From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2000 #67 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk JMDL Digest Wednesday, February 2 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 067 The Official Joni Mitchell Homepage is maintained by Wally Breese at http://www.jonimitchell.com and contains the latest news, a detailed bio, original interviews and essays, lyrics, and much more. ------- The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Biography [Don Rowe ] Re: vicious lists [Mike Friedman ] Re: Biography NJC [michael w yarbrough ] BSN for $30 ["Alan Lorimer" ] Re: Rockgirl Magazine votes in Joni SJC ["Alan Lorimer" ] Re: WTRF - Henley to Joni on Ritchie (NJC) ["Alan Lorimer" ] I really shouldn't start this but ... (njc) [Don Rowe ] Re: WTRF - Henley to Joni on Ritchie (NJC) [catman ] Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) [LLDeMerle ] Re: I really shouldn't start this but ... (njc) [LL ] RE: Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) ["Pitassi, Mary" ] Re: WTRF - Henley to Joni on Ritchie (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] Re: I really shouldn't start this but ... (njc) [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Joni Mention on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" [WirlyPearl@aol.com] Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) [luvart@snet.net] Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] Re: WTRF - Henley to Joni on Ritchie (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] Re: British? (was Re: WTRF...) (NJC) [Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Biography > I have to wonder - they're doing one on Farrah > Fawcett (!?!) I can actually > understand Dick van Dyke, but Farrah Fawcett??? > As a red-blooded American male child of the 70s, I've gotta call a flag down on this one from Catherine. Farrah -- rivalled only distantly by Stevie Nicks and Ann and Nancy Wilson -- is single-handedly responsible for imprisoning an entire generation of male adolsecents in a fantasy world from which there was no escape. And with what? A POSTER!! That rates a Biography segment in my book ... and yes, I still HAVE the poster. ;-) Don Rowe ===== "I would not bet against the development of a time machine. My opponent may have already built one ... and know the future." -- Stephen Hawking __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 12:41:23 -0800 From: Mike Friedman Subject: Re: vicious lists Sounds like those are people who don't have enough to do, and need to get a life. :-) ============================================================= "I see the blue pools in the squinting sun and the hissing of summer lawns."--Joni Mitchell, 1975 Mike Friedman, San Francisco, CA, USA http://63.192.218.181 > From: Roman > Reply-To: Roman > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:41:09 +0100 > To: JMDL Digest > Subject: vicious lists > > >> You want a viscous list, (can you say that 10x fast?), try the one for >> >Thomas >> Pynchon. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, does each individual member think they >have >> the ONLY interpretation of Pynchon's stuff. > > Yeah, I tried a Doors list for a week or two once - They had me for > breakfast. I probably deserved it - you guys are too patient with me! > > (Tip - If you ever join a Doors list, don't ever try suggesting that > Manzarek was to blame ;-)) > > Incidentally I've just realised I actually have more Stevie Nicks albums > than Joni albums. 4 to 3. > > tube > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:48:41 -0600 (CST) From: michael w yarbrough Subject: Re: Biography NJC Don wrote: > Farrah -- rivalled only distantly by Stevie Nicks and > Ann and Nancy Wilson -- is single-handedly responsible > for imprisoning an entire generation of male > adolsecents in a fantasy world from which there was no > escape. Of course you mean an entire generation of *heterosexual* male adolescents, don't you Don? (Probably mostly white, too, huh?) Just how general is anyone's experience? ;-) - --Michael NP: Club 69, _Style_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 07:19:14 +1100 From: "Alan Lorimer" Subject: BSN for $30 Barnes & Noble now have Both Sides now listed for $39.99. Use a $10 of $25 order coupon to obtain it for $30. I have two of these coupons listed on my site. You may be able to stop your old orders and reorder :-) http://jonimitchell.freeservers.com/ Alan Lorimer Hawley Beach Tasmania ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 07:49:16 +1100 From: "Alan Lorimer" Subject: Re: Rockgirl Magazine votes in Joni SJC Joni's maturing like a good wine! Last year VH1 only listed Joni in position #5 on their list "The 100 Greatest Women Of Rock 'N Roll" behind Arerha Franklin, Tina Turner, Janis Joplin and Bonnie Raitt. I wonder how fresh "Dunking Donuts" will be by the time they get to Oz! Alan Lorimer Hawley Beach Tasmania ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 13:11:30 PST From: "Reuben Bell" Subject: Re: Biography NJC Michael, you took the words right out of my mouth! Farrah? I think not... ;) Reuben >From: michael w yarbrough >Of course you mean an entire generation of *heterosexual* male >adolescents, don't you Don? (Probably mostly white, too, huh?) >--Michael ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:25:53 +1100 From: "Alan Lorimer" Subject: Re: WTRF - Henley to Joni on Ritchie (NJC) Catherine said: >I remember a few years back getting a letter at work from someone in >either England or Australia who was writing on behalf of an organisation >for "spastics" and thinking, "Oh, my Lord - you'd never hear someone >say that here!") It's a sad reflection on society that way that we place such labels on people. It also reflects society's apparent inability to deal with people with any form of disability. I'm reminded of the turmoil that followed when Ian Dury released a song called "Spasticus Autisticus", and recently found the following comments on that same song: "Nervous BBC bosses pulled the track for fear of causing offence - there are some subjects that aren't considered suitable for popular music, even a track written for the Year of the Disabled by a disabled musician. Dury sings right from the heart, a proud and savagely funny rebel song for all who don't fit." Alan Lorimer Hawley Beach Tasmania NP: Hit me with your rhythm stick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:53:13 -0600 From: "Pitassi, Mary" Subject: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) OK. For the most part, I really make an effort to "color between the lines" and avoid controversial list topics, but this one just cried out for a comment. Jason wrote, and Alan Lorimar responded: "">Thank goodness for common sense, Don and Catherine! >I agree with the *tongue in cheek* theory.....I mean, >c'mon...isn't that the most likely scenario? Well put, the only real conclusion we can come to over this is that he failed to be "politically correct". Unfortunately most Western countries seem to be full of contradictions." And then Catherine, observing that yesterday's slur may be today's acceptable coment, wrote: "The N-r word is racist, but "Negro" and "coloured" are old-fashioned and perhaps no longer considered tasteful, but not *racist* per se (not that I would use either word these days either). First, to Alan. No, I wouldn't say that the only thing Don Henley did--IF he actually said what Joni said he did--was fail to be "politically correct," whatever that means. He made a race-based comparison between Lionel Richie and himself in a context in which most people would probably agree that race should be accorded little or no importance: the opportunity to sing on a colleague's record. The comment may have been "tongue-in-cheek." There may have been humor involved, at least, in Henley's own mind. And no, we don't know the entire story. However, the use of a racial classification in that situation was so startling that several on this list were quite taken aback by it, myself included. Personally, I find the phrase "politically correct" to be one of the most ironic in the English language, used as it often is by those on the political right to intimidate and shame those on the political left into silence, based on the principles on "free speech." And Jason--in your initial response to other posts, you are implying, it seems, that humor excuses insulting speech. And this may indeed be true, to some extent. My question, though, is: who determines what is "humorous," and by what societal power do they enjoy the right to do so? Unfortunately, in my experience of living on this planet, those who belong to racial, ethnic, and gender groups which have traditionally not been accorded (or have not yet taken) the power to define their own identities complain about the images or labels others foist upon them, they are often met with a wink, a nod, and the exclamation, "But I was only joking! Doesn't anyone have a sense of *humor* these days?!" [As a case in point, remember the old joke, "How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?" Answer: That's NOT FUNNY!! (Wink. Nod)]. And yes, I'm generalizing, but it seems to me that those responding in this manner often seem utterly oblivious to either the daily lived reality of the people protesting, OR to the fact that they themselves have taken it upon themselves to judge the adequacy of the first group's response to that reality. Finally, Catherine: no, you wouldn't use either of those words today. Neither would I, in almost any circumstance I can think of. The reason why, I suspect, is identical: we realize their power, even now, to deeply offend at least some people, and we do not wish to associate ourselves with their tainted history. Some do choose to use those words, though, and others like them, with varying degrees of malice. Do I think those individuals should be silenced or censored? Not on your life. Do I think they should be called on the carpet with still more speech by those who are offended when they make those choices? Hell, yes. Conservatives would certainly agree, I'd think, that they should be held accountable and take "personal responsibility" for their own actions. And do I think that we should all think a second or two about the effects of our speech on others before engaging our mouths, without living in fear of being slapped with the "politically correct" label if we suggest that others might consider doing the same? Well, I think it would make the world a much nicer, more caring, more civil place to live in. Isn't that what most of us want? "Let the flames begin"! Mary P., Off my soapbox; back to work. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:52:46 -0800 (PST) From: Don Rowe Subject: I really shouldn't start this but ... (njc) Boy, one little post, made in obvious jest, concerning the fame of a nearly 30-year-old bit of cheesecake, and suddenly I'm the bastard son of John Rocker and Anita Bryant! Why is that? I would honestly like to know ... Don Rowe ===== "I would not bet against the development of a time machine. My opponent may have already built one ... and know the future." -- Stephen Hawking __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 23:21:00 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: WTRF - Henley to Joni on Ritchie (NJC) The Spastics Society only changed it's name in the last few years, here. It is now called SCOPE. As for negro, does it not come from negra, the Spanish word for black? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 23:20:53 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: Hejira vs DJRD From someone who knows nothing of the technicalities fo music-I cannnot hear any similarity at all between Hejira and DJRD. They sound completely different. Lyrically they are too. hejira is by far the better album, at least to my ears. i seem to recall it written on this list that Joni just threw DJRD together cos she had an obligation to fill. it certainly is a strange album. My favourite tracks being Talk To Me, The Tenth World and Dreamland. Paprika Plains is incredibly boring to my ears. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 23:20:17 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: WTRF - Henley to Joni on Ritchie (NJC) > > > If you're born in either England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland...then that > makes you British, regardless of race, colour, religion or family history. Add to > that being either English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish....everyone in the four home > nations is one of these AND British. Unfortunately, New Labour are dismantling the > whole structure of British culture almost on a daily basis. Nationality has never formed part of my identity, so i fail to understand why people get so passionate it.As for British culture, I am not sure what you mean by it. I for one would be glad to see the back of discrimiantion, the class system, the superior attitude, the whingeing, the lack of passion, the repression/suppression of self, the inability to get things done. > > > People from outside of Britian should, of course, be welcomed and given opportunities > like anyone else....but not at the expense of those who have earned a living here for > several decades and also been born here. Certainly, those who come to this country > and abuse the system for thier own ends, giving nothing in return, should never be > tolerated. Other countries would kick them out. and that doesn't happen-except in the heads of those racists who like to give out this propaganda i.e the right wing press and the yobs who can;t get offf there arse and do somthing for themselves. The 'complaints' about immigrants here are just like those in germany in the 30's and look where that led.These immigrants are here for a reason-we raped their lands and took for ourselves. We now are reaping what we sowed(after we reaped what they sowed). The Asian immigrants here have what they have because they WORK for it, families stick together and help eachother out. they contribute emormously to our economy. Asylum seekers and such like also will/do contribute and they have a right to be here. They do not get benefits others do not get, and certainly no 'national' is denied benefit that they get. Immigrants are not taking anyones livlihood away. Those that say they are are just looking to balme someone else for their troubles. If we had no immigrants it would be the likes of you and I and theat theese things would be said about. It would be you and I that people would be demanding 'something was done about'. > > > Jason. - -- To change the world-change your self "It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 23:22:20 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: Biography Farah is no longer the girl from CA. No. She proved she can act both on stage and in film. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 18:23:01 -0500 From: LLDeMerle Subject: Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) Oh, good. PC. A writer's list I belong to *just* debated this topic not 2 weeks ago, and what an interesting outcome there was...but first to Mary's points. >Personally, I find the phrase "politically correct" to be one of the most >ironic in the English language, used as it often is by those on the >political right to intimidate and shame those on the political left into >silence, based on the principles on "free speech." Personally, I think much of being PC is sometimes being in denial about a problem and labelling it to encourage denial on the part of the PC'ers regarding unpleasantness. We can't have unpleasantness now, can we? :) Being respectful and treating people with dignity is all that's needed, imo. My objection is some of the manipulation of language in labelling that to *me* signifies a dismissal of some true issues in favor of "cleaning up" people's consciences. >And Jason--in your initial response to other posts, you are implying, it >seems, that humor excuses insulting speech. And this may indeed be true, >to some extent. My question, though, is: who determines what is >"humorous," and by what societal power do they enjoy the right to do so? Excellent observation. A friend of mine insists that her aboriginal friend expects her to call her whatever it is they do that's not PC out there, and she can do it because they are close friends...although I can't imagine addressing a friend in that way, I suppose with some people that is part of their intimacy ritual, however bizarre it may seem to me. ??? >Unfortunately, in my experience of living on this planet, those who belong >to racial, ethnic, and gender groups which have traditionally not been >accorded (or have not yet taken) the power to define their own identities >complain about the images or labels others foist upon them, they are often >met with a wink, a nod, and the exclamation, "But I was only joking! >Doesn't anyone have a sense of *humor* these days?!" Yes! Just not the same brand as YOURS, buster. :) >And yes, I'm generalizing, but it seems to me that those responding in this >manner often seem utterly oblivious to either the daily lived reality of the >people protesting, OR to the fact that they themselves have taken it upon >themselves to judge the adequacy of the first group's response to that >reality. It's definitely a perception thing, which is very difficult to measure since it is so entirely subjective. I guess the bottom line is don't toss folk's sensibilities around lightly...at least not until you know them well enough to know that it's acceptable to them. This reminds me of a situation... Most people that I come to know remark that they think I am extremely funny...so obviously, I have a well-developed sense of humor, albeit it twisted and abnormal...and it is still socially acceptable. (Among the tragic of natures.) However...I have a neighbor friend who is always at me in one way or another on a highly personal level...and I was beginning to feel somewhat beleaguered and reluctant to see them, 'til it "clicked" one day and I understood. This is how members of her *family* relate to one another, and by her making insulting and offensive remarks, I am being alerted that I have been inducted into "circle of family." No party, no gifts, but, accepted into their culture. >Finally, Catherine: no, you wouldn't use either of those words today. >Neither would I, in almost any circumstance I can think of. The reason why, >I suspect, is identical: we realize their power, even now, to deeply offend >at least some people, and we do not wish to associate ourselves with their >tainted history. Some do choose to use those words, though, and others like >them, with varying degrees of malice. Do I think those individuals should >be silenced or censored? Not on your life. Do I think they should be >called on the carpet with still more speech by those who are offended when >they make those choices? Hell, yes. Conservatives would certainly agree, >I'd think, that they should be held accountable and take "personal >responsibility" for their own actions. And do I think that we should all >think a second or two about the effects of our speech on others before >engaging our mouths, without living in fear of being slapped with the >"politically correct" label if we suggest that others might consider doing >the same? Well, I think it would make the world a much nicer, more caring, >more civil place to live in. Isn't that what most of us want? Absolutely, and well said! LL lyric@usadatanet.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 18:27:52 -0500 From: LL Subject: Re: I really shouldn't start this but ... (njc) At 01:52 PM 2/2/00 -0800, Don Rowe wrote: >Boy, one little post, made in obvious jest, concerning >the fame of a nearly 30-year-old bit of cheesecake, >and suddenly I'm the bastard son of John Rocker and >Anita Bryant! Why is that? I would honestly like to >know ... > >Don Rowe Now *this* is funny! L lyric@usadatanet.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 23:33:17 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: I really shouldn't start this but ... (njc) Don Rowe wrote: > Boy, one little post, made in obvious jest, concerning > the fame of a nearly 30-year-old bit of cheesecake, > and suddenly I'm the bastard son of John Rocker and > Anita Bryant! Why is that? I would honestly like to > know ... I din't read any post that was so strong in response to yours. However, since you asked, my reaction to reading our post was similar. 'hey not everyone'. I guess we don't like feeling excluded. After all, we are constantly and given a chance to correct it, we do!So i don't think anyone thinks you are a mean old daddy relalted to Ms Bryant. But you did write what you wrote, making assumtpions about and excluding millions. It would be like me writing the same line but with a male stars name. Many hetero's would come nback with the same sort of comment. In fact I recall one such post and were very keen to point out you wre het! So i don't think anyone was ahaving a pop at you, i don't think you did anything truly awful, and I think the responses were light. this response is only longer and to the point becuase you asked for clarification! bw #colin > > > Don Rowe > > ===== > "I would not bet against the development of a time machine. My opponent may have already built one ... and know the future." -- Stephen Hawking > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com - -- To change the world-change your self "It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 23:40:00 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) > > > However...I have a neighbor friend who is always at me in one way or > another on a highly personal level...and I was beginning to feel somewhat > beleaguered and reluctant to see them, 'til it "clicked" one day and I > understood. This is how members of her *family* relate to one another, and > by her making insulting and offensive remarks, I am being alerted that I > have been inducted into "circle of family." No party, no gifts, but, > accepted into their culture. I say things to my firends that I would not say to others. Even if I were angry with them. If a friend calls, I pick up the phone and say ,' hello you old bag', or call them fuck face or fart features or old crone, or fat bastard, scottish git, big poof or any number of rude and childish things. I would never do this to someone I did not liek. I only insult those i care about. > > > >Finally, Catherine: no, you wouldn't use either of those words today. > >Neither would I, in almost any circumstance I can think of. The reason why, > >I suspect, is identical: we realize their power, even now, to deeply offend > >at least some people, and we do not wish to associate ourselves with their > >tainted history. Some do choose to use those words, though, and others like > >them, with varying degrees of malice. Do I think those individuals should > >be silenced or censored? Not on your life. Do I think they should be > >called on the carpet with still more speech by those who are offended when > >they make those choices? Hell, yes. Conservatives would certainly agree, > >I'd think, that they should be held accountable and take "personal > >responsibility" for their own actions. And do I think that we should all > >think a second or two about the effects of our speech on others before > >engaging our mouths, without living in fear of being slapped with the > >"politically correct" label if we suggest that others might consider doing > >the same? Well, I think it would make the world a much nicer, more caring, > >more civil place to live in. Isn't that what most of us want? > > Absolutely, and well said! > > LL > > lyric@usadatanet.net - -- To change the world-change your self "It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 18:52:28 -0500 (EST) From: David Wright Subject: Re: I really shouldn't start this but ... (njc) On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Don Rowe wrote: > and suddenly I'm the bastard son of John Rocker and > Anita Bryant! Why is that? I would honestly like to > know ... ???!!???? Huh? Both Michael's and Reuben's posts had smiley-faces all over them. They playfully pointed out a certain heterosexist assumption your post made -- they didn't jump down your throat about it or try to take away your orange-juice endorsement contract or anything. - --David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 19:10:31 -0500 (EST) From: David Wright Subject: Re: WTRF - Henley to Joni on Ritchie (NJC) Alan Lorimer wrote: > > Political correctness is a scary concept in itself. Isn't what you believe > in your heart more important than what you say? Doesn't what you say express what's in your heart? (What else would it express?) If not, shouldn't you say something else? And what's so scary about that? Jason Maloney wrote: > > As such, I feel justifiably aggrieved to see a basic and much-needed > review of the NHS and medical practice in general overlooked time and > again, especially by New Labour's insatiable and dreadfully misjudged > appetitie to appease PC-ness at the expense of common sense. I don't know what "PC" programs Jack Straw and the New Labour government are pursuing (perhaps you could explain more fully?), but I am skeptical as to whether "political correctness" is really to blame for their failure to reform the health care system. Here in America at least, it's more due to the enormous amounts of money the health care industry spends to keep pro-consumer reforms from passing, and not because the government is especially distracted by "politically correct" pursuits, as far as I can tell. However, the anti-PC backlash makes "political correctness" a much more convenient whipping boy/decoy, especially for those with certain other political agendas (I don't mean you, Jason), doesn't it? If the government wanted to pursue health care reform *and* some "PC agenda" at the same time, I imagine they could. So aren't there probably some other reasons why they're not going after health care? And I second, third, and fourth everything Mary P. said on the subject! - --David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:13:05 -0800 From: Steve Dulson Subject: Juno Award Nominees The nominees for Juno Awards (Canada's Grammies) were announced today. Most interesting to us: Best Pop Adult: Joni Mitchell - "Taming The Tiger" The complete list of nominees can be found at www.juno-awards.ca ######################################################### Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "Southern California Dulcimer Heritage" http://members.aol.com/scdulcimer/ "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ (Website under construction!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:13:47 -0600 From: "Pitassi, Mary" Subject: RE: Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) I wrote: ">Personally, I find the phrase "politically correct" to be one of the most >ironic in the English language, used as it often is by those on the >political right to intimidate and shame those on the political left into >silence, based on the principles on "free speech." And LLDeMerle responded to my rant (!) with, among other things: "Personally, I think much of being PC is sometimes being in denial about a problem and labelling it to encourage denial on the part of the PC'ers regarding unpleasantness. We can't have unpleasantness now, can we? :) Being respectful and treating people with dignity is all that's needed, imo. My objection is some of the manipulation of language in labelling that to *me* signifies a dismissal of some true issues in favor of "cleaning up" people's consciences." LL: You make a very sound point, and I do admit that there may be some of what you describe floating around. But I think you and I are really talking about two different things, no? At least we're looking at two different sides of the same coin. Take the term "vertically-challenged," which is supposedly used by the "politically correct" to refer to short people. I have never ONCE heard someone I would consider a liberal or radical use this phrase: not once. And yet I've seen it and heard it more times than I can remember in cartoons, in conversations, and in newspaper columns, almost always with the intent by a self-defined conservative to dismiss or trivialize the ideas of someone the speaker/writer considers to be a "liberal," if to not to dismiss the ideas of *all* perceived "liberals" entirely. *This* is an example of what I meant. However, I can see what *you* mean in, for instance, the use of the term "physically challenged" to refer to persons with disabilities. I can perceive how some who fall into this category may well resent the term for glossing over the reality of their lives, which may often be not so much a challenge as they are damn HARD!!! And, if a person with a disability were to express that view to me, I would respect it and use the term he or she preferred. Where your thought and my thought meet, I'm afraid, is my suspicion that even a term like "physically challenged" is not used by the left nearly as much as those who take glee in pillorying "political correctness" would have us believe it is. Thanks, Mary. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 19:55:29 -0500 (EST) From: David Wright Subject: British? (was Re: WTRF...) (NJC) Jason wrote: > If you're born in either England, Scotland, Wales or Northern > Ireland...then that makes you British, regardless of race, colour, > religion or family history. Add to that being either English, Scottish, > Welsh or Irish....everyone in the four home nations is one of these AND > British. Unfortunately, New Labour are dismantling the whole structure > of British culture almost on a daily basis. and: > New Labour clearly despise what being British means. Jason, Speaking as a curious non-Britisher wanting to understand these issues, what *does* being British mean? You seem to say above that Britishness is a *political*, not a cultural, identity (if everyone in "Britain" is Welsh, Scottish, Irish, or English as well as British) -- and identity created by a political act, the Act(s) of Union. I don't mean to step on UK JMDLers' toes here, but *is* there a "British culture" (as separate from Welsh, Scottish, English, or Northern-Irish culture) and how is New Labour dismantling it? (Via the increasing political autonomy recently granted to Wales and Scotland?) And surely not everyone in the four home nations identifies as Scottish, Welsh, English, or Irish, at least not exclusively -- if British means being born in England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, doesn't that seem to deny (for instance) Indian, Pakistani, and Caribbean immigrants in Britain a cultural identity? - --David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 01:29:23 +0000 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: WTRF - Henley to Joni on Ritchie (NJC) catman wrote: > Nationality has never formed part of my identity, so i fail to understand why people get > so passionate it. Perhaps the difference is that you spent many years travelling and living abroad, and therefore as aresult you maybe have no *defining* sense of place, at least in context of *who* you feel you are? I can understand that, it makes logical sense to me. Of course nationality doesn't have to be something that defines anyone. But in a descriptive context, that's what *being* British would suggest to me...that you were born in one of the four home nations. These days I don't think it has any deeper definition than that. If all you've known is one particular country, culture and lifestyle, then it does shape you in some way. How much, if anything, depends on the individual. > As for British culture, I am not sure what you mean by it. I for one > would be glad to see the back of discrimiantion, the class system, the superior attitude, > the whingeing, the lack of passion, the repression/suppression of self, the inability to > get things done. Me too! As far as I can make out, all these are no nearer becoming a thing of the past. I wish they were. To me, you've just described New Labour exactly.... > that doesn't happen-except in the heads of those racists who like to give out this > propaganda i.e the right wing press and the yobs who can;t get offf there arse and do > somthing for themselves. I was referring to the more recent - and mostly illegal - immigrants who take advantage of the system in various ways. Sorry if it seemed I was citing the Asian/West Indian communities throught Britain. That wasn't my intention or my point at all. As you say, they work and earn their way here, and have done so for decades now. And the children of those initial families who came here are as British as you or I. > The 'complaints' about immigrants here are just like those in > germany in the 30's and look where that led.These immigrants are here for a reason-we > raped their lands and took for ourselves. We now are reaping what we sowed(after we > reaped what they sowed). This echoes what Roman/Tube was saying earlier in the week, and it's something I readily acknowledge. Morally, and even justice-wise (in the grand scheme of history), there is immense reason and cause for such a "payback". But the new problems entering our society are from different global zones to the ones I think you are referring to, and largely they are cultures and nationalities with whom we have done little to incur any such wrath. > If we had no > immigrants it would be the likes of you and I and theat theese things would be said > about. It would be you and I that people would be demanding 'something was done about'. I think this is a very pertinent and valid point. Even in current scoiety, *British* people at a disadvantage are persecuted in some fashion, so I'm sure there would be more focus on such groups. Best wishes, Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 20:34:05 -0500 From: LL Subject: RE: Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) > >LL: You make a very sound point, and I do admit that there may be some of >what you describe floating around. But I think you and I are really talking >about two different things, no? At least we're looking at two different >sides of the same coin. Perhaps, and then: >Take the term "vertically-challenged," which is supposedly used by the >"politically correct" to refer to short people. I have never ONCE heard >someone I would consider a liberal or radical use this phrase: not once. >And yet I've seen it and heard it more times than I can remember in >cartoons, in conversations, and in newspaper columns, almost always with the >intent by a self-defined conservative to dismiss or trivialize the ideas of >someone the speaker/writer considers to be a "liberal," if to not to dismiss >the ideas of *all* perceived "liberals" entirely. *This* is an example of >what I meant. Hm, well, I'm no conservative, but do know of blind folks who think it's a ridiculous hoot to be referred to as "sightless," among other things, and someone I know has a grandma who bristles at the term "Native American," and hisses, "I'm an *Indian,* for God's sake!" There's no accounting for tastes, it seems. :) >Where your thought and my thought meet, I'm afraid, is my suspicion that >even a term like "physically challenged" is not used by the left nearly as >much as those who take glee in pillorying "political correctness" would have >us believe it is. Perhaps however, it also may be an individual view. In my writing group's discussion (about 30 people,) it was the extremely liberal folks (one of them an elected government official who is making the change in language a personal crusade) who actually insisted that these terms must be used in order to teach society right from wrong. I don't believe that words will sway the unreasonable (bigots,) the operative, here, being "unreasonable," however, I do believe the primary point is "treatment of others." I have other points to make, however, unfortunately, the washing machine has just done something very bad. LL lyric@usadatanet.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:33:39 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: I really shouldn't start this but ... (njc) In a message dated 2/2/00 4:56:04 PM US Central Standard Time, dgrowe227@yahoo.com writes: << suddenly I'm the bastard son of John Rocker and Anita Bryant! Why is that? >> Well Don, it's your own doing, you know, all those identities of yours! :~) But seriously, since we're on the topic...I was too cheap to shell for the classic Farrah poster, so I had a Time Magazine cover on my wall - it featured all 3 of Charlie's Angel's and I liked Kate Jackson the best anyway... But since it was brought up, what did the gay men here put on their walls when they were teenagers? I don't ask that in any sort of judgemental way, I'm just curious...I suppose they couldn't put beefcake male posters up unless they had outed to their parents, which is a minority I'm guessing. (My sister didn't out to my parents until she was in her thirties). Or maybe they did - I don't know, that's why I'm asking...so you see Don Rocker-Bryant, you have opened up an interesting topic. FWIW, besides, the Time cover I had a Little Feat poster and a Linda Ronstadt poster and a Tom Seaver poster... Bob NP: Die lustigen Woardhauser, "Bauerngirgl" (Don't ask) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:42:27 EST From: WirlyPearl@aol.com Subject: Joni Mention on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Hi guys, I just caught the tail end of it, but Joni was in the "fastest finger" segment of the show. My husband Steve said they asked to put the dates of these singers first hits in order, or something like that. Joni Mitchell, Tracy Chapman, Cindi Lauper and I didn't catch the last one. I was just so excited to see Joni's name up there. Did anyone else see it? Pearl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 20:42:06 -0500 From: luvart@snet.net Subject: Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) At 11:40 PM 2/2/00 +0000, catman wrote: >I say things to my firends that I would not say to others. Even if I were angry >with them. If a friend calls, I pick up the phone and say ,' hello you old bag', >or call them fuck face or fart features or old crone, or fat bastard, scottish >git, big poof or any number of rude and childish things. I would never do this >to someone I did not liek. I only insult those i care about. well.... your walrus hurt the one you love ...... ;-D Heather ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 02:08:13 +0000 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) Hello Mary, "Pitassi, Mary" wrote: > No, I wouldn't say that the only thing Don Henley did--IF > he actually said what Joni said he did--was fail to be "politically > correct," whatever that means. He made a race-based comparison between > Lionel Richie and himself in a context in which most people would probably > agree that race should be accorded little or no importance: the opportunity > to sing on a colleague's record. Something just occurred to me while reading this passage...does the "negro" reference have any link to what "register/key/style" of vocal Joni felt Ritchie sounded more suitable for Flat Tyres? In effect, Henley was merely saying "you thought a black singer could do the song/vocal better than me?", wherein black is not a slur, rather a reference to a difference in style/sound between himself and a singer such as Ritchie? I feel like it's beginning to sound like splitting hairs.... > The comment may have been > "tongue-in-cheek." There may have been humor involved, at least, in > Henley's own mind. And no, we don't know the entire story. However, the > use of a racial classification in that situation was so startling that > several on this list were quite taken aback by it, myself included. A lot of comments or statements out of context could have that effect. Unless we know the full story, I can't see how any judgement in possible, although the reaction it provoked is understandable. > And Jason--in your initial response to other posts, you are implying, it > seems, that humor excuses insulting speech. And this may indeed be true, > to some extent. It obviously depends on the context. As Colin and I think Catherine have said (apologies if I've mixed names up), in certain company (familiar, relaxed etc), a degree of this "humourous" insulting may take place. That was all I was acknowledging. I wouldn't say it *excuses* anything, that's not where I'm coming from at all. Rather, I was placing the dialogue between Joni and Henley in a certain context, to show how it might have occured and the possible intentions (and lack of racial malice) behind it. > My question, though, is: who determines what is > "humorous," and by what societal power do they enjoy the right to do so? You are now addressing a wider picture, which is obviously perfectly valid and connected to this thread, but in a case of two individuals with an established rapport between them having a conversation alone, I would say that it is the two of them who would in that particular case determine the nature, and humour (or otherwise) of what was said. > And yes, I'm generalizing, but it seems to me that those responding in this > manner often seem utterly oblivious to either the daily lived reality of the > people protesting, OR to the fact that they themselves have taken it upon > themselves to judge the adequacy of the first group's response to that > reality. Once again, as someone very much on the *outside* of society, marginalised and having to fight for my vaildity among both the medical profession and society at large (just to get money each week to live on), I believe I have a viewpoint that is as relevant as any of the more widely-known minorities and other types people suffering some kind of adversity. I don't like making this point too often, but sometimes I get the impression that I fall into a minority that doesn't quite have the same profile when it comes to discrimination and those who are oppressed or up against it. That is in no way a dismissal or belittlement of ANY minority of any kind. > And do I think that we should all > think a second or two about the effects of our speech on others before > engaging our mouths, without living in fear of being slapped with the > "politically correct" label if we suggest that others might consider doing > the same? Well, I think it would make the world a much nicer, more caring, > more civil place to live in. Isn't that what most of us want? Of course, but is asking ppl to *think before they speak* enforcing PC-ness? I can't quite see that link, not completely. Thoughtfullness should be one of the basic decent practices in society, I wholeheartedly agree. Best wishes, Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 02:18:16 +0000 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: "Political correctness," etc. (NJC) "Pitassi, Mary" wrote, in response to LL : > However, I can see what *you* mean in, for instance, the use of the term > "physically challenged" to refer to persons with disabilities. Well, here's something I can actually take some standpoint on to a very personal degree. If I were called or labelled "physically challegened", my reaction (deep offence or no offence) would be entirely reliant on the context of its use, and who was saying it.......if the intention was to upset or belittle or insult, then yes I would find it deeply offensive, because I find it a literal *challenge* to complete even the most trivial or mundane physical tasks, and if used as a weapon, such a term is extremely nasty and demeaning. If I were having a conversation with fellow sufferers, and one of us made the reference, it would not have that effect. A term, a description, is open to a very large degree of interpretation and nuance. Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:27:57 -0500 From: Walter R Rodgers III Subject: [none] Matthew; HOSL is one of my favorite albums period. I hear in it the obvious theme of disillusionment with the false gods of suburbanites, but more important for me it really hits home with the bittersweet melancholy of getting older. With In France They Kiss On Main Street I feel all the joy of young love and Sweet Bird just nails middle age with the line "Out on some borderline, some mark of in-between, I laid down golden in time and woke up vanishing." That's what I get out of it anyway. Walter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 02:33:47 +0000 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: WTRF - Henley to Joni on Ritchie (NJC) Hello David, David Wright wrote: > I don't know what "PC" programs Jack Straw and the New Labour > government are pursuing (perhaps you could explain more fully?), but I > am skeptical as to whether "political correctness" is really to blame for > their failure to reform the health care system. It is more a general trend that is taking shape in the policies and public declarations of New labour which lead me to such a conclusion. You are quite right about PC-ness not in itself hampering any development in improving the health care system. The reference I made to that issue was not directly connected to PC-ness, I kind of went at a slight tangent there because while New Labour appear very capable of speaking out in favour of - and laying down guidelines to - issues that are PC, they allow other issues to remain stagnant or fester with maliase. When billions of £££s are squandered on ill-conceived and pointless projects that serve little purpose beyond a cosmetic one (sorry for reapeating myself), and the only times New Labour actually make any kind of statement of intent or take action on any issue is continually in relation to a PC issue, or a shallow public realtions exercise that smacks of dubiousness or hoakey-ness, a sense of disdain and annoyance is bound to creep in. Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:51:47 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: RE: NJC Full circle hey eric, i think you owe that smartass chuck an apology. he wrote: ><<< I always thought she was singing *you're not just liberation doll*! >*Notches* brings to mind bedposts.... >>> > and you wrote: some >smartass confused *notches* with bedposts I would just hope I could reply >with a great comeback the expression 'notches on a bedpost', suggesting sexual conquests is well known, and is almost certainly the reference in the song. it used to be only men who could rack them up and be admired for it, but by 1975 women (and certainly joni) were adding up the numbers, free of shame. that's why the slightly snide comment to our own liberation doll. she got her revenge, she immortalized it. dr. sig's comment was priceless, though patrick np - jane siberry - grace hospital ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 03:05:44 +0000 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: British? (was Re: WTRF...) (NJC) David Wright wrote: > Jason, > Speaking as a curious non-Britisher wanting to understand these > issues, what *does* being British mean? > You seem to say above that Britishness is a *political*, not a > cultural, identity (if everyone in "Britain" is Welsh, Scottish, Irish, or > English as well as British) -- and identity created by a political act, > the Act(s) of Union. Well, rightly or wrongly, I was describing *Britishness* as a geographical phenomenon (in my reply to Colin). Nothing more than that. In my intial post, I admit I did imply that there was something *more* to being British, and you mention that here : > I don't mean to step on UK JMDLers' toes here, but > *is* there a "British culture" (as separate from Welsh, Scottish, English, > or Northern-Irish culture) and how is New Labour dismantling it? (Via the > increasing political autonomy recently granted to Wales and Scotland?) Actually, I wasn't thinking of that...but I suppose that's another angle and factor I hadn't even thought of. No, I really wasn't referring to those developments. > And surely not everyone in the four home nations identifies as > Scottish, Welsh, English, or Irish, at least not exclusively -- if British > means being born in England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, doesn't > that seem to deny (for instance) Indian, Pakistani, and Caribbean > immigrants in Britain a cultural identity? It could be interpreted as that, I suppose. To wit : firstly, if you are born in the British Isles, that makes you British by geographical means as outlined above. Then if you are the offspring of immigrants, but born in the UK, then you're British as well. This must sound pedantic...but anyhow.... I would agree that those immigrants from foreign shores who have lived and worked and raised families here for many years are by virtue now British as well. Britain's culture is now multi-cultural and interactive. In all forms of art the results are well embedded in the mainstream. That is no bad thing, I consider it positive and enriching. To me, it is not the same issue as the manner in which New Labour are wrecking this country. There are doing so insiduously, nothing overt or simple. They are nothing more than con-men, I'm afraid. They have betrayed the goodwill, trust and hope invested in them by the electorate. Too many claims have been reversed, too many promises backtracked upon. They are so self-interested I find it appalling. And any nation with such a governing power is vulnerable to a loss of common purpose and identity. That is really the crux of my point. It (British-ness) is not under threat from the Asian or Carribean communities, that's a long-held fallacy which Colin has already mentioned. It is being dismantled by devious, power-hungry narcissists with ulterior motives to their agendas. And, I'll say it again...that leaves Britain in a potentially parlous state. Well, I do seem to have gone on a bit of a rant....I guess this must be a soap-box under my feet here ;o) Jason. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2000 #67 **************************** Don't forget about these ongoing projects: Glossary project: Send a blank message to for all the details. FAQ Project: Help compile the JMDL FAQ. Do you have mailing list-related questions? -send them to Today in History Project: Know of a date-specific Joni fact? - -send it to ------- Post messages to the list at Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe joni-digest" to ------- Siquomb, isn't she?