, or
more competent, and who have conceptions of social and economic
order that run counter to, say, corporate power, and theyre
not going to be in the planning sectors.
So, to get
into those planning sectors you first of all have to conform to
the interests of the real concentrations of power.
Wicker is a famous example,
one of the left commentators
of the New York Times. He would
get very angry when critics
would tell him hes conforming
to power interests and that
hes keeping within the doctrinal
framework of the media,
which goes back to their
corporate structure and so on.
And he would answer, very angrily -
and correctly - that nobody tells him
what to say. He wrote anything
he wanted - which is absolutely true.
But, if he wasnt writing the things
he did he wouldnt have a column
in the New York Times.
there are a lot of illusions about this - in the media, too. Tom
Wicker is a famous example, one of the left commentators
of the New York Times. He would get very angry when critics would
tell him hes conforming to power interests and that hes
keeping within the doctrinal framework of the media, which goes
back to their corporate structure and so on. And he would answer,
very angrily - and correctly - that nobody tells him what to say.
He wrote anything he wanted - which is absolutely true. But, if
he wasnt writing the things he did he wouldnt have
a column in the New York Times.
the kind of thing that is very hard to perceive.
not want, or often are not able, to perceive that they are conforming
to external authority. They feel themselves to be very free, and
indeed they are, as long as they conform. But power lies elsewhere.
Thats as old as history in the modern period. Its
often very explicit.
for example, discussing England, quite interestingly pointed out
that the merchants and manufacturers, the economic forces of his
day, are the principal architects of policy, and they
make sure that their own interests are most peculiarly attended
to, no matter how grievous the effect on others, including
the people in England. And thats a good principle of statecraft,
and social and economic planning, which runs pretty much to the
When you get people with management and decision-making skills,
they can enter into that system and they can make the actual decisions
within a framework thats set within the real concentrations
of power. And now its not the merchants and manufacturers
of Adam Smiths day, its the multinational corporations,
financial institutions, and so on.
too far beyond their concerns and you wont be the decision-maker.
not a mechanical phenomenon, but its overwhelmingly true
that the people who make it to decision-making positions (that
is, what they think of as decision-making positions) are those
who conform to the basic framework of the people who fundamentally
own and run the society.
why you have a certain choice of technocratic managers and not
some other choice of people equally or better capable of carrying
out policies but have different ideas.
do not want, or often
are not able, to perceive that
they are conforming to external
authority. They feel themselves
to be very free, and indeed they are,
as long as they conform.
But power lies elsewhere.
Thats as old as history
in the modern period.
Its often very explicit.
degrees of responsibility and shared burdens of guilt on an individual
level? What can we learn about how those in positions of power
or authority often view themselves?
never find anyone, whether its in a weapons plant, or planning
agency, or in corporate management, or almost anywhere, who says,
Im really a bad guy, and I just want to do things
that benefit myself and my friends.
you get noble rhetoric like: Were working for the
benefit of the people. The corporate executive who is slaving
for the benefit of the workers and community; the friendly banker
who just wants to help everybody start their business; the political
leader whos trying to bring freedom and justice to the world
- and they probably all believe it. Im not suggesting that
Theres an array of routine justifications for whatever youre
doing. And its easy to believe them. Its very hard
to look into the mirror and say, Yeah, that guy looking
at me is a vicious criminal. Its much easier to say,
That guy looking at me is really very benign, self-sacrificing,
and he has to do these things because its for the benefit
Or you get
respected moralists like Reinhold Niebuhr, who was once called
the theologian of the establishment. And the reason
is because he presented a framework which, essentially, justified
just about anything they wanted to do. His thesis is dressed up
in long words and so on (its what you do if youre
an intellectual). But, what it came down to is that, Even
if you try to do good, evils going to come out of it; thats
the paradox of grace.
And thats wonderful for war criminals. We try to do
good but evil necessarily comes out of it. And its
influential. So, I dont think that people in decision-making
positions are lying when they describe themselves as benevolent.
Or people working on more advanced nuclear weapons. Ask them what
theyre doing, theyll say: Were trying
to preserve the peace of the world. People who are devising
military strategies that are massacring people, theyll say,
Well, thats the cost you have to pay for freedom and
justice, and so on.
But, we dont
take those sentiments seriously when we hear them from enemies,
say, from Stalinist commissars. Theyll give you the same
answers. But, we dont take that seriously because they can
know what theyre doing if they choose to. If they choose
not to, thats their choice. If they choose to believe self-satisfying
propaganda, thats their choice. But, it doesnt change
the moral responsibility. We understand that perfectly well with
regard to others. Its very hard to apply the same reasoning
maybe the most elementary of moral principles is that of universality,
that is, if somethings right for me, its right for
you; if its wrong for you, its wrong for me. Any moral
code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.
But that principle is overwhelmingly disregarded all the time.
say, George W. Bush,
since he happens to be president.
If you apply the standards that
we applied to Nazi war criminals
at Nuremberg, hed be hanged.
Is it an even conceivable possibility?
Its not even discussable.
Because, we dont apply to
ourselves the principles
we apply to others.
If you want
to run through examples we can easily do it. Take, say, George
W. Bush, since he happens to be president. If you apply the standards
that we applied to Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, hed
be hanged. Is it an even conceivable possibility? Its not
even discussable. Because, we dont apply to ourselves the
principles we apply to others.
a lot of talk about terror and how awful it is. Whose
terror? Our terror against them? I mean, is that considered reprehensible?
No, its considered highly moral; its considered self-defense,
and so on. Now, their terror against us, thats awful, and
terrible, and so on.
But, to try
to rise to the level of becoming a minimal moral agent, and just
enter in the domain of moral discourse is very difficult. Because,
that means accepting the principle of universality. And you can
experiment for yourself and see how often thats accepted,
either in personal or political life. Very rarely.
criminal responsibility and intellectuals?
is an interesting precedent.
case is a very interesting precedent. Of all the tribunals that
have taken place, from then until today Nuremberg is, I think,
the most serious by far. But, nevertheless, it was very seriously
flawed. And it was recognized to be. When Telford Taylor, the
chief prosecutor, wrote about it, he recognized that it was flawed,
and it was so for a number of fundamental reasons. For one thing,
the Nazi war criminals were being tried for crimes that had not
yet been declared to be crimes. So, it was ex post facto. Were
now declaring these things you did to be crimes. That is
the choice of what was considered a crime was based on a very
explicit criterion, namely, denial of the principle of universality.
In other words, something was called a crime at Nuremberg if they
did it and we didnt do it.
So, for example,
the bombing of urban concentrations was not considered a crime.
The bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and so on - those arent
crimes. Why? Because we did them. So, therefore, its not
a crime. In fact, Nazi war criminals who were charged were able
to escape prosecution when they could show that the Americans
and the British did the same thing they did.
Admiral Doenitz, a submarine commander who was involved in all
kinds of war crimes, called in the defense a high official in
the British admiralty and, I think, Admiral Nimitz from the United
States, who testified that, Yeah, thats the kind of
thing we did. And, therefore, they werent sentenced
for these crimes. Doenitz was absolved. And thats the way
it ran through. Now, thats a very serious flaw. Nevertheless,
of all the tribunals, thats the most serious one.
Justice Jackson, chief counsel for the prosecution, spoke to the
tribunal and explained to them the importance of what they were
doing, he said, to paraphrase, that: We are handing these
defendants a poisoned chalice, and if we ever sip from it we must
be subject to the same punishments, otherwise this whole trial
is a farce. Well, you can look at the history from then
on, and weve sipped from the poisoned chalice many times,
but its never been considered a crime. So, that means we
are saying that trial was a farce.
in Jacksons opening statement he claimed that the prosecution
did not wish to incriminate the whole German nation for the crimes
they committed, but only the "planners and designers"
of those crimes, "the inciters and leaders without whose
evil architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged
with the violence and lawlessness
of this terrible war."
correct. And thats another principle which we flatly reject.
So, at Nuremberg, we werent trying the people who threw
Jews into crematoria; we were trying the leaders. When we ever
have a trial for crimes (today) its of some low-level person
like a torturer from Abu Ghraib, not the people who were setting
up the framework from which they operate. And we certainly dont
try political leaders for the crime of aggression. Thats
out of the question.
of Iraq was about as clear-cut a case of aggression than you can
imagine. In fact, by the Nuremberg principles, if you read them
carefully, the U.S. war against Nicaragua was a crime of aggression
for which Ronald Reagan should have been tried. But, its
inconceivable; you cant even mention it in the West. And
the reason is our radical denial of the most elementary moral
truisms. We just flatly reject them. We dont even think
we reject them, and thats even worse than rejecting them
If we were
able to say to ourselves, Look, we are totally immoral,
we dont accept elementary moral principles, that would
be a kind of respectable position in a certain way. But, when
we sink to the level where we cannot even perceive that were
violating elementary moral principles and international law, thats
pretty bad. But, thats the nature of the intellectual culture
- not just in the United States - but in powerful societies everywhere.
at Nuremberg, we werent
trying the people who threw Jews
into crematoria; we were trying
the leaders. When we ever have
a trial for crimes (today) its of
some low-level person like a
torturer from Abu Ghraib,
not the people who were
setting up the framework from
which they operate. And we
certainly dont try political leaders
for the crime of aggression.
Thats out of the question.
Doenitz escaping culpability for his crimes.
didnt escape punishment and were among the most severely
punished at Nuremberg were Julius Streicher, an editor of a major
newspaper, and - also an interesting example - Dr. Wolfram Sievers
of the Ahnenerbe Societys Institute of Military Scientific
Research, whose own crimes were traced back to the University
of Strasbourg. Not the typical people prosecuted for international
war crimes, it seems, given their civilian professions.
theres a justification for that, namely, those defendants
could understand what they were doing. They could understand the
consequences of the work that they were carrying out. But, of
course, if we were to accept this awful principle of universality,
that would have a pretty long reach, to journalists, university
researchers, and so on.
quote for you the mission statement of the Army Research Office.
This "premier extramural" research agency of the Army
is grounded upon "developing and exploiting innovative advances
to insure the Nations technological superiority." It
executes this mission "through conduct of an aggressive basic
science research program on behalf of the Army so that cutting-edge
scientific discoveries and the general store of scientific knowledge
will be optimally used to develop and improve weapons systems
that establish land-force dominance."
This is a
Pentagon office, and theyre doing their job. In our system,
the military is under civilian control. Civilians assign a certain
task to the military: their job is to obey, and carry the role
out, otherwise you quit. Thats what it means to have a military
under civilian control. So, you cant really blame them for
their mission statement.
doing what theyre told to do by the civilian authorities.
The civilian authorities are the culpable ones. If we dont
like those policies (and I dont, and you dont), then
we go back to those civilians who designed the framework and gave
as the Nuremberg precedents indicated, be charged with obeying
illegal orders, but thats often a stretch. If a person is
in a position of military command, they are sworn, in fact, to
obey civilian orders, even if they dont like them. If you
say theyre really just criminal orders, then, yes, they
can reject them, and get into trouble and so on. But, this is
just carrying out the function that theyre ordered to carry
out. So, we go straight back to the civilian authority and then
to the general intellectual culture, which regards this as proper
and legitimate. And now were back to universities, newspapers,
the centers of the doctrinal system.
just the forthright honesty of the mission statement which I think
is also very striking.
like going to an armory and finding out theyre making better
guns. Thats what theyre supposed to do. Their orders
are, Make this gun work better. and so theyre
doing it. And, if theyre honest, theyll say, Yes,
thats what were doing; thats what the civilian
authorities told us to do.
At some point,
people have to ask, Do I want to make a better gun?
Thats where the Nuremberg issues arise. But, you really
cant blame people very severely for carrying out the orders
that theyre told to carry out when theres nothing
in the culture that tells them theres anything wrong with
it. I mean, you have to be kind of like a moral hero to perceive
it, to break out of the cultural framework and say, Look,
what Im doing is wrong.
Like somebody who deserts from the army because they think the
war is wrong. Thats not the place to assign guilt, I think.
Just as at Nuremberg. As I said, they didnt try the SS guards
who threw people into crematoria, at Nuremberg. They might have
been tried elsewhere, but not at Nuremberg.
was just reading a couple days
ago a review of a new book
by Steven Miles, a medical doctor
and bioethicist, who ran through
35,000 pages of documents
he got from the Freedom of
Information Act on the torture
in Abu Ghraib. And the question
that concerned him is,
What were the doctors doing
during all of this?
this case, the results of the AROs mission statement in
harvesting scholarly work for better weapons design, its
professors, scholars, researchers, scientific designers, etc.,
who have these choices to do intellectual work and to be so used
for such ends, and who arent acting necessarily from direct
orders but are acting more out of free will.
free will, but dont forget that theres a general intellectual
culture that raises no objection to this.
take the Iraq war. Therere libraries of material arguing
about the war, debating it, asking What should we do?,
this and that, and the other thing. Now, try to find a sentence
somewhere that says that carrying out a war of aggression
is the supreme international crime, which differs from other war
crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows
(paraphrasing from Nuremberg).
Try to find that somewhere. I mean, you can find it. Ive
written about it, and you can find a couple other dozen people
who have written about it in the world. But, is it part of the
intellectual culture? Can you find it in a newspaper, or in a
journal; in Congress; any public discourse; anything thats
part of the general exchange of knowledge and ideas? I mean, do
students study it in school? Do they have courses where they teach
students that to carry out a war of aggression is the supreme
international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows?
So, for example,
if sectarian warfare is a horrible atrocity, as it is, whos
responsible? By the principles of Nuremberg, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Wolfowitz, Rice - theyre responsible for sectarian warfare
because they carried out the supreme international crime which
encompasses all the evil that follows. Try and find somebody who
points that out. You cant. Because, our dominant intellectual
culture accepts as legitimate our crushing anybody we like.
Both political parties and practically the whole press accept
it as legitimate and, in fact, honorable, that all options
are on the table, presumably including nuclear weapons,
to quote Hilary Clinton and everyone else. All options are
on the table means we threaten war. Well, theres something
called the U.N. Charter, which outlaws the threat or use
of force in international affairs. Does anybody care?
Actually, I saw one op-ed somewhere by Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist
close to the government, who pointed out that threats are serious
violations of international law. But thats so rare that
when you find it its like finding a diamond in a pile of
hay. Its not part of the culture. Were allowed to
threaten anyone we want - and to attack anyone we want. And, when
a person grows up and acts in a culture like that, theyre
culpable in a sense, but the culpability is much broader.
I was just
reading a couple days ago a review of a new book by Steven Miles,
a medical doctor and bioethicist, who ran through 35,000 pages
of documents he got from the Freedom of Information Act on the
torture in Abu Ghraib. And the question that concerned him is,
What were the doctors doing during all of this?
All through those torture sessions there were doctors, nurses,
behavioral scientists and others who were organizing them. What
were they doing when this torture was going on? Well, you go through
the detailed record and it turns out that they were designing
and improving it. Just like Nazi doctors.
Lifton did a big study on Nazi doctors. He points out in connection
with the Nazi doctors that, in a way, its not those individual
doctors who had the final guilt, it was a culture and a society
which accepted torture and criminal activities as legitimate.
The same is true with the tortures at Abu Ghraib. Just to focus
on them as if theyre somehow terrible people is just a serious
mistake. Theyre coming out of a culture that regards this
as legitimate. Maybe there are some excesses you dont really
do but torture in interrogation is considered legitimate.
through those torture sessions
there were doctors, nurses,
behavioral scientists and others
who were organizing them.
What were they doing when this
torture was going on?
Well, you go through the
detailed record and it turns out
that they were
designing and improving it.
Just like Nazi doctors.
a big debate now on, Whos an enemy combatant?;
a big technical debate. Suppose we invade another country and
we capture somebody whos defending the country against our
invasion: what do you mean to call them an enemy combatant?
If some country invaded the United States and lets say you
were captured throwing a rock at one of the soldiers, would it
be legitimate to send you to the equivalent of Guantanamo, and
then have a debate about whether youre a lawful
or unlawful combatant? The whole discussion is kind
of, like, off in outer space somewhere. But, in a culture which
accepts that we own and rule the world, its reasonable.
we should go back to the roots of the intellectual or moral culture,
not just to the individuals directly involved.
school, the University of Arizona, there are courses in bioethics
- required ones, in fact, to hard scientific undergraduates (I
took one, out of interest) - which mostly just discuss scenarios
in terms of slippery slopes and hypothetical questions
within certain bounds. There are none at all in the social sciences
or humanities. Do you think there should be? Would that be beneficial?
If they were
honest, yes. If theyre honest theyd be talking about
what were talking about, and doing case studies. Theres
no point pontificating about high minded principles. Thats
easy. Nazi doctors could do that, too.
take a look at the cases and ask how the principles apply - to
Vietnam; to El Salvador; to Iraq; to Palestine - just run through
the cases and see how the principles apply to our own actions.
Thats what is of prime importance, and what is least discussed.
As a note
to end on, there seems to be some very serious aberrations and
defects in our society and our level of culture. How, in your
view, might they be corrected and a new level of culture be established,
say, one in which torture isnt accepted? (After all, slavery
and child labor were each accepted for a long period of time and
now are not.)
give the answer to the question, the only answer that has ever
been known. Slavery and child labor didnt become unacceptable
by magic. It took hard, dedicated, courageous work by lots of
people. The same is true of torture, which was once completely
If I remember
correctly, the renowned Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie
wrote somewhere that prisons began to proliferate in Norway in
the early 19th century. They werent much needed before,
when the punishment for robbery could be driving a stake through
the hand of the accused. Now its perhaps the most civilized
country on earth.
been a gradual codification of constraints against torture, and
they have had some effect, though only limited, even before the
Bush regression to savagery. Alfred McCoys work reviews
that ugly history. Still, there is improvement, and there can
be more if enough people are willing to undertake the efforts
that led to large-scale rejection of slavery and child labor -
still far from complete.
Gabriel Matthew Schivone is editor Days
Beyond Recall Literary Journal, based in Tucson, AZ.