From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2000 #403 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe JMDL Digest Wednesday, July 19 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 403 The 'Official' Joni Mitchell Homepage, created by Wally Breese, can be found at http://www.jonimitchell.com. It contains the latest news, a detailed bio, Original Interviews, essays, lyrics and much much more. --- The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. --- Ashara has set up a "Wally Breese Memorial Fund" with all donations going directly towards the upkeep of the website. Wally kept the website going with his own funds. it is now up to US to help Jim continue. If you would like to donate to this fund, please make all checks payable to: Jim Johanson and send them to: Ashara Stansfield P.O. Box 215 Topsfield, MA. 01983 USA ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: feminism ["Kakki" ] NJC: Single Gender Marriage ["Jim L'Hommedieu" ] Re: Hissing as a musical arc [Bolvangar@aol.com] Re: Accordions (VLJC) [Bolvangar@aol.com] Re: feminism IS humanism, isn't it? NJC [catman ] Matthew's Passion pt 2 NJC [catman ] Matthew's Passion pt 1NJC [catman ] Re: feminism ["Helen M. Adcock" ] Re: Single Gender Marriage ["Helen M. Adcock" ] Re: Crosby Chronicles Musical Activism NJC ["Helen M. Adcock" ] Re: Colors a little JC ["P. Henry" ] Song about Matthew Shepard (NJC) ["kerry" ] RE: Colors a little JC ["P. Henry" ] Re: Single Gender Marriage ["Mark or Travis" ] Re: Feminism (VLJC) [Catherine McKay ] Re: feminism and humanism [catman ] Re: Decorating Tips [Catherine McKay ] re: Yvette in English [Catherine McKay ] Re: Feminism (NJC) [SMEBD@aol.com] Re: Feminism & benefits of marriage (NJC) [SMEBD@aol.com] Re: POLITICS ALERT (NJC) [Catherine McKay ] Re: Joni's Viewpoints ["Gerald Notaro (LIB)" ] Re: Feminism (NJC) [Catherine McKay ] Re: Feminism (NJC) [Don Rowe ] For Carlyphiles (VLJC) [Michael Bird ] Re: Feminism (NJC) ["Gerald Notaro (LIB)" ] Re: Feminism (NJC) [FMYFL@aol.com] sigh... SUCH ignorance [Erin Stoy ] Re: Hissing as a musical arc [B Merrill ] Re: Feminism (NJC) [Don Rowe ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:50:13 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: feminism Kate Bennett wrote: > Emmy I don't think that Joni said anything about being anti >feminist at all. It's not about the ideas, its about the >label. I see Joni as a complete feminist under the definitions set forth here on the list. Consider what we know about her life, her struggles, her songs, her lyrics. The actions of an individual's life speak louder than one word or label, as well they should. What I have personally experienced is that *some* people, usually the very ones who you may wish to enlighten, will use a label against you to distract and divert you from the message you are trying to communicate. The label then becomes terribly ineffective and definitely secondary to the real goal. When people can use your chosen label against you like a weapon then it's time for a new strategy, if you get my drift. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:29:43 -0400 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: NJC: Single Gender Marriage Uhhh... Please excuse my naive questions but here goes: The stereotype that I'm familiar with is that many gays don't have life-long relationships. Is this true? And if it's true, where does the enthusiasm for gay marriage come from? Next, I have never heard a straight couple say "We are getting married so (s)he can have medical coverage." Yet this seems to be the central argument in favor of gay marriage though. Is this true? What am I missing or misunderstanding? All the best, Jim L'Hommedieu near Cincinnati ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:04:47 EDT From: Bolvangar@aol.com Subject: Re: Hissing as a musical arc Bruce wrote: <> Hello Bruce, great analysis of HOSL's musical shape. However, I'm still skeptical about that quote from the liner notes. I don't think there are "right" or "better" ways to approach any piece of art (except perhaps "open-mindedly"), and I don't agree that approaching the album the way Joni "intended" will necessarily yield more insight or a richer interpretive experience than a unique, independent approach will. And how *could* you listen to HOSL, or any other album, as anything but a total work? Except by only reading the words, or only listening to instrumental versions of the songs, or only looking at the cover art -- or only listening to half the songs? My "solution" to the mystery of HOSL -- not to diminish the album itself at all -- is that Joni got just a little bit pretentious when she wrote those liner notes. ;) - --David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:17:27 EDT From: Bolvangar@aol.com Subject: Re: Accordions (VLJC) Matt Snyder wrote: <> I think you can. Too much taste smothers all the life out of the music in my opinion. Leslie wrote: <> Most certainly not! That they have (or can have, if they wish) a certain cheesy French cafe ambiance, is one of the best things about them. Yet they can also be so meditative. Here, to prove I'm not biased against accordions I'll tell an opera singer joke: Q. How do you stop an opera singer from drowning? A. Take your foot off his head. (How's that for good taste?) - --David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:55:20 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: feminism IS humanism, isn't it? NJC The balance of female to male is out of whack in India because people are aborting female fetus'. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:06:42 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: NJC: Single Gender Marriage Jim L'Hommedieu wrote: > Uhhh... Please excuse my naive questions but here goes: > The stereotype that I'm familiar with is that many gays don't have life-long > relationships. Is this true? And if it's true, where does the enthusiasm > for gay marriage come from? Of course it is true. Even tho I have been with John for 19 years, I am just treading water until the next few come along. Gays just cannot control their sexual urges and will have sex with anyone, anytime, any place. Not only that, but we put a great deal of effort into corrupting and recruting minors. > > > Next, I have never heard a straight couple say "We are getting married so > (s)he can have medical coverage." Yet this seems to be the central argument > in favor of gay marriage though. Is this true? you bet. we aint interested in that namby pamby love stuff. No sir. We are only interested in the financial benefits. > What am I missing or > misunderstanding? everything. > > > All the best, > Jim L'Hommedieu near Cincinnati - -- Why isn't phonetic spelled the way it sounds? http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html http://www.tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:22:36 +0100 From: catman Subject: Matthew's Passion pt 2 NJC A lot of people worry these days about the death of civil discourse, and would say that I ought not call the Pope a homicidal liar, nor (to be ecumenical about it) the orthodox rabbinate homicidal liars, nor Trent Lott a disgusting opportunistic hatemonger. But I worry a lot less about the death of civil discourse than I worry about being killed if, visiting the wrong town with my boyfriend, we forget ourselves so much as to betray, at the wrong moment in front of the wrong people, that we love one another. I worry much more about the recent death of the Maine antidiscrimination bill, and about the death of the New York hate crimes bill, which will not pass because it includes sexual orientation. I worry more about the death of civil rights than civil discourse. I worry much more about the irreversible soul-deaths of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered children growing up deliberately, malevolently isolated by the likes of Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich than I worry about the death of civil discourse. I mourn Matthew Shepard's actual death, caused by the unimpeachably civil "we hate the sin, not the sinner" hypocrisy of the religious right, endorsed by the political right, much more than I mourn the lost chance to be civil with someone who does not consider me fully a citizen, nor fully human. I mourn that cruel death more than the chance to be civil with those who sit idly by while theocrats, bullies, panderers and hatemongers, and their crazed murderous children, destroy democracy and our civic life. Civic, not civil, discourse is what matters, and civic discourse mandates the assigning of blame. If you are lesbian, gay, transgendered, bi, reading this, here's one good place to assign blame: The Human Rights Campaign's appalling, post-Shepard endorsement of Al D'Amato dedicates our resources to the perpetuation of a Republican majority in Congress. The HRC, ostensibly our voice in Washington, is in cahoots with fag-bashers and worse. If you are a heterosexual person, and you are reading this: Yeah yeah yeah, you've heard it all before, but if you have not called your Congressperson to demand passage of a hate crimes bill that includes sexual orientation, and e-mailed every Congressperson, if you have not gotten up out of your comfortable chair to campaign for homosexual and all civil rights--campaign, not just passively support--may you think about this crucified man, and may you mourn, and may you burn with a moral citizen's shame. As one civilized person to another: Matthew Shepard shouldn't have died. We should all burn with shame. Tony Kushner - -- Why isn't phonetic spelled the way it sounds? http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html http://www.tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:21:50 +0100 From: catman Subject: Matthew's Passion pt 1NJC When Trent Lott heard the news about the murder of Matthew Shepard, the first thoughts that flashed through his mind were all about spin. Trent Lott worried about how to keep his promise to the religious right, to speak out against the homosexual agenda, without seeming to endorse murder. Trent Lott endorses murder, of course; his party endorses murder, his party endorses discrimination against homosexuals and in doing so it endorses the ritual slaughter of homosexuals. Democracy is a bloody business, demanding blood sacrifice. Every advance American democracy has made toward fulfilling the social contract, toward justice and equality and true liberty, every step forward has required offerings of pain and death. The American people demand this, we need to see the burnt bodies of the four little black girls, or their sad small coffins; we need to see the battered, disfigured face of the beaten housewife; we need to see the gay man literally crucified on a fence. We see the carnage and think, Oh, I guess things are still tough out there, for those people. We daydream a little: What does that feel like, to burn? To have your face smashed by your husband's fist? To be raped? To be dragged behind a truck till your body falls to pieces? To freeze, tied to a fence on the Wyoming prairie, for eighteen hours, with the back of your head staved in? Americans perfected the horror film, let's not kid ourselves: These acts of butchery titillate, we glean the news to savor the unsavory details. And then, after we've drawn a few skin-prickling breaths of the aromas of torture and agony and madness, we shift a little in our comfortable chairs, a little embarrassed to have caught ourselves in the act of prurient sadism, a little worried that God has seen us also, a little worried that we have lazily misplaced our humanity, a little sad for the victims: Oh, gee, I guess I sort of think that shouldn't happen out there to those people, and something should be done. As long as I don't have to do it. And having thought as much, having, in fact, been edified, changed a very little bit by the suffering we have seen, our humanity as well as our skin having been pricked, we turn our back on Matthew Shepard's crucifixion and return to our legitimate entertainments. When next the enfranchisement of homosexuals is discussed, Matthew Shepard's name will probably be invoked, and the murder of gay people will be deplored by decent people, straight and gay; and when the religious right shrills viciously about how the murder doesn't matter, as it has been doing since his death, decent people everywhere will find the religious right lacking human kindness, will find these Gary Bauers and Paul Weyrichs and Pat Robertsons un-Christian, repulsive, in fact. And a very minute increment toward decency will have been secured. But poor Matthew Shepard. Jesus, what a price! Trent Lott endorses murder. He knows that discrimination kills. Pope John Paul II endorses murder. He, too, knows the price of discrimination, having declared anti-Semitism a sin, having just canonized a Jewish-born nun who died in Auschwitz. He knows that discrimination kills. But when the Pope heard the news about Matthew Shepard, he too worried about spin. And so, on the subject of gay-bashing, the Pope and his cardinals and his bishops and priests maintain their cynical political silence. Rigorously denouncing the abuse and murder of homosexuals would be a big sin against spin; denouncing the murder of homosexuals in such a way that it received even one-thousandth of the coverage his and his church's attacks on homosexuals routinely receive, this would be an act of decency the Pope can't afford, for the Pope knows: Behind this one murdered kid stand legions of kids whose lives are scarred by the bigotry this Pope defends as sanctioned by God. None of these kids will ever be allowed to marry the person she or he loves, not while the Pope and his church can prevent it; all of these kids are told, by the Holy Catholic Church, and by the Episcopalians and Lutherans and Baptists and Orthodox Jews: Your love is cursed by God. To speak out against murdering those who are discriminated against is to speak out against discrimination. To remain silent is to endorse murder. A lot of people worry these days about the death of civil discourse. The Pope, in his new encyclical, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), laments the death of civil discourse and cites "ancient philosophers who proposed friendship as one of the most appropriate contexts for sound philosophical inquiry." It's more than faintly ludicrous, this plea for friendship coming from the selfsame Pope who has tried so relentlessly to stamp out dissent in churches and Catholic universities, but let's follow the lead of the crazies who killed Matthew Shepard and take the Pope at his word. Friendship is the proper context for discussion. Fine and good. Take the gun away from the head, Your Holiness, and we can discuss the merits of homosexual sex, of homosexual marriage, of homosexual love, of monogamy versus promiscuity, of lesbian or gay couples raising kids, of condom distribution in the schools, of confidential counseling for teenagers, of sex education that addresses more than abstinence. We can discuss abortion, we can discuss anything you like. Just promise me two things, friend: First, you won't beat my brains out with a pistol butt and leave me to die by the side of the road. Second, if someone else, someone a little less sane than you, feeling entitled to commit these terrible things against me because they understood you a little too literally, or were more willing than you to take your distaste for me and what I do to its most full-blooded conclusion, if someone else does violence against me, friend, won't you please make it your business to make a big public fuss about how badly I was treated? Won't you please make a point, friend, you who call yourself, and who are called, by millions of people, the Vicar on Earth of the very gentle Jesus, won't you please in the name of friendship announce that no one who deliberately inflicts suffering, whether by violence or by prejudice, on another human being, can be said to be acting in God's name? And announce it so that it is very clear that you include homosexuals when you refer to "human beings," and announce it so that the world hears you, really hears you, so that your announcement makes the news, as you are capable of doing when it suits your purposes? Won't you make this your purpose too? And if you won't, if you won't take responsibility for the consequences of your militant promotion of discrimination, won't you excuse me if I think you are not a friend at all but rather a homicidal liar whose claim to spiritual and moral leadership is fatally compromised, is worth nothing more than...well, worth nothing more than the disgusting, opportunistic leadership of Trent Lott. - -- Why isn't phonetic spelled the way it sounds? http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html http://www.tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:29:50 +1200 From: "Helen M. Adcock" Subject: Re: feminism Kate wrote: >Emmy I don't think that Joni said anything about being anti feminist at all. >Kakki spoke elequently about why someone might not want to be labeled. It is >not about the ideas, its about the label. Thank you, Kate. I was about to respond to Emmy in a similar vein, but you said it better than I could. It's exactly the same reason I don't like being called a feminist, or a "Miss", or a "Ms" or anything else. Just about every label under the sun, be it "feminist", "lesbian", "trans-sexual", or whatever, has certain stereotypes associated with it - some of which have been expressed (some VERY inaccurately) on this list in recent days. I'm Helen (or Hell) and that's the only label I need. Hell _____________________________ "To have great poets, there must be great audiences too." - Walt Whitman hell@ihug.co.nz Visit the NBLs (Natural Born Losers) at: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hell/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:36:45 +1200 From: "Helen M. Adcock" Subject: Re: Single Gender Marriage Jim wrote: >Uhhh... Please excuse my naive questions but here goes: >The stereotype that I'm familiar with is that many gays don't have life-long >relationships. Is this true? And if it's true, where does the enthusiasm >for gay marriage come from? Actually before I start, let me just say that this is IMO (and not humbly)! No, it's not true! The same stereotype applies to young heterosexual men. A young man "sows his wild oats", for example. Most of my gay friends have been far less promiscuous in their lives than my heterosexual friends. >Next, I have never heard a straight couple say "We are getting married so >(s)he can have medical coverage." Yet this seems to be the central argument >in favor of gay marriage though. Is this true? What am I missing or >misunderstanding? This is not the central argument in favour of gay marriage. Gay people marry (or would like to be ABLE to marry) for the same reasons as heterosexual people - because they love that person, and want to spend the rest of their lives with them. It would also be nice to have that commitment recognised "officially" in some manner. This option is not currently available. Sure people talk about the financial benefits, etc. but that's a side issue. As far as I'm concerned, and this really is just my opinion, the only reason anyone should marry - gay, straight, black, white, green, whatever - is for love. Hell _____________________________ "To have great poets, there must be great audiences too." - Walt Whitman hell@ihug.co.nz Visit the NBLs (Natural Born Losers) at: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hell/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:47:19 +1200 From: "Helen M. Adcock" Subject: Re: Crosby Chronicles Musical Activism NJC RR wrote: >I applaud Crosby for his effort. The first time I saw him >perform, acoustically with Graham Nash, it was for a "Save the >Whales" benifit in SF. >Having said that, I am certain that, years ago, he was quoted >as saying rather forcefully that politics had no place in music. I would place some doubt on Crosby saying that. He's always been very vocal on political issues, in fact CSNY have written a large number of "political" songs. Off the top of my head: For What It's Worth Almost Cut My Hair Ohio Long Time Gone Military Madness Wind On The Water Chicago/We Can Change The World After The Dolphin Barrel Of Pain Daylight Again Obviously not all these are Crosby, but I do have a video where he talks about why he wrote a paticular "political" song (I think it was Long Time Gone which he wrote in response to Robert Kennedy's death). He says something like "The only time an musician should do that, is when it absolutely hits them in the face and they have to react. I don't think you should look for causes, in order to have a cause. That has nothing to do with making music at all." Not verbatim (because I couldn't be bothered finding the segment!), but you get the general idea. Maybe that's what he was talking about - some artists advocating causes through their music without any personal interest in the cause? Hell _____________________________ "To have great poets, there must be great audiences too." - Walt Whitman hell@ihug.co.nz Visit the NBLs (Natural Born Losers) at: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hell/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:37:30 EDT From: AsharaJM@aol.com Subject: Labor Day list This is the list I have so far of people coming to the New England Labor Day Jonifest 2000. If your name isn't here, why isn't it??? ;-) If you haven't already signed up for the Labor Day list, please sign up right away! Most of the correspondence from now on will be going through the Labor Day list only. Also, if you would like to come, and your name isn't here yet, please let me know as soon as possible!! There is a LOT of planning to do!! All information and details (including how to join the list) can be found at: http://www.jmdl.com/nejf2000.cfm Wally K. MG Roberto Bob Muller Les Heather Patrick Maggie Chuck E. Kenny Grant Marian Jody Paz Jenny Goodspeed Leslie and Steve Mixon Brian Gross Mark D. Victor Mags Nikki Johnson Alison E. Claudia Leslie Shapiro John van Tiel Pearl and Steve Julius CatGirl Julie Z. Jim Lamadoo Rose Joy Hugs, Ashara www.photon.net/lightnet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:25:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Duane J. Corpis" Subject: feminism and humanism Paul wrote: >But there is an "other." It's called humanism, the basis of which is >written in the Declaration of Independence, which I would modernize to >say that "all humans are created equal." Frankly, my dear, if you're a >feminist, you are also a sexist. This is one of the silliest things I've read so far in this thread, if for not other reason than it seems that you are only skimming what most people are writing. Most people on this thread have been bending over backwards to explain that they want equal, not special, rights. Most people have been trying to offer multiple definitions of "feminism", indeed arguing that there are perhaps as many "feminisms" as there are women and men who call themselves feminists. Yet Paul keeps reducing feminism to radical, militant, man-hating feminism whose only agenda is to place women in power over men and who see women as superior to men. Frankly, my dear, that's bull shit. Feminism has been at the forefront of critical intellectual and political trends aiming to demonstrate that all differences -- race, gender, and sexuality -- have political, cultural, and social dimensions. Most academicians who consider themselves "feminists", for example, would argue that gender identities and gender roles are largely the product of history, culture, socialization, etc. etc. They argue this (1) because it makes a lot of sense if you look at the history of what it has meant to be a "man" and a "woman" -- these gender definitions and roles are not historically transcendent, they change and (2) because it argues for a radical politics of equality -- the few visible and true differences between men and women, between whites and non-whites are not enough to warrant disenfranchisement in social or political arenas. BUT disenfranchisement of women or people of color or homosexuals has been a persistent part of our society and culture, the Declaration of Indepdence being no exception (ALL MEN can't simply be modernized -- it has to be reckoned with. Forgive me if I call Thomas Jefferson a "sexist" by modern standards. By modern standards, he was also a racist, even though he wanted to emancipate his slaves in his will -- in fact, perhaps BECAUSE he wanted to emancipate his slaves. After all, if he truly believed in the equal dignity, rights, and values of man/humanity, why the hell did he own slaves in the first place???) I consider myself a feminist, and I'm a man. I also happen to be gay. I certainly am NOT a man-hater! That would be strange, now wouldn't it? Of course, there are some (though certainly not ALL) feminists who would dislike the fact that I call myself a feminist. They would point out that I embody male privilege, just because of my facial hair, my genitalia, my "straight-acting masculinity." On some level, they would be right. I do act straight, relatively masculine (though you'll never catch me watching a sporting event -- oooh boring!), and even though I fight the good fight, I benefit automatically from being a man in this society. I continue to call myself a feminist because I am self-reflexive to know where I am priviledged, and because my politics include levelling that priviledge. I agree with the radical feminist that I am privileged because of my gender -- I know that I've gotten jobs where a woman could have done the job or was in fact MORE QUALIFIED. I'd like to think that under those circumstances, I've always turned the job down. But you see, even that decision is a little patronizing. I'm in the position to turn it down. I'm the one, as a man, who has to power to choose. Perhaps I'm sensitive to the fight of my sisters because I, as a queer and a person of color, understand what priviledge is. YOu don't have to be a racist to benift from racial priviledge, for example. You don't have to be a homophobe to benefit from heterosexual priviledge. You don't have to be a sexist (you can even be a male feminist) to benefit from male priviledge. For example, because white is so normative in this country, so dominant as a racial category, most white people don't even think about the fact that they have automatic priviledge from being white. Put a white person and a black or brown person in suits in Manhattan, the white person is the one who will get the cab first. To be more serious, the white person would also be more likely to get the job first. ANd the white guy in the suit is the LAST person ever to get pulled over by the police simply for looking suspicious. Every day, I walk out the door and am confronted with my browness when I walk in a part of town (say, the financial district) or an institution (say, my university) that is largely white. It is one of the priviledges of being white that white people don't have to think about their race, because in large measure they don't have it. "Whiteness" is neutrality. In contrast, "blackness" or "browness" automatically sends signals -- just ask the police in NJ and NY who constantly use racial profiling. This is what threatens people about a truly radical politics of equalization (wether it regards race, gender, or sexual orientation). People will lose the privilege they consciously or unconsciously possess in society. So to feel better about their attacks on the disenfranchised, the underprivileged, they turn the claims for equality made by the underdogs into claims for special treatment. All I have to say is "WAKE UP!" Humanism, by the way, also has a history, stretching all the way back to the Renaissance. It has been, perhaps still is, a deeply SEXIST world view, because (like the Declaration of Independence) it has historically considered women NOT to be part of the human race, for human race was idenfitied as those with REASON, and women have historically been understood as lacking reason, and therefore not fully human. The good thing about humanism has always been its attempt to be self-reflexive. So Paul, until I see some more self-reflexivity in your posts, I won't regard you as a humanist, but as a typical middle-of-the-road guy who thinks he doesn't participate in the hierarchies of priviledge, but in fact does. The true humanists I know wouldn't feel comfortable extending the term to you, given your responses to the feminists on this list. - --Duane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:10:00 -0700 From: "P. Henry" Subject: Re: Colors a little JC kate inquired: >...I was thinking along the same colors as peach, except its not exactly peach. I saw the most striking color combo in a Joni photo but I can't remember where it was. Probably somewhere on the Joni website- and I know I saw it fairly recently. She was in a brilliant blue standing in front of an adobe-like wall that was earthy- orangey in color. There might have been blue flowers in the photo too. I wanted to paint my house that color, with the blue trim after seeing that picture. Does anyone recall where to find that photo? hiya kate! here ya go: :o) http://homepages.go.com/~jonifiles/albums/album/pic0.html Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:17:46 -0500 From: "kerry" Subject: Song about Matthew Shepard (NJC) Thanks Colin for the Matthew Shepard information. Has anyone heard Melissa Etheridge's song "Scarecrow" from her newest album? It's about Matthew and I dare anyone to listen to it and not be moved. The lyrics can be found at http://www.melissatheridge.com/melissa/disc/lyrics_breakdown.html#scarecrow. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:16:42 -0700 From: "P. Henry" Subject: RE: Colors a little JC oops! posted too soon... ;o) >YES! Thank you Mark- what a great memory. Ta Da! Here is the link to the photo- http://www.rolandus.com/USERS/RUG/ARCHIVE/WIN_96/FEAT14_2/JONI1.HTM > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:17:40 -0700 From: "Mark or Travis" Subject: Re: Single Gender Marriage > Uhhh... Please excuse my naive questions but here goes: > The stereotype that I'm familiar with is that many gays don't have life-long > relationships. Is this true? And if it's true, where does the enthusiasm > for gay marriage come from? > > Next, I have never heard a straight couple say "We are getting married so > (s)he can have medical coverage." Yet this seems to be the central argument > in favor of gay marriage though. Is this true? What am I missing or > misunderstanding? I wish I had more time to address this now but unfortunately I have to go to work. I sometimes feel left out of these discussions because I can't post while they're going on. However, I would like to point out that Jim is asking these questions quite honestly and I believe would honestly like to be enlightened about them. Let's not rip him to shreds for being honest. I don't think Jim (correct me if I'm wrong, Jim) probably had much contact with gay people before he joined this list. He is asking to be enlightened. We can do that without raking him over the coals, can't we? I would rather people ask legitimate questions than keep their misconceptions clutched tightly to their psyches, afraid to let go of them. If they ask, they can be informed. So let's inform, not bash. Mark in Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:20:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Feminism (VLJC) - --- IVPAUL42@aol.com wrote: > Then attack and correct the injustices at their > core; trying to even them up > with alternative advantages is doomed because it > fails to place at a > disadvantage the same group that gains from the > original injustices. > That's a really tough call. Many employers as "equal opportunity employers" post job ads that "encourage" applications from women, minorities, disabled people, etc. This is an attempt to even out the inequities in certain lines of work that are dominated by white males. The white non-disabled males then feel discriminated against. The point is, the job is going to go to the person best qualified for it but, if two candidates are very close, then the one who belongs to an under-represented group is supposed to get the job. It doesn't solve the problem (at the core) of why there are inequities to begin with. While some of this can be attributed to an "old boys' club" kind of attitude amongst certain kinds of white males, I think this is less of an issue now than it once was (depending on what business you're in, of course). But it is also something that needs to be dealt with right from the time kids start school (if not before). Why do so few girls go into engineering? (less true than it once was, but how much is nature, and how much nurture?) The problem of under-representation by non-whites is toughter - much of this stems from poverty. They can't get ahead in school because of poverty. They can't get a better job because of lack of education. Therefore they're stuck in this cycle of poverty/unemployment/poverty. How do you deal with that? Post-secondary education is getting more expensive, and grants are harder to get. If the kid can't even make it through grade school or high school, what chance do they have of getting post-secondary education? Maybe there should be more meal programs for kids in poor neighbourhoods - - who's going to pay for it? Governments are cutting back and the attitude these days seems to have swung back to believing that the poor deserve to be poor and wouldn't be poor if they weren't so lazy. And so on. > In that vein, if my state allows gay couples to > extend insurance and other > benefits to each other, then I should be able to add > my fiancee or girlfriend > to MY insurance in the same way. > But to allow gay "civil unions" to benefit while I > cannot is an example of > granting an advantage to a special group that > neither corrects an injustice > or provides an "equal" status. If you're living together in a common law relationship, I don't know about where you live, but where I live, you'd get the same insurance benefits as a "married" couple. It's the living-together thing that does it as far as I know. I don't think that gays who weren't living together as a couple would be given this coverage (as far as I'm aware), so they're just being given equitable treatment. I don't understand why people are so against this - it's not going to hurt anyone. For that matter, if you're single and living with your elderly mother, why can't you get her covered by your supplementary health insurance? (In Canada, you'd be able to claim an "equivalent-to-married" exemption on your income tax in this kind of situation, if you were supporting the other person, not that that gives you that much of a tax exemption, but it's better than nothing.) ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:31:19 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: feminism and humanism This was an excellent post, and reminded me of my own privileges as both a male and white. Thank you, Duane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:32:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Decorating Tips - --- Jim L'Hommedieu wrote: > Colin, > Do you REALLY want decorating tips from a > middle-aged, straight, lonely, > computer technician who lives in middle America?? :) > Think carefully...... > All the best, > Jim L'Hommedieu near Cincinnati > Let me guess Jim - earth tones, right? Beige, beige, beige.... ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:36:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: re: Yvette in English - --- Bolvangar@aol.com wrote: > On another note, I think "Yvette in English" needs a > really cheesy > oom-pah-pah accordion, for that French cafe sound. > We don't have to be > smothered in good taste all the time. ;) > I like that! ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:38:01 EDT From: SMEBD@aol.com Subject: Re: Feminism (NJC) In a message dated 7/19/00 12:20:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, luvart@snet.net writes: << I wondered when someone was going to mention something about the nasty higher income taxes! >> But you have the option of filing individually or as a couple. My partner and I can't do this. You get "family credits/deductions". My partner and I don't. Stephen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:39:24 EDT From: SMEBD@aol.com Subject: Re: Feminism & benefits of marriage (NJC) In a message dated 7/19/00 12:29:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, luvart@snet.net writes: << Can't you write a will and name your partner as the sole heir? This happens all the time .... doesn't matter what the circumstances. A legal will is binding. >> Guess again. Wills get contested all the time!! Stephen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:39:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: POLITICS ALERT (NJC) - --- MDESTE1@aol.com wrote: > As of about seven working days ago there was this > clear consensus to not post > political subjects on the JMDL. Since then we have > had three major threads > Feminism, Gay marriages, and a completely off the > wall Witchcraft thread. > Some of the listmembers who expressed that they wish > there were no political > threads are actually participating. I guess the > blackout has been lifted by > mutual listwide consent. All you have to do is say "no politics" and what do you get....? MORE politics! ;) ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:15:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald Notaro (LIB)" Subject: Re: Joni's Viewpoints On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 IVPAUL42@aol.com wrote: > But there is an "other." It's called humanism, the basis of which is written > in the Declaration of Independence, which I would modernize to say that "all > humans are created equal." Frankly, my dear, if you're a feminist, you are > also a sexist. That's like saying if you support an independent Isreal you are a zionist. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:15:17 EDT From: PPeterson4@aol.com Subject: Re: feminism and humanism well I've been sucked into this thread in spite of all the hostility. Thanks to Duane for such a thorough presentation. Really good stuff. Paul Peterson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:19:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald Notaro (LIB)" Subject: Re: Feminism (NJC) On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Heather wrote: > I wondered when someone was going to mention something about the nasty > higher income taxes! That's the one thing my husband & I can't stand about > our marriage :-) > Thanks, Don Ah, Don, but Congress took care of that yesterday. Now that they are done taking care of your pocketbook, when will they pass legislation making it illrgal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:23:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Feminism (NJC) - --- Don Rowe wrote: > I know I should hit the DELETE key on this, but I do > feel like pointing out a few things: > > --- RandyRemote wrote: > > Maybe we should just eliminate special privelidges > > for married > > people... > > Like what? The privilege of paying higher income > taxes? The privilege of losing at *least* 50% of > your > stuff when your significant other takes a hike -- in > most states, regardless of who's at fault? The > virtual inability to obtain or hold credit in your > own > name? Trust me, marriage (as a legal and political > institution) is no one-way ticket to easy street ... > just an exchange of one set of inequities for > another. > > So be careful what you ask for -- lest you receive > it. There may be a lesson in here somewhere. Never get married. Never have kids. Don't fall in love. Have nothing to do with another human being, ever. Be the cat that walked by itself or, in the words of a folksong: "I never will marry/ I'll be no man's wife/ I intend to live single/ The rest of my life." Sure, it'll be lonely, but nobody'll be able to *get* you! ;) ===== Catherine (in Toronto) catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca _______________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:31:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Rowe Subject: Re: Feminism (NJC) - --- "Gerald Notaro (LIB)" > Ah, Don, but Congress took care of that yesterday. > Now that they are done > taking care of your pocketbook, when will they pass > legislation making it > illrgal to discriminate on the basis of sexual > orientation? > > Jerry Not exactly ... President Bill says he's gonna veto that bit if he doesn't get his perscription drug benefit ... which is a dead issue in Congress. And since I've started on this, God knows why, let me explain myself a little. I'm all for EQUAL rights and protections under the law for all citizens -- regardless of sexual orientation or anything else for that matter. My point was, that if you truly want EQUAL rights, especially as it applies to marriage, you're going to have to take the bad WITH the good -- otherwise it's not an "equal" right. As for the passing of legislation -- I'm far too much of a realist to think that's going to happen anytime soon. Don Rowe ===== "I do not object to others hiding from history. What I object to are others hiding history from ME." - -- Shelby Foote __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:45:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Bird Subject: For Carlyphiles (VLJC) The Irish music magazine HOTPRESS ran a review, written by Peter Murphy, of Carly Simon's THE BEDROOM TAPES in the July 19 issue, giving it 8 of 12 stars (actually "dice"), saying it "isn't perfect" but it's a "model example of what happens when bitter sentiment meets sweet harmony." Here's the fleeting Joni reference: - --The singer underwent a masectomy during her hiatus from the mainstream, and the psychic and physical wounds are addressed here in songs such as "I Forget" and "Scar." ... Here all the dirty little insecurities are exposed under the kind of ruthless scrutiny which separates the Jonis from the Jewels: "I said I'd been sick but was on the mend/I told him a few of the overall details/He said, 'that's too bad'/And he's never called me again." Bored here at work under the Pan Am roof, Nickel Chief ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:57:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald Notaro (LIB)" Subject: Re: Feminism (NJC) On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Don Rowe wrote: > And since I've started on this, God knows why, let me > explain myself a little. I'm all for EQUAL rights and > protections under the law for all citizens -- > regardless of sexual orientation or anything else for > that matter. My point was, that if you truly want > EQUAL rights, especially as it applies to marriage, > you're going to have to take the bad WITH the good -- > otherwise it's not an "equal" right. And my point is that comparing paying a few dollars more in taxes to being denied the right to be by a life long partner's dying side hardly seems "equal." We are more the willing to pay the "price." Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:00:50 EDT From: FMYFL@aol.com Subject: Re: Feminism (NJC) In a message dated 7/19/00 11:45:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dgrowe227@yahoo.com writes: << My point was, that if you truly want EQUAL rights, especially as it applies to marriage, you're going to have to take the bad WITH the good -- otherwise it's not an "equal" right. Your point is well taken Don, and I don't think anyone on the list would disagree with your statemtent. Personally I would welcome the "bad" which IMO is outweighed quite a bit by the "good". I would even be a GREAT son-in-law! Jimmy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:04:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Erin Stoy Subject: sigh... SUCH ignorance Paul I writes: "Frankly, my dear, if you're a feminist, you are also a sexist." Once again, I shake my head at the ignorance Paul spouts. Feminism is not about women being superior to men, or about having privileges over and above those men have. It is about equal treatment for women and men. Educate yourself and maybe you won't make such ignorant statements. Erin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:46:14 -0400 From: B Merrill Subject: Re: Hissing as a musical arc Bolvangar@aol.com wrote: >Bruce wrote: ><intended-- it becomes a far more impressive and powerful work.>> > > Hello Bruce, great analysis of HOSL's musical shape. Thanks, David. Glad you liked it. However, I'm still >skeptical about that quote from the liner notes. I don't think there are >"right" or "better" ways to approach any piece of art (except perhaps >"open-mindedly"), and I don't agree that approaching the album the way Joni >"intended" will necessarily yield more insight or a richer interpretive >experience than a unique, independent approach will. To demonstrate that, you would have to put forward a way of approaching the album which was NOT that which Joni intended, which would nevertheless "yield more insight or a richer interpretive >experience." That would be a fascinating project, and I encourage you to attempt it. Go for it! And how *could* you >listen to HOSL, or any other album, as anything but a total work? You could do this by listening to Hissing without paying any attention to the framework that Joni has set up. Just as... you could listen to a Beethoven symphony in reverse and so not grasp the harmonic development that he used to structure it. And you can also listen to a Beethoven symphony in its proper order and still not understand what he's doing. Not paying attention is always an option. My "solution" to the mystery of HOSL -- not to diminish the album >itself at all -- is that Joni got just a little bit pretentious when she >wrote those liner notes. ;) Well, I disagree; I respect her ambition here. (Go, Joni Go!) Which also means that I take it that you are diminishing the album. - -- thanks for the exchange, Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:10:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Rowe Subject: Re: Feminism (NJC) > And my point is that comparing paying a few dollars > more in taxes to being > denied the right to be by a life long partner's > dying side hardly seems > "equal." We are more the willing to pay the "price." > I never thought you weren't. Understand though, that part of that "price" would be the devastating emotional consequences associated with legal divorce - --wherein many othewise reasonable, loving people turn on one another with the ferocity of wild beasts -- which is why divorce remains in the Top 3 most stressful life events one can go through. "Something's lost and something's gained in living everyday" ... as Joni would put it. Which is still the core of my point on this issue. Don Rowe ===== "I do not object to others hiding from history. What I object to are others hiding history from ME." - -- Shelby Foote __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2000 #403 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list at Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe joni-digest" to ------- Siquomb, isn't she?