From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest)
To: ammf-digest@smoe.org
Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #319
Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com
Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Saturday, December 1 2001 Volume 05 : Number 319



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: jian and other musician/celebrities                [SugarFly26@aol.com]
  Re: his point                                          [SugarFly26@aol.com]
  Re: jian and other musician/celebrities                  [bnlfan@erols.com]
  Re: jian and other musician/celebrities  ["Chris K @*_*@" <chrissiek@ehmai]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:55:05 EST
From: SugarFly26@aol.com
Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities

bo said:

<<why does anyone take musicians or celebrities words so serious?
Listen to the music, watch the movie and enjoy and everything else is
just fluff.....
back to lurking
bo>>

I don't think if you become famous you're suddenly not allowed to have an 
opinion, and be taken seriously. Also, in some cases, knowing things beyond 
the movie, music, etc. can help you understand it better, and/or enjoy it 
more. Some famous people shouldn't be taken overly seriously in my opinion 
(Seriously, some of the celebrity Millionaire lifelines back when I used to 
watch that..?) but pick and choose. People like Jian I feel I personally 
should take seriously, for he's not talking blindly like I'm a celebrity 
using this power to make my fans agree with me, and this is part of what 
interests him, issues he apparently feels strongly about, etc. Take them 
seriously, in my opinion, but I'd agree completely if you said "Don't 
disagree with their point because they're a celebrity." 

Ln

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:05:57 EST
From: SugarFly26@aol.com
Subject: Re: his point

Return-path: <SugarFly26@aol.com>
From: SugarFly26@aol.com
Full-name: SugarFly26
Message-ID: <ac.1eacfbff.29397c3b@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:20:11 EST
Subject: Re: his point
To: moonshimmer@xpnonline.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121

Lori said:

<<Yes they have.  And maybe we should ask why.  Because 25 years ago, they 
weren't [starving]. And before September 11, few of us knew they were 
starving.  Now it's a big issue for us, because suddenly the Taliban have 
become boogeymen.>>

We're saying the same thing, I think. Now it's a big issue for me, because I 
didn't know it was happening before, not because the Taliban are boogeymen, 
though they are far from fluffy bunnies, either. :) But we're saying the same 
thing in that there *were* people who knew they were starving before, and we 
didn't do anything about it previously. I'm saying though that I don't want 
it to be a point of argue for someone antiwar to make it sound like they had 
plenty of food before and now suddenly have none as a result of bombing. And 
I know you aren't saying that, but that was my initial point anyway. 

<<I think it's absolutely right to request it.  I think the *demand* is 
arrogant
and ignorant, because we don't allow Taliban any room to save face.>>

I agree.

> I don't want this to come across as bad as I know it's going to sound...but
> do you personally do things about this?

<<Does engaging in dialog with elected officials on these issues count?  Does
working with various aid or relief organisations, supporting others, paying
attention to international news briefings, taking part in the free exercise 
of
speech (ie, circulating petitions, participating in demonstrations and 
rallies),
and voting for those i consider the least clueless count? >>

Yes. 

<<Does talking to you about it count?  :)  >>

Less, but sure. :)  One of my pet peeves is people who talk and talk and talk 
and don't do anything about the issues they have such strong opinions on. 
Personally I feel strongly about gay rights in case you haven't noticed. I 
have many gay friends, etc. and even aside from that I don't feel they should 
be treated differently for that. So I'm in organizations and things to work 
on it, as well as partake in independent projects. That's my point. Just a 
pet peeve. 

<<I'm not trying to make it sound simple.  I'm saying we all have a 
responsibility
to pay attention and do something -- and part of the problem is, as a nation
we've been slacking on that.  You need look no further than our voting 
turnouts
to see that.>>

I again agree.

<<But when we're in trouble, we don't want to look in the mirror, we
don't want to think that maybe we -- just ordinary American citizens -- have 
to
change something in our behaviour  too.>>

I think, to some extent, this may happen because it's unsettling to do that. 
Let me see if I can explain this. When you're little, there's usually 
someone/something that has the answers etc. This superhuman sort of person. 
The President, God, your Father, whoever, that just sorta seems to always 
have the answer and when you're little, the right answer. A sort of expert. 
Growing up means the realization that while some people are very knowledgable 
on a specific thing or things, no one has any surefire answer, though someone 
may come up with a really good idea worth trying out. And it's hard to face 
that these people are more or less just like you, and you could be the one 
coming up with this idea. And yet, I think a lot of people wouldn't want to 
spend time coming up with an idea (though they'd advocate it without thinking 
it through much if it popped into their head sometimes) not necessarily 
because of just apathy, but fear. Fear that they may not be right, or just 
wanting to be secure in the knowledge that someone else came up with "the 
idea" so you can almost justify it as okay. Or to try to put it simpler, some 
people come up with million dollar inventions, and then others look at them 
and say, "I could have done that. Why didn't I?" I understand your point 
completely, and am not saying that the above analogy here is a good thing by 
any stretch. I'm saying if we could work on that "could have done that" and 
make it something more productive so that you realize these ideas before 
they're staring at you from the shelf of every store, and can work on them 
rather than seeing them from hindsight and never progressing, we'd be doing 
pretty good. I have a feeling that's very convulded. Did that make sense?

<<I agree that Afghans should be able to choose their own government.  I'm 
not sure
why the US didn't think this 5 years ago ... ten years ago ... twenty years 
ago
 ... instead of foisting these thugs ON Afghanistan in the first place.  
That's
why the "whatever force necessary" part bothers me.  Why is any force 
necessary?
Because we played this damnable game out of our own narrow interests instead 
of
leaving them alone in their own country, that's why.>>

Yes. Force is probably necessary because we screwed up massively and now 
could probably not fix it any other way. Note the probablies. :)

> Does the government ever say, "Whoops, I guess we were wrong. Sorry about
> that. Our bad." Eh. No.

<<But they should.  It would go a loooooong way toward mending fences, and 
reducing our reputation as arrogant imperialists, around the globe imho.>>

Yeah, I agree. The government, I've decided, is a Capricorn. Stubborn, likes 
to feel independent, and not always great at saying sorry. That from my 
personal experiences with some Capricorns, including myself. :)

<<Very true.  That's why I'm ranting against emotional, instinctive 
patriotism
(jingoism) trumping critical inquiry -- and calling it "unAmerican" besides.>>


Me too. I've been typing on so many newsgroups that I don't remember where I 
have an haven't typed this, so if I already did here, I apologize. There's 
all this blind patriotism, that's what worries me. Sudden commercial appeal 
of the American flag. I love this country, but one thing that worries me a 
little is this sense of blind patriotism the attacks have caused. This sense 
of "Nobody messes with the United States, kill them all, go US."  Our student 
council organized a day for everyone to wear red white and blue. I wasn't 
sure of my position. I wore black. For a while, many people wore American 
flag pins. I used red white and blue ribbon to make a heart pin. That's more 
what patriotism is to me. Loving your country, but blind love in any case can 
have negative repercussions. Not loving *only* your country. There are other 
people, with other countries, with the same rights to life. Patriotism in my 
mind is recognizing what you have and being thankful for that, and yes, 
supporting your country at times. Not because some foreign enemy attacked it, 
but because that's how you truly feel. I would support anyone who burned an 
American flag, as long as they explain to me their reason for doing so. This 
person would not be any less of a patriot to me. Antiwar people are not 
antiUS people just because of the antiwar thing. Not in my mind, anyway. :)

<<And I think the reason we're so often looked to in that way is because 
we've
woven ourselves so intricately into those problems, and into the daily lives 
of
citizens of almost every country.  If we can cut deals to supply them with 
cheap
Coke and cigarettes, why not medicines or nourishing foods?  Which is of more
intrinsic value?>>

Definitely. McDonald's vs. a hospital.

<<The bigger problem, of course, is that Afghanistan is just one part of the
puzzle.  Where else do we have to act -- and even if we *should*, can we 
really
do that kind of global deconstruction and reconstruction?  Especially with an
isolationist president who's "not into nation-building" but is apparently 
into
government-deposing?>>

I don't know. It depends on a lot of things, especially the role of other 
countries like Canada, France, Great Britain, etc. But, liking to feel 
independent, we don't really want to think that it's not up to just us to 
decide.

<<I'll play devil's advocate here and say:  but is it a global good?>>

More to the point, and making the assumption that the notion and reality of
"America" is a good thing, could it have been achieved by non-violent means 
- --
"democratic" means -- instead of by the insurrection of a minority of 
colonists?>>

I can't say anything to that with any real assurance, because I wasn't there. 
:)  All I know of it is accounts from history books, etc, and that is often 
what the penholders make of it. From these accounts I'd say no, because it 
seems like the took many steps before non-violence, but again, I don't really 
know.

<<Look at the rest of the former British Empire.  Look at the other political
forces at work in the 18th century.  Democracy, or at least federalism, was 
an
idea whose time had come.  Perhaps it would have come a few decades later had 
we
not rebelled.>>

Quite possible...but if you were one of those people, and say even one who 
may be dead by the time those few decades later might come, you might feel 
impatient to wait, because you aren't even positive it *will* happen, and 
even more on a purely selfish level, you might want to be around to see it 
happen, and if you're lucky, be around at least a little to see what it has 
caused.

>Life is a hard teacher. It gives the test first, and the lesson afterwards.

<<That's all the more reason to study the situation carefully and keep 
apprised of
developments, isn't it?  Instead of pulling an all-nighter after the test is
announced?>>

Every test is different just like every situation. You can learn a method, 
but you may suddenly find your method was flawed. You fail. And the test 
definitely wasn't announced. :)  Kinda a more unrealistic situation, walking 
in the first day of calculus and getting a quiz kinda thing.

<<Let's think carefully about what "something" is before we leap into action,
then.  And while we're at it, I'd like to think outside the box of war.>>

Yeah..and actually, I was surprised Bush waited as long as he did before 
attacking, assuming we got the truth on that which I'd sorta doubt. 

<<Still, I was hoping I'd hear something different from the politicos -- some
consideration that there might be an alternative to answering destruction and
death with more of the same.  I was hoping, and praying, that they'd look for 
a
way out of the box.  But I've never heard any administration representative 
speak
convincingly -- sincerely -- of a preference for a non-war solution to this
crisis.  Offers not to attack *if* Taliban meets all our demands without
discussion just don't count as sincere in my book.>>

I haven't either..and I wonder why. Because I know that it's hard to advocate 
something like antiwar in this situation particularly as a politician because 
there's that whole How will it look thing, and many other considerations I 
know nothing about, I'm sure. Sometime I'd like to see someone stand and 
fight very hard for something against the accepted normal. A politician, I 
mean. (I'm sure people have, and I just don't know about it, that's why I 
said I'd like to see it happen.)

It's like the movie Dave. Sorry, here I go with my quotes. :)  The president 
in the movie says "I oughta care more about you than I do about me. I oughta 
care more about what's right than what's popular. I oughta be willing to give 
up this whole thing [the presidency] for something I believe in. If I'm 
not...If I'm not...then maybe I shouldn't be here in the first place."

Ln

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 01:52:00 GMT
From: bnlfan@erols.com
Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities

basically, my point was, in an earlier post, someone said that she
might consider not going to see fruvous or jian again because of his
views.  That is crazy.  
The biggest problem I have with celebrities is that they use their
fame to get on their soapboxes and they have a captive audience(ie.
concert) to spew their beliefs onto an audience that is really there
to listen to music.....Or at least in Fruvous' case, music along wtih
some funny, quirky one liners and funny songs.
I happen to agree with the US military action that is going on, and I
still will continue to listen to Fruvous(if they ever get back
together).  And no matter what Jian, or any one else says, I will
continue to support the military action and not have my feelings
altered because a celebrity disagrees with it.  
Most of this is just rambling.





>
>I don't think if you become famous you're suddenly not allowed to have an 
>opinion, and be taken seriously.

And I'm not saying that they don't lose their rights to opinions, I'm
just saying that some people act like the word from a celebrity is
almost God's word.  

Also, in some cases, knowing things beyond 
>the movie, music, etc. can help you understand it better, and/or enjoy it 
>more. Some famous people shouldn't be taken overly seriously in my opinion 
>(Seriously, some of the celebrity Millionaire lifelines back when I used to 
>watch that..?) but pick and choose. People like Jian I feel I personally 
>should take seriously, for he's not talking blindly like I'm a celebrity 
>using this power to make my fans agree with me, and this is part of what 
>interests him, issues he apparently feels strongly about, etc. Take them 
>seriously, in my opinion, but I'd agree completely if you said "Don't 
>disagree with their point because they're a celebrity." 
>
>Ln
>
>
once again, back to lurking
Bo
ps...any word on a Fruvous "reunion"?

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 04:48:31 GMT
From: "Chris K @*_*@" <chrissiek@ehmail.com>
Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities

bnlfan@erols.com wrote:
 
> basically, my point was, in an earlier post, someone said that she
> might consider not going to see fruvous or jian again because of his
> views.  That is crazy.
> The biggest problem I have with celebrities is that they use their
> fame to get on their soapboxes and they have a captive audience(ie.
> concert) to spew their beliefs onto an audience that is really there
> to listen to music.....Or at least in Fruvous' case, music along wtih
> some funny, quirky one liners and funny songs.

*snip*

Or to use their celebrity status to feel that they
are helping out with the cause - Like they have to
make a statement or an appearance in a tragedy.
Now they wonder where the money went to for this
cause. How much actually got to the families of
the victims?  For example, that horrendous benefit
concert where the celebrities performed and
answered the phones.  My first thought was: "Is
this a Christmas show?" and second, "Did they take
lessons from Carrie White's mom and decorate the
place in candles?"

What I'm wondering about this thread, is it just
something for us to discuss how we feel about
current events? (which is a good thing)  I mean,
seriously, do we all really give a shit what Jian
thinks? Are his views ruling what we think? We
have our opinions, he has his. Agree to disagree.
But one thing Jian should remember: Many americans
attend his shows and Fruvous shows. Some of the
money (American money) pays his bills. Don't
alienate the fans.

I couldn't believe that some were posting on
jianghomeshi.com something to the effect of "Well
I was waiting for what Jian had to say." Why? Who
really gives a fuck? Was that keeping you up at
night? 

You know, I sat up all night while watching
whatever news stations had coverage thinking "MY
GOD! What are Jian's thoughts on this? I'm not
going to be able to sleep, eat or go to work until
he makes a famous post to all the "humans" on the
newsgroup." I just couldn't sleep until he posted.
Thank god he did! </snark>

Christine.

------------------------------

End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #319
********************************************