From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2000 #76 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk JMDL Digest Sunday, February 6 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 076 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: Joni in Entertainment Weekly Magazine 2/11/00 [catman ] Re: Joni Content (NJC) ["Alan Lorimer" ] Re: HOSL ["Alan Lorimer" ] Re: More on political correctness (NJC) [David Wright ] Re: Waitangi Day (NJC) [catman ] Re: PWWAM viewing (SJC) [catman ] Re: More on political correctness (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] Re: More on political correctness (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] Re: Joni in Entertainment Weekly Magazine 2/11/00 ["Mark or Travis" ] BSN [evian ] Sex Pistols (NJC) [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 23:52:31 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: Joni in Entertainment Weekly Magazine 2/11/00 > But > Mitchell's art is about her writer's voice > more than her intreperter's voice, This is exactly what I was trying to say when I was saying that Joni 's singing is not what i call singing. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 10:59:40 +1100 From: "Alan Lorimer" Subject: Re: PWWAM viewing (NJC) Emily said: >i was hoping he'd like it (his taste runs to the sex pistols >and such) or at least hoped that he'd fake liking it >knowing my allegiance. Probably a caring, loving and sensitive guy ;-) Could anyone really imagine a Sex Pistols fan liking Joni's work ??? (Hide in your closets Don and Jason) Alan Lorimer Hawley Beach Van Diemans Land ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 11:00:04 +1100 From: "Alan Lorimer" Subject: Re: Joni Content (NJC) Emily said: >i'm so stressed about how to quantify my joni-content >these days...nervous that referring to a joni-related >item without large doses of in-depth analysis of her >music will piss off lots of people! I think everyone's quite relaxed about this nowadays. For first offence, some people have been getting away with crucifixation ;-) Seriously though, there will always be "grey" areas, and as people are merely human, and as humans make mistakes, people will occasionally forget the NJC tags. Your post is really just stating that you respect the rights of others :-) I still think we need some more tags though ;-) PC Political Correctness EXS Ex Smoker Alan Lorimer Hawley Beach Van Diemans Land ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 10:30:02 +1100 From: "Alan Lorimer" Subject: Re: HOSL Mathew, I've only had HOSL for two months, but this has become my personal Joni album full stop. "Don't Interrupt The Sorrow" by itself would have justified the purchase of this album. This, to me, is Joni's #1 song. "Edith And The Kingpin" was spoiled for me after hearing the live version on the S&L. Joni manages to breath new life and meaning into this song. I can't explain, I just know that the slower, live version seems "right". Don't rush into buying S&L though, take a year or two and work your way through the studio albums first. Glad to hear from you again, hope you weren't too put off by all the *censored* discussion. You've just got to mention *censored* and people jump on their soap boxes and start..... Alan Lorimer Hawley Beach Tasmania ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 19:19:19 -0500 (EST) From: David Wright Subject: Re: More on political correctness (NJC) OK, I wrote (replying to Jason): > > From my own experience (and what I have observed around me), > > the person who feels they have been racially abused will be believed > > and given credibility over the other. > > That's not my experience at all, except for when the person who > feels they have been racially abused happens to be white. OK, some more here; I realize that's a blanket statement, one that, though fairly accurately reflecting my own experience, oversimplifies the issues surrounding it to some extent. So let me try to go back and address the issues perhaps in less race-based terms and without making any assumptions about exactly who (if anyone in particular) is claiming to be racially abused: I think that prejudice directed against any person or group of people is very serious. But in my experience it sometimes seems that certain people who claim to be the victims of racial abuse want their *own* claims taken seriously, but are quick to respond to *others'* accusations of prejudice with "But context! But humor! But gays use the word 'fag' too!" So I'd question whether the accuser is automatically given more credence than the accused in such situations. There's also frequently an undercurrent, if it's not right there on the surface, of, "Gosh, what's with [group] nowadays anyway? They're so sensitive. You can't even tell a little joke anymore." I think this is part of the backlash I referred to in my earlier post -- even the most reasonable attempt to broach the issue is read as a sign of lunatic hypersensitivity. That's another reason why I'd question whether the accusers are automatically given more credence. It's like how some people solemnly declare that all the incidents of police brutality or harassment against black or poor people, or so-called racial profiling, are not racially-based. "No, we don't see a pattern here!" they cry, over and over again. It's of course impossible to *see* something like *racism*, which is by definition *systematic*, if you only look at individual instances as totally separate from each other. It's like staring at one single white square on a chess board and then declaring, "No, this can't be a chess board!" Of course each individual case should be considered on its own merits, but acknowledging the larger picture does not detract from doing that. - --David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 19:21:32 -0500 (EST) From: neo@mail.utexas.edu (Neil E. Orts) Subject: refresh my memory (Wally) I've been reading the Wally comments on the digest and noting the impact he's had on so many people. What I haven't noticed (and what I've only thought of this afternoon) is any mention of perhaps the most significant part Wally played in the life of Joni: her reunion with "Little Green." Have I screwed up the details in my mind or wasn't the website instrumental in that "mother and child reunion"? - -Neil he of dubious memory (and obviously misplacing the memory of the daughter's name) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + neo@mail.utexas.edu + + + + + + + + + + Neil Ellis Orts Austin, TX 512-372-8082 When we think it's over + + + + + + + + + + + + Baby we find new things to be afraid of -Sarah Masen + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 19:18:33 -0500 From: Maggie McNally Subject: Wally It's a winter day here in the Northeast USA, and I have spent much of it mourning our dear Wally. I finally came to the logical place -- the JMDL - -- it feels good and right and holy to have come here. Wally's life was sacred -- at his birth, in his living, and in his dying. I want not to celebrate the victory of death -- I do not belive Wally would want that -- but to give thanks for a life well lived. I have thought ofen of Leslie and Jim in the last weeks, knowing of their vigil, and sending them my thoughts for their strength and peace. The work they did was honorable, beautiful, life affirming. I send them my thanks. I looked at the messages of fellow JMDLrs, some I have met and laughted and sung with, and some I have only "met" here in cyberspace. The amazing thing is that through Wally's work (and Les' too, bless you Les), and Joni's art, we have an abiding connection to each other. Thus, we come to the JMDL to mourn, to celebrate a life well lived and the power of love and music and art that fills and extends beyond this screen to many other hearts. Death has brought us face to face with Life. Let us use this time to explore and experience the deepest meaning of life. Let us be open to the possibility that the deep sadness we feel may unlock new opportunities for growth and living. I send you all love and hugs. Maggie Maggie McNally ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 00:41:26 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: Waitangi Day (NJC) > particularly how the British "ripped off" the Maori in the settlement. Oh surely not! You mean people actually think Britain would have done such a thing? Next you'll be saying the world wouldn't be a better place if The British Empire was back in power! To those who need it saiid, the above is a tease. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 00:43:33 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: PWWAM viewing (SJC) Emily-first off PWWAM is JC, so don't worry about it! secondly, don't feel obliged to defend Larry. He gets slagged off here a lot. Many blame him for DED!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 00:50:21 +0000 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: More on political correctness (NJC) David Wright wrote: > Jason just replied on-list to an off-list post of mine, so part of this > has already been covered, but here it is anyway: It was a genuine mistake...my sincere apologies, David. As might be sensed from my recent postings, the exertion of so much e-mailing and intense debate is beginning to get to me and slip-ups can arise from the attendant mental fatigue. That's not an excuse, merely an explanation. It was completely unintentional. This next section leaves me a bit confused, though perhaps that's due to the mix-up with off-list/on-list posts. I have already acknowledged and agreed with David over the Rev's initial standing, as well as further clarified my own slightly transgressional train of thought over the course of this whole thread. What follows here from David seems largely unneccessary as a consequence, especially as my comments are once again being put into Vince's mouth, or suggested as being about Vince. "The reaction" is not the same as "The Rev Vince's reaction", since his was not the only response anyway. I have already stated emphatically that is not the case..so what gives? > Jason Maloney wrote: > > "The trigger for my comment about PC-ness was more the reaction to Henley's > > remarks, before any significant review of context or intent had been allowed. > [snip] > > However, to immediately decry > > the man as *a* racist purely on this remark is a little rash. Please note here : this comment does not automatically imply one specific person of calling Henley a racist. That is a manipulation of words, which is of course nothing new, but as the author of the comment I feel I have a right to qualify what it's saying. It merely points out that *to* decry etc etc, is a little rash, not that a specific person on here actually did precisely that. Nuance is the vital factor here, and interpretation. It can be made to mean what you want it to mean. > But that's not what happened. Let's all look at Rev. Vince's post > again: > > "Is Henley a little bit of a bigot? A big bit of a bigot? Presuming that > Joni is quoting Henly correctly, that is a racist statement. 'You're not > gonna take me off and replace me with ANOTHER SINGER' would have been > understandable and human; 'with a Negro' is offensive. Does anyone know > more about Henley to put this in any context by whcih we can otherwise > understand this? I am sincerely asking. I didn't expect this type of > statement from him." > > Nowhere does the Rev "decry the man as *a* racist." He says the > man made "a racist statement," which you seem to be arguing does not > necessarily make one a racist. And the Rev specifically asks for a context > for the statement. We're going round in circles, and I've already responded to these points. I have no problem with either of them, as my last post clearly stated. And to further pick hairs, I merely contend that making a statement which can be *construed* or *taken* as racist or offensive does not necessarily make the person a racist. A subtle difference. Rev Vince, if you yourself feel in any way aggrieved by what I've said at any point during this thread, or you consider my clarification in my last post unsatisfactory, please contact me and I will do my best to rectify the situation. I have no problem with you, David, but the tone here is getting a little further away from what I'd hope to encounter. > Throughout this thread two slightly contradictory justifications > for Henley's statement have been used, in my opinion: 1) that Henley's > statement was justifiable in context either as humor or as some reference > to "the black singing voice," and 2) that we have no right to judge his > comment because we don't know the context. Well, if we can't judge the > comment out of context, you can't justify it out of context either. You > can't have your cake and eat it too. Very true..... I won't attempt to continue defending and suggesting reasons why it *might* not be racist, if the accusations and insinuations that it *is* are not persued either? That's fine with me, I have no personal wish to perpetuate it, though if others do, by all means go ahead. As Alan pointed out, it is possibly all a *non-issue* anyway. Harper Lou dared to agree with my possible theory regarding the *black vocal* issue, and was quickly shot down. Convincing or otherwise, it was nonetheless a vaild point to make. In the course of a decent discussion, all aspects and avenues have to be acknowledged and addressed, even if the truth itself may well be what the Rev wondered it was in the first place...i.e. that Henley was being racist. Ermm....? > > From my own experience (and what I have observed around me), > > the person who feels they have been racially abused will be believed > > and given credibility over the other. > > That's not my experience at all, except for when the person who > feels they have been racially abused happens to be white. We have no doubt all had different experiences with racism during our lives. Different countries, different cultures, different lives. I would not suggest that anyone who claims what you have, David, or indeed what Colin has already, are wrong. However, from my own close-hand experiences, I can assure you that what I say (and the ones given the credibilty were not white) has happened more often than would be readily accepted in some quarters. It's sad, but I have largely found the exact opposite to what you have found to be true. Whether that is down to where I have lived, been to school, etc, I cannot say....but is a fact. As, I'm sure, are your own experiences with racism equally a fact. All I ask is that this *other* side of racism not be trampled over and ignored. Making people aware of it should not inherently suggest that I am against calmping down on racism. Which brings to me to your next comment : > > I just see what is common sense, and balanced....and what is not. > > Implying that the rest of us do not? We all have different > perspective on this. To imply that one perspective is "*common* sense" -- > i.e., the universal, sensible, "right" one -- is not correct. This troubles me. In many ways, it is at the root of why I even joined in on this thread to begin with. The whole issue of *correctness*. Firstly, I certainly did not imply anything about *the rest of us*. Again, you are taking something I say out of context. That statement formed part of the following comment : "I think the problem is that my comments openly criticize New labour, and they are a government which is putting a high degree of emphasis on certain issues that you (Colin) feel strongly about. Fair enough. I don't subscribe to either a left-wing or right-wing viewpoint. I just see what is common sense, and balanced....and what is not. Yes it is right to address these issues, and no it shouldn't be at the expense of other problems in society. I totally agree. However, the reality is not quite the same. I wish it were." Therefore, this mention of *common sense* refers directly to New Labour and their poltical priorities. I am talking about their practices and explaining how I fail to see the logic and sense (common, if you must) in their actions regarding all kinds of issues in the UK. If any other meaning or context is derived from it, then that is down to how you interpret or manipulate the words, soomething which most of us almost unconsciously do a lot of the time, if we're honest with ourselves. You are *entitled* to take that meaning from it, but it isn't necessarily the same meaning as was originally intended. Going even further back, to my very first post, I said this : "...everyone's entitled to their opinions. I'm not out to slam down JMDL-ers views on such a topic." I have acknowledged the presence (and indeed, need for) differing opinions and viewpoints throughout. It's also interesting that you use the word "correct". It seems we have come full circle...what *is* correct??? *who* is fit to determine it? I don't attempt to give answers, or claim any authority on what is *correct*. I simply aim to maintain a level of persepective and bring all aspects of a situation to light, be they right or wrong. Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 01:00:25 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: More on political correctness (NJC) > > However, to immediately decry > > the man as *a* racist purely on this remark is a little rash. I agree with that. None of us are free of prejudice, no matter what race or sex or sexuality we are. How could we be considering we all grew up in societies that are racist, sexist, etc > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 01:00:50 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: More on political correctness (NJC) > I am hesitant about responding to this without explaing that I am not angry, not insulted, not having a go at you but merely sharing how I feel about things. > I don't think we agree on this, as your view of racism appears far more cut and > dried. If only it was like that. I have seen too much to suggest otherwise. I haven't made my views on racism known either to you or in this thread, so you don't know what I think . I was merely stating that I was confused by what you wrote. I am still am! > > > > > > I don't believe I ever said it would. You've interpreted my comments as saying that, and > they can read as such if you wish to interpret them that way. This is what you wrote:While obviously such things as racism should not exist, this declaration comes at a time when there are so many other vital and urgent issues elesewhere in society that need to be addressed sooner rather than later. As a result, I assumed you meant it-that there were more important issues to you. > However, as I've repeatedly > said in my previous posts on this thread, I don't consider any issue more *worthy* of > attention than another. glad to read that. > I'm just pointing out that New labour only breaks its hapless and > incompetent silence when it comes to issues such as racism (and others which I suspect you > feel strongly about too, and understandably so suspicion is not the same as knowing! > )...because - and again I expect you'll > disagree - Jason, it would be so much easier to debate these things if you did not make assumptions about my beliefs or have expectations of me. > in their minds those are the issues which they feel will reflect well on > themselves if they are seen to be tackling them. The problem is NOT that they are seeking > to address racism. To quote something I said in reply to David Wright : > > ".....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 > hokey-ness" > > ..whereby the term *PC* is used according to the definition I explained in my previous > post (also in response to David). I think the problem is that my comments openly criticize > New labour, and they are a government which is putting a high degree of emphasis on > certain issues that you feel strongly about. Whoa!!! Firstly, I am not a labour supporter. Secondly, again do not make assumptions about what i think. > I just see what is common sense, and balanced. it is always best to remeber that what you think of as common sense and balanced is just that-what you think. It doesn't make it the truth. the same can be said for my view of same or anyone elses. > ...and > what is not. Yes it is right to address these issues, and no it shouldn't be at the > expense of other problems in society. I totally agree. However, the reality is not quite > the same. I wish it were. > > > In fact it would greatly relieve many of the problems we > > have. Racism does involve child abuse, it involves crimes of other natures. In short it > > fucks up our society. So it needs to be given priority and fought against now and not > > later. > > Can you expand upon this any further? As I said just now, I agree it needs addressing, so > I am with you there. I follow the link from racism to crime etc, but what other ways is it > responsible for fucking society up? I'm not insinuating there aren't other ways it does, > but if you could shed more light on it, I'd be interested. I am surprised at this question. I consider racism(sexism, homophobia),child abuse and crime to be what fucks up our society. What else is there? I don't think I understand what you want me to expand on. Race riots? Antagonism in the streets? The bitterness felt by individuals on both sides?Racism causes shame. Shame leads to acting out. acting out takes the form of violence, drug/alchohol abuse, child abuse, sexual abuse of adults and children. The list is endless. > > > > > Those guilty of true racism should of course be dealt > > > with accordingly, but bringing in any kind of measures that render *anything* that > > > could be vaguely construed (by the receiving party) as rascist, is potentially > > > playing into the hands of people who will use such a measure to their own ends. > > > > who is qualified to say what true racism is? Who is it qualified to say what is only > > construed as such? > > Well, if nobody dares to acknowledge the difference bewteen them, we are headed for > trouble. As for *who* decides, well...*who* judges criminals, etc? I am not sure where you are coming from on this? Do you mean in the situation where someone may be 'punished' in law for making a racist remark? That is n't what i meant.I meant that it is the person who the racism was aimed at that has the right to judge it. Not you or i. What I am thinking about your positon about common sesne etc is that you feel that it isn't the agrieved victim of the racism that knows whether it was racist but you or some other 3rd party? That thinking is racist in itself. If I am hurt, I am hurt, and no one else can decide that for me. Nor can they decide whether or not I should feel hurt. To do so devalues me. I see no difference to this in the racism context. > Any judgement needs to > be rational, again we are getting into the ways people interpret things. What you consider to be rational, fair, common sense or whatever is only your construction of things. It isn't everybody's. So much trouble occurs because there are people who think their version of reality is the only real version and that it should be forced onto others. 'power is having the ability to get other people to accept your interpretation of reality'.(DR) > and considered, and balanced. And perhaps not left to individuals, who may > have their own agendas. But it has to be! It can't be left to you or me or the 'judges'. No one has that right. > and the most extreme factions explain, if you will, what you mean by extreme factions? and of which minority groups? The only reason I ask is that i hear people call others extreme only when they are calling for eqaul treatemtn-like people of colour expecting to be treateed the same as others. like gay people expecting the same rights as non gay people.like disabled people expecting to be treated like evryone else and have provison made for them. i see nothing extreme in that. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 20:12:32 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Kirk Gray Subject: Re: PWWAM viewing (NJC) alan said, in jest: "Probably a caring, loving and sensitive guy ;-) Could anyone really imagine a Sex Pistols fan liking Joni's work ??? (Hide in your closets Don and Jason)" so i'll respond in turn: 1) yeah, he's all right :) 2) i can, because i am a Sex Pistols fan! i love johnny rotten and saw P.I.L. open for INXS in the early '80s and they were brilliant: hard-edged, experimental, and unrepentant...much like joni, one might argue (although hardly as good, of course). - -- emily ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 02:14:02 +0000 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: More on political correctness (NJC) Hi Colin, Thanks for writing...... > I am hesitant about responding to this without explaing that I am not angry, not insulted, not > having a go at you but merely sharing how I feel about things. No problem. I have taken on board your comments, and if it's okay with you I'd like to discuss some of them. As you said earlier in this thread, we basically agree on most things, but this medium doesn't always lend itself to perfect understanding. Okay, here we go.... > > I don't think we agree on this, as your view of racism appears far more cut and > > dried. If only it was like that. I have seen too much to suggest otherwise. > > I haven't made my views on racism known either to you or in this thread, so you don't know what > I think . I was merely stating that I was confused by what you wrote. I am still am! Ooops :-) Right, let's see....perhaps I'm beginning to lose my focus due to exertion, I'm not sure. My above comment was simply based on the paragraph you wrote about racism. I acknowldege that it still doesn't necessarily represent your *views*, but that was all I had to go on, and I didn't want to offend. From what I could gather, the type of *reverse* (if you will) racism is not something that you may have experienced to a large degree. I apologize if you'd rather I didn't make such asumptions. I see how it must appear I am putting words in your mouth....which is why I am glad you have pointed this out to me. > > I don't believe I ever said it would. You've interpreted my comments as saying that, and > > they can read as such if you wish to interpret them that way. > > This is what you wrote:While obviously such things as > racism should not exist, this declaration comes at a time when there are so many > other vital and urgent issues elesewhere in society that need to be addressed > sooner rather than later. > > As a result, I assumed you meant it-that there were more important issues to you. Again, no problem......it is the medium which allows such a wide scope of interpretation as well. Reading the section in question, it really *could* mean what you thought it did. My tone was not intended to be accusatory...the "they (the words) can read as such" is a reference to how ambiguous it essentially was. > > However, as I've repeatedly > > said in my previous posts on this thread, I don't consider any issue more *worthy* of > > attention than another. > > glad to read that. Maybe I make it hard for myself, sometimes.... > > I'm just pointing out that New labour only breaks its hapless and > > incompetent silence when it comes to issues such as racism (and others which I suspect you > > feel strongly about too, and understandably so > > suspicion is not the same as knowing! Oh, absolutely. Again, I apologize if my assumptions (which were well-intentioned if perhaps misplaced) came across as trying to tell you what to think. > > )...because - and again I expect you'll > > disagree - > > Jason, it would be so much easier to debate these things if you did not make assumptions about > my beliefs or have expectations of me. Yes...I am almost too wary of causing offence and creating ill-feeling, that I pre-empt it by trying to figure what the other person is going to think, before they tell me themselves! I just put two and two together and came up with five. No malice or manipulation intended. > > I think the problem is that my comments openly criticize > > New labour, and they are a government which is putting a high degree of emphasis on > > certain issues that you feel strongly about. > > Whoa!!! Firstly, I am not a labour supporter. Secondly, again do not make assumptions about > what i think. Okay...although I did not specifically label you a Labour supporter, I thought it was a fair call to say that they are - by and large - trying to do something about issues which you'd be pleased to see tackled. That was all. Anyway, I've definitely got that point now...sorry! :o) > > I just see what is common sense, and balanced. > > it is always best to remember that what you think of as common sense and balanced is just > that-what you think. It doesn't make it the truth. the same can be said for my view of same or > anyone elses. Oh, of course. My reply to David a short while ago has discussed this, so I won't repeat myself. > > Can you expand upon this any further? As I said just now, I agree it needs addressing, so > > I am with you there. I follow the link from racism to crime etc, but what other ways is it > > responsible for fucking society up? I'm not insinuating there aren't other ways it does, > > but if you could shed more light on it, I'd be interested. > > I am surprised at this question. I consider racism(sexism, homophobia),child abuse and crime > to be what fucks up our society. What else is there? I don't think I understand what you want > me to expand on. Well, despite not uunderstanding what I was asking, you still - perhaps unintentionally - answer my query...... : > Race riots? Antagonism in the streets? The bitterness felt by individuals on > both sides?Racism causes shame. Shame leads to acting out. acting out takes the form of > violence, drug/alchohol abuse, child abuse, sexual abuse of adults and children. That's a perfectly adequate explantion. Thank you! I can follow your drift now, and understand it better. I agree. > > > who is qualified to say what true racism is? Who is it qualified to say what is only > > > construed as such? > > > > Well, if nobody dares to acknowledge the difference bewteen them, we are headed for > > trouble. As for *who* decides, well...*who* judges criminals, etc? > > I am not sure where you are coming from on this? I don't think *I* was sure where you were coming from either! But now you've explained.... > Do you mean in the situation where someone > may be 'punished' in law for making a racist remark? That isn't what i meant. I wasn't completely sure if this was part of your point or not. If it wasn't, that's fine. > I meant that it > is the person who the racism was aimed at that has the right to judge it. Not you or i. What I > am thinking about your positon about common sesne etc is that you feel that it isn't the > agrieved victim of the racism that knows whether it was racist but you or some other 3rd > party? > That thinking is racist in itself. Oh, hang on! No, my position isn't that at all.....that misunderstanding probably stems from neither of us being sure what we were talking about re: the punishment by law aspect. As I believe I've stated a few times during this discussion, I would never claim that *whatever* the aggrieved party felt should be irrelevant or *wrong*. If someone feels hurt or takes offence, then that is very real to them, and therefore vaild. However, the complications arise if their view alone is then used to aid *punishment* of the alleged abuser. Of course, that is something which I now see you were not referring to, but hopefully you'll now see what *I* was meaning. Also, I commented that even if such action by law were taken, it should not be down to one individual person's opinion or judgement. > If I am hurt, I am hurt, and no one else can decide that for me. Nor can they decide whether > or not I should feel hurt. To do so devalues me. I see no difference to this in the racism > context. Me either. That was certainly not my point at all. > > Any judgement needs to > > be rational, > > again we are getting into the ways people interpret things. What you consider to be rational, > fair, common sense or whatever is only your construction of things. It isn't everybody's. So > much trouble occurs because there are people who think their version of reality is the only > real version and that it should be forced onto others. 'power is having the ability to get > other people to accept your interpretation of reality'.(DR) You may be surprised, but I do agree with you here. What seems to be the case in the modern world, is that if one group gains power they will try to "get other people to accept...", and if another group gains that power, they will do eaxctly the same, only with a different reality. I really don't know what the alternative is, other than anarchy, since however much we want to all get along in this world, the chances of it happening globally (or even nationally) seem impossible. All any of us can do is promote as much good will and understanding as we can, I suppose. > > And perhaps not left to individuals, who may > > have their own agendas. > > But it has to be! It can't be left to you or me or the 'judges'. No one has that right. Again, this statement was made in relation to the potential for action by law against *inferred* and *supposed* racism, and that alone. In that context, do you therefore think that justice or whatever form of consequence is dealt out to the abuser, should be entirely in the hands of the *victim*, regardless? > > and the most extreme factions > > explain, if you will, what you mean by extreme factions? and of which minority groups? The > only reason I ask is that i hear people call others extreme only when they are calling for > eqaul treatemtn-like people of colour expecting to be treateed the same as others. like gay > people expecting the same rights as non gay people.like disabled people expecting to be > treated like evryone else and have provison made for them. i see nothing extreme in that. Nor do I. None of those instances suggest extremism to me. Extremism IMHO suggests a lack of objectivity in either promoting or campaigning for a cause, and a self-centredness. It is more about sections of groups than the groups or causes themselves. Their particular cause MUST be championed at all costs, and with little regard for other causes. So, it is possible for ANY group or cause to have "extremist factions" within it. Minority or otherwise. The term means exactly what it says...factions that are extreme. It does not mean the group or cause are extreme. Well, I hope that's helped clear up a few misunderstandings and confusing points :-) Best wishes, Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 20:29:56 -0600 From: diana Subject: Why many of us are here At 12:38 PM 2/4/2000 +0000, catman wrote: >Listening to TTT. Tiger Bones is on. John says 'This is good. Glad she >didn't spoil it by singing'!!! >John gets no dinner. This is the reason why I found Wally's site the first day I hooked my new computer up to the internet. This was back in the fall of '96. So many of us have family that doesn't share our love of Joni's talent. We had no one to share our JOY with. Because of Wally, we now do. What a tribute to Wally, that he accomplished his goal of creating something worthwhile, giving something to all of us we so desperately needed. I know that his family and friends realize just what greatness Wally accomplished. I am not religious but believe that our immortality is our influence on the lives of others. Wally will live on forever in our hearts. Diana ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 18:54:22 -0800 From: "Mark or Travis" Subject: Re: Joni in Entertainment Weekly Magazine 2/11/00 > > But > > Mitchell's art is about her writer's voice > > more than her intreperter's voice, Well, it has been up to now. God forbid that Joni should try something new! Personally I think Joni was ripe for stepping into this new role. Of course I still want new, original Joni! But she can record a standards record anytime she wants, as far as I'm concerned & I'm there! Colin, this is in no way directed at you. It's directed at the review. Mark in Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 14:03:32 +1100 From: "Alan Lorimer" Subject: Re: PWWAM viewing (NJC) >alan said, in jest: > >"Probably a caring, loving and sensitive guy ;-) > >Could anyone really imagine a Sex Pistols fan liking Joni's work ??? >(Hide in your closets Don and Jason)" > >so i'll respond in turn: > >1) yeah, he's all right :) > >2) i can, because i am a Sex Pistols fan! i love johnny rotten and >saw P.I.L. open for INXS in the early '80s and they were brilliant: >hard-edged, experimental, and unrepentant...much like joni, one >might argue (although hardly as good, of course). > >-- emily Just another example of Alan suffering from "Foot in Mouth" disease ;-) Seriously though, the "Punk" revolution was a real backlash not just against society but the music industry of the day. But to see why "Punk" happened, you really need to go back to the 60's. As we all know, the 60s heralded what could almost be called a "cultural revolution" around the Western world as the younger generation threw off the shackles of a Christian society. You've got to remember that the "Law" of most countries is historically based on "Religious Law", the ethics of societies rightly or wrongly were based on Religious beliefs. The artists of the day *really* believed that Drugs would save the world! The beliefs of the 60s came crashing down at the Altamont speedway. Isn't "American Pie" really about this, and not, as many believe, about Buddy Holly. What filled the void was the supergroups and "Glam rock" bands of the 70s. Punk was the reaction to this. "Rock and Roll" which had used to rebel against the White establishment, had become a serious commercial quantity. It was no longer seen as the people's music, but just another commercial commodity. With "For The Roses", Joni too was rebelling against this same establishment in her own way :-) In an *American* context, I can't take the Sex Pistols seriously. In Britain, they had a ball. "God Save The Queen", got to the top of the British charts despite the censorship of the day. It was listed in the charts, I believe, with both the name of the song and the name of the group blacked out, and still became #1. The music of the Sex Pistols may have been Punk, but their image was conceived by their publicist, Malcolm McClaren. In their day they were lots of fun, and it is a hoot to think how they stuck it up the British establishment in the 70s. To me, the Sex Pistols were just another case of taking an American idea and trying to send it back to the Americans. Punk, I believe, originated like many other forms of music in New York. It started out just a musical statement and had none of the Safety Pins and strange hairstyles which were used to sell Sunday Papers in Britain. I often wonder if "Iggy Pop" really invented Punk. Back to the 60s again, we see the English "Beat Group" invasion as the way "black" American music was sold to "white" Americans. At the start of their careers, both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were mainly playing R&B covers. Black music was censored because White people thought it would corrupt the minds of their children. Come on, surely Muddy Water's "I'm Your Hoochie Coochie Man" couldn't possibly be about sex could it? One DJ in jest had already come up with the title "Rock & Roll" music for this very same reason ;-) Back to the 70s and once again the Sex Pistols were trying to export, albeit not very successfully, American music to the Americans. But I CAN see why a Joni fan would also be a 'Punk' music fan. Both rebelled against the existing music establishment, albeit in different ways, in the 1970s :-) How's that for introducing about a million topics I don't know much about but could be discussed without once mentioning *censored* ;-) ps: I'm probably a caring, loving and sensitive guy too and I'm not doing anything this coming weekend ;-) Alan Lorimer Hawley Beach Van Diemans Land ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 22:12:49 -0600 From: evian Subject: BSN Canadian Listers, I just saw that BSN is available at Chapters, but thank God I ordered from cdnow... the Canadian price at Chapters is $75.99!!!! Good Lord.... with my $10 off coupon, it works out cheaper than buying from Canada. How stupid is that? Even if it takes a month to get here, it's still better than paying $80 bucks. Evian ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 23:50:07 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Sex Pistols (NJC) In a message dated 2/5/00 9:14:48 PM US Central Standard Time, alorimer@tassie.net.au writes: << But I CAN see why a Joni fan would also be a 'Punk' music fan. Both rebelled against the existing music establishment, albeit in different ways, in the 1970s :-) >> That period was SO fertile and produced some great stuff..."Never Mind the Bollocks" absolutely rocks and has stood the test of time. The Clash's first 4 records are all also great. Elvis Costello and XTC launched from that genre and have of course gone on to much greater artistry, and there were flashes of brilliance in the singles too, Television, Patti Smith, Richard Hell, The Buzzcocks... I loved all that and Joni too, but then again I AM slut of highest power! :~) Bob NP: XTC, "Supertuff" ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2000 #76 **************************** 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?