From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2000 #598 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk VideoTree sign-up: http://www.jmdl.com/trading Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Sunday, November 12 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 598 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. Sign up for VideoTree #2 now: http://www.jmdl.com/trading ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Joni's left-leaning fans (VLJC)NJC [catman ] Why did the chicken cross the road?NJC [catman ] Re: Joni's left-leaning fans NJC [susan+rick ] RE: Mess Gets Bigger Re: Craziness; NJC ["Deb Messling" ] Re: Joni's left-leaning fans NJC [catman ] Conservative music NJC ["kerry" ] First-grade voters (absolutely NJC) ["Pitassi, Mary" ] signing off (NJC) ["Takats, Angela" ] See the Ballot, Re: Craziness, NJC ["Jim L'Hommedieu" ] IMHO NJC [Vince Lavieri ] Joni and politics [CarltonCT@aol.com] Re: katrina and kid A njc [Vince Lavieri ] Re: signing off (NJC) [Vince Lavieri ] Re: Joni and politics NJC [IVPAUL42@aol.com] Joni music [Steve Anderson ] Re: signing off (NJC) [FMYFL@aol.com] Re: Joni and politics [catman ] re left leaning Joni-fans ["Steve" ] Re: Spin (NJC) ["Kakki" ] Re: Joni's left-leaning fans (VLJC) ["Kakki" ] ISO: Joni, 4/15/73 [Mark Domyancich ] All Things Joni? ["Christopher J. Treacy" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:01:07 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: Joni's left-leaning fans (VLJC)NJC > > > This is the truth as I see it also but this theory of course forces us to > accept that those who believe they see the absolute TRUTH may indeed truly > see it. Not at all. As we cannot get outside ourselves, away from our meaning structures etc, we cannot know absolute truth. > > > Ranger Rick, untwisting his brain after working his way through that > thought. - -- bw colin colin@tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:29:11 -0500 From: "Victor Johnson" Subject: It's a beautiful day...(NJC) Getting off the topic of politics for a moment... 'Mister Rogers' Neighborhood' to tape final shows PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) -- It's a sad day in the neighborhood. Longtime children's TV host Fred Rogers plans to introduce his last new neighbor next year, his production company announced Saturday. The 71-year-old host and creator of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" will shoot the final episode of the show in 2001, but he won't be hanging up his cardigan just yet. After 50 years in television and 33 years as the show's host, Rogers is turning his attention to his Web sites, publications and special museum programs. And he'll still provide gentle advice in reruns. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:56:06 +0000 From: catman Subject: Why did the chicken cross the road?NJC VICE PRESIDENT GORE I fight for the chickens and I am fighting for the chickens right now. I will not give up on the chickens crossing the road! I will fight for the chickens and I will not disappoint them. GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH I don't believe we need to get the chickens across the road. I say give the road to the chickens and let them decide. The government needs to let go of strangling the chickens so they can get across the road. SENATOR LIEBERMAN I believe that every chicken has the right to worship their God in their own way. Crossing the road is a spiritual journey and no chicken should be denied the right to cross the road in their own way. SECRETARY CHENEY Chickens are big-time because they have wings. They could fly if they wanted to. Chickens don't want to cross the road. They don't need help crossing the road. In fact, I'm not interested in crossing the road myself. RALPH NADER Chickens are misled into believing there is a road by the evil tire makers. Chickens aren't ignorant, but our society pays tire makers to create the need for these roads and then lures chickens into believing there is an advantage to crossing them. Down with the roads, up with chickens. PAT BUCHANAN To steal a job from a decent, hardworking American. JERRY FALWELL Because the chicken was gay! Isn't it obvious? Can't you people see the plain truth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the "other side." That's what "they" call it--the "other side." Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And, if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like "the other side." That chicken should not be free to cross the road. It's as plain and simple as that. DR. SEUSS Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes! The chicken crossed the road But why it crossed, I've not been told! ERNEST HEMINGWAY To die. In the rain. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. I envision a world where all chickens will be free to cross without having their motives called into question. GRANDPA In my day, we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Someone told us that the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us. ARISTOTLE It is the nature of chickens to cross the road. KARL MARX It was a historical inevitability. SADDAM HUSSEIN This was an unprovoked act of rebellion and we were quite justified in dropping 50 tons of nerve gas on it. RONALD REAGAN What chicken? CAPTAIN JAMES T. KIRK To boldly go where no chicken has gone before. FOX MULDER You saw it cross the road with your own eyes. How many more chickens have to cross before you believe it? FREUD The fact that you are at all concerned that the chicken crossed the road reveals your underlying sexual insecurity. BILL GATES I have just released eChicken 2000, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook--and Internet Explorer is an inextricable part of eChicken. EINSTEIN Did the chicken really cross the road or did the road move beneath the chicken? BILL CLINTON I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What do you mean by "chicken"? Could you define "chicken" please? GEORGE BUSH I don't think I should have to answer that question. LOUIS FARRAKHAN The road, you will see, represents the black man. The chicken crossed the "black man" in order to trample him and keep him down. COLONEL SANDERS I missed one? - -- bw colin colin@tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:39:14 -0500 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: Mess Gets Bigger Re: Craziness; NJC cnn reports that Palm Beach County's voting bosses just decided (Sunday) to re-count.(isn't this the 3rd count? 1. The first machine count. 2. The hand count that's been going on for days already. 3.This new count.) I couldn't figure out why, exactly from reading the site. Anyway, they better hurry up because [[Bob Crawford, who replaced Gov. Jeb Bush as commissioner of Florida's Canvassing Commission, said Saturday that if a county misses the state's deadline for certifying results, the entire county's vote will be thrown out. "The statute is very clear that if a county's results are not to us by 5 p.m. Tuesday we shall ignore that county's vote, and the counties need to be very aware of that," Crawford told reporters. "Candidates asking for recounts need to be aware of that."]] quote from www.cnn.com Thanks guys. The absolutely most chilling thing I've read about this whole mess is this quote from this guy Crawford: [["You've got boxes of ballots right now in Florida that will determine the next president of the United States probably sitting in some closet in somebody's office in some very small counties," he continued. "How long can that go on and how long can we risk the integrity of those ballots? So we've got to move this thing." ]] Now me: Q: Is this ratty cardboard box in the broom closet, garbage? Can I throw it out? A: Oh, that stuff..... No, not yet. That box has the ballots that will determine the new President of the United States of America. Let's hold on to that for a few more days. !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! It's way more complicated than it was 3 days ago. I'm not gonna post every single thing that I find interesting about this race, but the stuff above seem like the most important 'bits' as they say in soggy England. BTW, cnn forecasts MORE rain for London! Hang tight guys! The pictures are depressing. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:13:19 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: RE: Doink? NJC mark writes, re rickie lee jones: >mind is opening just a wee crack & gradually >letting this music in - after many years of being clamped shut. Are >you reading this Patrick? > 'YOU BET YOUR AS I AM!' says the usually lowercase patrick. i'm so excited that this is happening. rlj's music is very close to my heart; i even made one of my earliest choreographies to songs from the first album, including youngblood and one of the greatest lyrics ever written, last chance texaco. her music was a shared love for me and a dear, dear friend who is gone now, so there's always that association, too. i had given mark two very carefully constructed mush tapes, one of jane siberry, and one of rlj. i was kind of surprised that he liked the jane one more at the time. the rickie lee one started off with her (magnificent, i think) cover of the airplane's 'coming back to me'. since i bought her albums in order, i'd probably suggest pirates next especially for 'lucky , as wally did, but magazine is a fantastic album. magazine includes 'the real end', a sad-lyricked end of the affair type song, but produced as a jazzy upbeat song, with fantastic horns at the end. it's on your tape, mark, i think you mentioned liking it. patrick jfp, through the walls from my somewhat inconsiderate neighbor - wyclef jean - hiphop version of pink floyd's wish you were here. then they played the operatic soprano duet that is used in that british airways commercial (the one about the space station). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:08:56 -0800 From: susan+rick Subject: Re: Joni's left-leaning fans NJC I said: >> This is the truth as I see it also but this theory of course forces us to >> accept that those who believe they see the absolute TRUTH may indeed truly >> see it. Colin replied: > Not at all. As we cannot get outside ourselves, away from our meaning > structures etc, we > cannot know absolute truth. I elaborate: From my perspective, Colin, it seems you are saying that it is your *absolutely true* belief that that no one can see the *absolute truth*. Therefore you yourself are claiming to see the *absolute truth* in this matter. Personally, I think if you want to believe (as I do) that no one can know the absolute truth then you have to include yourself in that group and accept that you might be wrong. Maybe someone somewhere has got it exactly right! Colin, since there is no emoticon for friendly discussion, please understand that I'm just discussing this concept and not attacking your personal belief system. Rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:28:38 -0500 From: "Deb Messling" Subject: RE: Mess Gets Bigger Re: Craziness; NJC No, it's the second count. There was no hand count "going on for days." The first hand count in Palm Beach County was yesterday. The machine recount, undertaken in all counties, was automatic. Florida law requires an automatic recount if a candidate was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less. The partial hand recount in Palm Beach County was requested by the Gore campaign based on evidence that the machines were failing to read imperfectly punched ballots. > cnn reports that Palm Beach County's voting bosses just decided > (Sunday) to > re-count.(isn't this the 3rd count? 1. The first machine count. 2. The > hand count that's been going on for days already. 3.This new count.) I > couldn't figure out why, exactly from reading the site. Anyway, > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:30:32 -0600 From: "Pitassi, Mary" Subject: RE: Joni's left-leaning fans (VLJC) Kakki wrote, in response to a series of posts on Joni's own political leanings, leftward or rightward: "A few months back on the list someone posted a link to a recent interview with Joni where she came out against Bill Clinton with a few remarks that some people here would not find complimentary. Not one person commented on this here." Kakki, I don't want to read into your comment a suggestion that Joni's comments against Clinton, whatever they may have been, implied that she did not sympathize with the goals of the political left, because I'm not at all sure that's what you meant. However, if it is, I can only say that I certainly don't think that remarks against *Bill Clinton,* of all people, mean that the speaker in question disagrees with the left. Many of us who would firmly place ourselves left of center on the political map have criticized Clinton as well, either because 1) we find the rightward drift of the Democratic party under Clinton and other self-styled "New Democrats" to be ideologically objectionable (see also Ralph Nader), 2) we find his personal lapses repugnant, and some of his political practices (e.g., campaign fund-raising) questionable. So it could be that no one on the list, including those who identify as left-leaning, commented on Joni's remarks because many agreed with them! And that's regardless political affiliation, which could well be in keeping with what you wrote in the next comment in your post. And Mark in Seattle wrote: "I doubt that Joni subscribes to any particular political party or group either here or in Canada. Joni strikes me as much too independent in her thinking to go along completely with any one philosophy or religion or train of political thought. She takes whatever truth she discerns in everything she learns about & forms her own ideas & opinions." I agree completely. I see Joni as a free spirit who certainly availed herself of the experimentation and freedom of the 60's which people usually associate with the left. And some of her later work (notably, _Dog Eat Dog_) put a distinctively liberal slant on specific political issues. However, she also sees to possess a strong streak of "personal conservatism" that I can't quite put my finger on (perhaps related in some way to her Canadian prairie upbringing in the 1950's?). And I also remember her comments that she did not consider herself a "feminist," a term which, if I'm recalling correctly, she mainly associated with the leftist women's movement of the 60's and 70's, as that played out in everyday life then. Perhaps Joni has made a career out of rebelling against "rules" of one sort or another precisely because, on one level, she's so aware of them. The bottom line is that I don't see Joni subscribing to "isms" of any stripe, in either her personal or professional life. Mary P. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:43:16 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: Joni's left-leaning fans NJC susan+rick wrote: > I said: > >> This is the truth as I see it also but this theory of course forces us to > >> accept that those who believe they see the absolute TRUTH may indeed truly > >> see it. > > Colin replied: > > Not at all. As we cannot get outside ourselves, away from our meaning > > structures etc, we > > cannot know absolute truth. > > I elaborate: > >From my perspective, Colin, it seems you are saying that it is your > *absolutely true* belief that that no one can see the *absolute truth*. > Therefore you yourself are claiming to see the *absolute truth* in this > matter. > > Personally, I think if you want to believe (as I do) that no one can know > the absolute truth then you have to include yourself in that group and > accept that you might be wrong. Maybe someone somewhere has got it exactly > right! > > Colin, since there is no emoticon for friendly discussion, please understand > that I'm just discussing this concept and not attacking your personal belief > system. I know you are not! I understand also what you are saying. If what you say is true, we would have no way of knowing! Why? Because we could only come to that conclusion subjectively. As for my belief system, I am not sure I have one but if I do it is fluid-it changes with time and experience and thought. I see life/thought as fluid-sometimes forward sometimes backward-but flowing for eternity to an end I cannot concieve. I cannot even conceive eternity anyway. We live in the 'time' we have constructed. I think we will leave that construction behind when we leave our bodies behind but that is even more difficult to comprehend. However, I find this something to be joyful about and not afraid of. Some day, in another space and time, I think we will know. For now, we are limited by living within matter and we can only follow our conscience. - -- bw colin colin@tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:07:23 -0600 From: "kerry" Subject: Conservative music NJC Bob wrote: >>>And while we're at it, what do conservatives listen to, anyway?>>> Kathie Lee Gifford. AND on a totally different note -- HAPPY BIRTHDAY NEIL YOUNG!!!! Kerry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:56:53 -0600 From: "Pitassi, Mary" Subject: First-grade voters (absolutely NJC) Marcel wrote: "In at least two states First Grade teachers now have each had their classes of 6 year olds use the same ballot and vote for candidates. Guess what. Not one 6 year old first grader got it wrong. Not one. About 60 six year olds. In San Francisco we have used the same ballot for over 8 years without one complaint. This idea that somehow these ballots were difficult or misleading is just 100% wrong." In the version I heard, it was second-graders. These whiz kids keep getting younger and younger! Pre-schoolers, anyone? ;-) Seriously, though: if this is true, this experiment fails to take into account one important characteristic that the elderly Florida voters had in spades, but the elementary-schoolers clearly don't: EXPERIENCE. Some voters have said, or written, that they *expected*, from their previous stints as Florida voters, for the two major political parties to be listed 1-2. Since there is no question that the first name and punch hole were for Bush, it followed, for them, that the second punch hole on the ballot would be for Gore. And they voted accordingly. There has also been talk of a Florida *law* that mandates that the names of the candidates appear in the order of the percentage of votes that their parties garnered in the last election (not sure I have this completely right, but that's the gist). Again, the experience of most Florida voters would be that candidates from the major parties would be the first two on the ballot. And a couple of thoughts of the use of the "butterfly ballot" elsewhere: 1) In San Francisco and other places, was exactly the same ballot used, or merely a similar one? What seems to be coming out from discussion is that ballots in other locales were actually different in significant ways, such as the location of the punch hole on the final version of the ballot, or failing to break the ballot up into two completely separate pages, as was done in West Palm Beach. 2) Was the butterfly ballot used for presidential elections? I don't mean to imply that other elections are unimportant, but this result is singularly *im*portant, not only for West Palm Beach and Florida, but for the nation. According to Susan, the butterfly ballot was used in the Chicago area, but for local judicial races, not the presidential contest. Mary P. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:02:25 +1100 From: "Takats, Angela" Subject: signing off (NJC) Hi Listers, I haven't been a frequent contributer to the list...but I have enjoyed the list for the past two years and loved being in a 'community' full of people who love joni as much as I do! For those of you who are interested...I am leaving Australia to move to Thailand and will have to give up the list. I have been offered a job with Reuters Television in Bangkok - which I have accepted, and I start in mid-December! It's very exciting, and very scarey, but I figure that i have nothing to lose and may as well 'walk on the wild side' while i am young and free :-) All my joni CDs will be coming with me - that's for sure.... thanks for everything love Ange Sydney, soon to be Bangkok (AH!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:15:35 -0500 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: See the Ballot, Re: Craziness, NJC See a photo of the contested Palm Beach ballot: http://a388.g.akamai.net/f/388/21/15m/www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1 1/09/election.president/large.ballot.ap.jpg Now THIS was a stupid thing to say! The dope brought race into it! From the cnn site: - ---- [Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Florida, whose district includes Palm Beach County, said 19,000 ballots were thrown out -- without being counted -- because the voters mistakenly voted for two presidential candidates due to the confusion. Wexler said those votes were concentrated in African-American communities -- which traditionally vote Democratic.] - ---- He should have said "Traditionally democratic" and left it at that. What does it matter where their ancestors came from? Now I understand why Rev. Jackson is involved though. BTW, the Dems's man Deutsch is now saying that the sample ballot, available before the election, did not match the actual ballot. This works in favor of the Democrats contention that the ballot is "illegal", I would think. I imagine it's a subjective opinion about whether it "matches" or not. My private drama: "It matches." "No it doesn't." "It matches." "Well, in this democrat county, I assure you, it doesn't match!" So it goes, Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:14:20 -0600 From: "Pitassi, Mary" Subject: Spin (NJC) Debra wrote, and Kakki responded: "> It used to bug me a lot when the followers of Reagan or Bush Sr. bragged about > being in the party of Lincoln. Same name, but completely different > philosophies. Reagan or Bush, if they're being "pure" Republicans, would never > step in and dictate to a State about anything, including ending slavery or > segregation. They would agree with the white Southerners that US law is > superseded by each State's laws. You are spinning my original comments. All I inferred was that Lincoln was a good example of a "pure" Republican. I also went on to say that the parties' idealogy/philosophy has been perverted from its original over time. So we are saying the same thing in this regard - so why spin my comments?" Me now. Kakki, I'm curious. What about Debra's comments struck you as "spin"? To me, she was expressing an honest opinion that didn't happen to be the same as yours. I think of "spin" as being the conscious effort to slant the presentation of an issue to achieve a concrete goal, such as to win a political race, or perhaps, some lesser achievement. Again, how were these comments "spin"? I realize that we're surrounded by spin in the sense that I defined it above, and likely will be, until this whole sorry mess is finally and firmly resolved. And Kakki, I have thoroughly appreciated your all contributions to this thread. But I think we've got to be very careful as to how we use that word, and perceive that concept, as we discuss the election and related topics on the list. I'd hate for "opinions that are the same as mine" to be simply regarded as valid opinions, and opinions that are different, to be labeled "spin." Respectfully, Mary P., "Spinning" my way out of here to go furniture shopping (yay!!!). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:34:22 -0500 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: IMHO NJC Well, we have another issue on which we can flame each other. These views are all IMHO. The Republican party was founded in the 1850s NOT as some Libertarian thing. Never was. Never was. It was founded to assert federal soverignity over the states and to free the slaves. As Paul rightly noted, Lincoln would rather go to war than to allow the Union to break up. To back up Paul and me on this, I suggest reading Lincoln's Second Ignuagural Address. The Republican Party continued to assert federal soverignity over the states through its Reconstruction policies in the rest of that post Civil War period. The Republicans also had a strong emphasis on free trade and unfettered capitalism. Thus under the Republicans we got the first anti-trust legislation (did cause problems with the unfettered capitalists but it was justified as making the playing field level for capitalism), the first national parks (T. Roosevelt was big on federal conservation, taking state land and making it for all the people), and Prohibition (which was a new role for the feds over the states and was repealed in a Democratic era in the US voting, between Al Smith and FDR, both "wets"). The Democrats continued as anti-free trade and asserting state rights through the end of the 1800s and into the 1900s. This is simplistic, but this is just a sketch. With the Depression (and because of the prior 40-50 years wave of immigrants) the parties began to can positons. FDR's policies extended federal control over areas previously thought to be under state control, and thus the controvesery over Supreme Court decisions, "packing" the Supreme Court, and other such things of that era. It was in this time that the African American vote went from Republican (party of Lincoln) to Democratic (FDR caring for the poor while Hoover didn't). Through the 50s, traditional Republican beliefs still pushed for federal soverignity over state issues; hence Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas on school desegregation. Consider the Republicans of that era: Rockefeller, Scranton, Dirksen, etc. The southern Democrats were the staunch state rights persons (ie George Wallace, Lester Maddox, etc.) Fulbright in Arkansas and Gore, Sr. in Tennesee were the beginnings of the first possible non-state rights firsters in the south - they were partial but not total. The big shift was in the 60s. Kennedy was elected from big cities, which meant African American votes in big numbers, and now the Democrats had a core constinuency that favored civil rights and could not be ignored. Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to over-ride a Democratic governor standing in the school house door. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was passed with many Republican votes (and major Democratic push from the White House) while southern Democrats said it over-rode states rights. Then in 1964 the Democratic National Convention scutinized who exactly the delegates were from Mississippi and elsewhere and Nixon began to figure out the "Southern stategy." By 1968, Wallace was running as an Independent, Nixon was getting white Southern votes... ... and Goldwater in 1964 caused a seismic shift in the Republican party with his conservative agenda that took 16 years to take hold. So in 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided, the one state with the most pro-choice law was New York under the traditional East Coast Republican Rockefeller; by 1980 the Republican platform was opposed to Roe v Wade as Reagan completed what Goldwater began. But then Goldwater was never totally happy with the Moral Majority side of the Reagan Republicans, especially with gays in the military and as I recall, abortion. Goldwater would be the closest thing the Republicans have had to a Libertarian, but that is not historic Republican philosophy and it sure hasn't been their philosophy ever (nor has it been, might I add, Democratic philosophy). That is why the Libertarians have always opposed both parties. And the Democratic Party was now, under Jimmy Carter, totally separated from its States Rights poisition of the past. Then Clinton took of free trade as a Democratic issue and the parties are so far apart from where they began... but that is life; things change. All of the above is how Strom Thurmond went from a Democrat to a third party States Rights party to a Republican. To assert that the Republicans were originally some sort of Libertarian thing is wrong, as to assert the the Democrats were always for civil rights. And frankly the Republicans are still way weak on libertarian issues as are the Democrats, and if you doubt me on that, spend time with a Libertarian. What is hypocritical now is for G W Bush, who has picked up the Goldwater/Reagan understanding of the 10th Amendment (under which one would base states rights claims) as part of the "original construction" of the US Constitution as dominent over the 14th (through which expanded federal role in the national life is justified) to file suit to block the Florida recount. IF Bush actually believed in the 10th Amendment and wanted conservative justices who will stop the expansion of the federal role in national life, then he is a flaming two-faced hypocrite to file a suit in federal court to block a state, or even more, counities within a state, from doing re-counts. The mechanics of voting has always been a state issue, not a federal issue. This is an extraordinary and historic invitation for the invasion of federal power into what the states' historical jurisdiction has been. Federal voting jurisdiction was been to protect civil rights. So far, Florida seems to be handling this itself, as did New Mexico which seems to have done its counting and gone from Gore to Bush while Oregon has gone from Bush to Gore. Bush's federal law suit is abhorent from a strict construction point of view and shows he has no principles IMHO other than power, taking it away from Clinton and Gore, both of whom he despises. There is NO consitutional right to know the results of the election now. The constitution provides that states elect electors to vote in December, results to be revealed in January to the new Congress, I think January 3rd but it could be January 4th. Then and only then under the Constitution do we have a president elected, and we have a right to know who it is. All this mocking of dumb Florida voters, it is far more dumb for Republicans to forget that under the US Constitution the state has a right to count its own votes absent civil rights claims, and the national election results are not known until the Electoral College releases its vote in January. To assert that Bush has to have a transition period is all nice but is not constitutional. The US Constitution provides the transition period to be from January 3rd or 4th to January 20th at 12 noon. What imflames me as a US citizen and as a partisan Democrat is that Bush claims to want strict constructionalist judges and constitutional interpretattions and then wants to intrude in new federal ways into what is the states areas when it might suit him. Bush is no Goldwater. Goldwater had principles and lived by them. Expansion of federal power into a county's recount of its vote would cause Goldwater to castigate Bush as the worst type of liberal. And hypocrite. The rush to judgment of the Florida election results by Bush's campaign tells me that their polling is telling them who won in Florida and that is why they are trying to cut off the recounts. For Bush it is about power, reclaiming power, the Restoration, not about the US Constitution. The federal government has no role in this unless there are civil rights claims. If Florida wants to recount its votes from now until whatever day in December that the Electoral College meets, that is its right. We may not know who wins the election untiil January. If not president is elected by that process, the 20th Amendment provides for what we do next: election by Congress. That, my friends, is what the US Constitution provides. And what I find sadly ironic (other than Bush's federal law suit - isn't he against frivilous suits and technicalities? isn't he against the federal government usurping local and state control under the 10th Amendment?) is that the Republicans gave us endless investiagations of one Arkansas land deal that never revealed a criminal act but plunged this nation through endless drama with all of its Whitewater offshoots. Now the Republicans don't want a state to count its own votes in its own way and have started a new wave of litigation that may lead God knows where. And before I get blasted by any Republicans as being a Democrat concerned with the 10th Amendment, let me tell you what is on my bedstand and has been for 25 or more years: my Bible and my copy of the US Constitution. (I have added Joni Mitchell and Janis Joplint o that pile and other things change through the years but it is always the Bible and the US Constitution. Everyone else: do you know where your copy of the Constitution is? For me: I may be all wrong in everything that I have said, but I sure as hell try to be objective and separate my partisanship from other views. I am a partisan Democrat and I think Gore will win and I want him to, but this election will happen or not happen on a state by state basis, and not by Bush's lawsuit which brings a very new federal intrusion into a state matter. And if I am wrong, if I am totally off base, I am still a long time admirer of Lincoln and what he stood for: the preservation of the US Constitution and the Union. And if I am wrong, I am wrong, I err in my thinking and understanding, not in my dedication to the Constitution and my county. God shed its grace on us all to avoid more division. (the Rev) Vince PS I apologise for the spelling errors but my spell check is broken. Interesting that the last time a son of a former President was elected president, the Adams Family, the son was elected after losing the popular vote, much controversy and a final decision made in the US House, and was so unpopular that he was swept out after four years, ushering in a Democratic era of Jackson and Van Buren, and the Adams' party, the Federalists, never elected a president again and became extinct. And I am shedding a tear for Leah Rabin. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:26:27 EST From: CarltonCT@aol.com Subject: Joni and politics I had dinner with a friend recently, a really bright woman who had a room mate who is a Canadian singer/song writer who is a friend of Joni's. About six years ago, my friend went to a dinner with the Canadian and his friend, Joni Mitchell, and her husband at the time, Larry Klein. My friend is a very bright, educated woman. At the time, she and her current husband had only recently met. He was very impressed that on their second date they were having dinner with Joni Mitchell. My friend thought Joni looked great and had very nice skin. Her perception of Joni was that she was shy. My friend was intimidated by Joni because she's a great artist. The Canadian singer later said that Joni was intimidated by my friend because of her education. As for Joni's politics, I remember seeing a painting she had donated in '72 to the McGovern campaign. It comes as no surprise to the people on this list that she has always been terribly concerned with the environment. She has dual Canadian and American citizenship, so I am sure that if she voted it was for either Gore or Nader. My chief concern in this entire election has been the environment as even personal rights are secondary when it comes to the degradation of our one and only Earth. Texas is the most polluted state in the union, and people in places like Odessa have the highest blood and lung cancer rates in the country, a result of Bush's laxing pollution regulations. Putting oilmen like Bush and Cheney in the White House is like putting wolves in charge of the flock. Bush has made it clear that he wants to violate the Alaskan wilderness to pump oil, and he shows no interest in bio-mass or alternative fuels which will diminish the profits of the oil corporations. I have a lot of appreciation for the Libertarians, but environmental plunder is an example of where government needs to intervene. As a people, our government can't just allow anyone to create and conduct businesses without regards to the consequences of the damages they inflict. I have always personally felt that the embrace of automobile culture by the United States is a collective insanity -- as a result we all breathe polluted air that gives lung cancer to thousands of nonsmokers and our one and only earth is carved up with ugly roads. Thousands and thousands of us die each year in automobile accidents. The car has been a bad thing for us all. I hate how much money I have to spend on mine in order to be an economically viable employee in Los Angeles. If we are honest with ourselves, the real reason we drive cars is because of the status they lend to us, just as medieval nobles all had to ride on horses, and never walk like the "pedestrians." respectfully, Clark NP: Vertical Horizon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:49:14 -0500 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Re: katrina and kid A njc Wally Kairuz wrote: > i've just discovered that i have not one but TWO katrina and the waves cd's: > self-titled and break of hearts. i'm the process of playing ''walking on > sunshine'' at an astoundingly loud volume. I just say High Fidelity last night and of course Walking on Sunshine at an exceedingly loud volume is a feature of that movie... I am proud that the John Cusack character's second girlfriend (#2 on his list) went to, according to the movie, my high school! The scenes of them outside the high schiool were filmed at Lane Tech, my alma mater! It was a rush to see the view of Lane from exactly the same door that I used to wait for the bell to ring, too. Of course, then it was still all male and we weren't allowed on the lawn... but then Cusack grew up in Chicago area and I don't think he went to Lane but someone on the movie crew must have to get the shot of that school from the angle. Question: the two kids (Jason and Vince?) steal the music from the record store, Cusack chases them, and then mocks what they steal by saying what, exactly? I couldn't catch the line; it was something like, and this is a loose paraphrase,"what are you doing, mainlining Joni Mitchell now?" What was the line from the movie and what did it mean? Anyone know? (I am sure this was covered before but I forget...) (the Rev) Vince > > AND........i've bought kid A. it's fabulous!!! very very trippy! i love the > keyboard thingy at the beginning of kid A, the track. > wallyK, ''...i'm walking on sunshiiiiiiine ... whoooooooa...'' ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:01:00 -0500 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Re: signing off (NJC) YOU WILL BE MISSED! God's blessings in your new life and adventure! Vince They must have internet in Thailand, so rejoin as soon as possible! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:59:33 EST From: IVPAUL42@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni and politics NJC In a message dated 11/12/00 2:33:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, CarltonCT@aol.com writes: << Texas is the most polluted state in the union, and people in places like Odessa have the highest blood and lung cancer rates in the country, a result of Bush's laxing pollution regulations. Putting oilmen like Bush and Cheney in the White House is like putting wolves in charge of the flock. >> I quoted both of the above statements because I agree that the second statement is probably true, the first statement is patently false. I could in no way be described as a defender of either Dubya or his father, but there is no way anyone could possibly blame high blood and lung cancer rates on the actions or policies of any CURRENT administration. Cancer rates like that take years, if not decades, to develop. <> I have no appreciation for the Libertarians, except to say that I believe they do not have the obviously selfish interests that they have. Libertarians are predomiantly white middle- to upper-class folks who want to protect what they have. And while they believe everyone else should have the right to "bootstrap" themselves, they would actually limit the opportunities of the less fortunate to do so. What the Libertarians do not understand, in my view, in that their philosophy of personal responsibility goes against human nature, as proved 100 years ago by England's "Tragedy of the Commons" experiment with dairy herders. The difference is that now the stakes are much, much higher. << ... If we are honest with ourselves, the real reason we drive cars is because of the status they lend to us, just as medieval nobles all had to ride on horses, and never walk like the "pedestrians." respectfully, Clark >> Not being an L.A. person, and never having had the desire to live there, I cannot speak about the automobile as a status symbol there. Personally, I've always believed in form following function and in 24 years have owned three cars -- a 1977 Toyota Corolla, a 1983 Volvo DL and a 1997 Ford Taurus. All were purchased new and all were green. That said, I must disagree again with Clark. The REAL reason Americans have embraced the autombile is the personal freedom and space it allows. To some people, a fancy car is a status symbol, but to most people, I believe it is the ability to go where they want, do what they want and bring with them whatever "stuff" they want, away from the beaten track of bus and train lines. Paul I ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:05:00 -0600 From: Steve Anderson Subject: Joni music I sent an email yesterday to the list and someone named Bob responded to helping me with some live Joni and I accidently deleted all my emails. Would you please send me your list again. I am sorry for the repost. Thanks Steve Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:13:25 EST From: FMYFL@aol.com Subject: Re: signing off (NJC) In a message dated 11/12/00 2:13:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, atakats@nine.com.au writes: << For those of you who are interested...I am leaving Australia to move to Thailand and will have to give up the list. >> My best to you and your new job Angela. You will be missed, but hopefully after you get settled you will drop us a line from time to time Take care and much Joni! Jimmy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:26:55 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: Joni and politics > If we are honest with ourselves, the real reason > we drive cars is because of the status they lend to us, just as medieval > nobles all had to ride on horses, and never walk like the "pedestrians." the real reason I drive a car is becase without it I would not have freedom to go where and when I please. I also would be extrememly limited to where I could go, living in thre country with very little in the way of public transport. My vet is 12 miles away. Some of my friends are 10 miles away, down dirt tracks. There are people who live in even mor isolated places. I saw many such people on my New England trip. It is very easy for city dwellers, who can do without a car, to forget about those who do not live in a city. bw colin > > > respectfully, > > Clark > > NP: Vertical Horizon - -- bw colin colin@tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:52:59 -0000 From: "Steve" Subject: re left leaning Joni-fans Bob Murphy wrote <<< I, too, lean to the left most of the time.>>>>> Bob, Have you tried to change your underwear style for that leaning problem 8 ))) <<<>>>> I must admit I've thought about this too, and having little interest in politics, I do tend to favour the needy over the greedy. Joni's lyrics suggest this too " Who let the greedy in, and who left the needy out ". <<<<<<<<>>>>>> Whilst never ever having, or wanting, "rich peoples problems". The wisest piece of advice I ever received with regard to being "liberal" or occupying the "middle ground" was that with regard to the political *see-saw* . The position of ultimate control isn't sitting out on either extreme, great fun as it may be as you WHOOOOOOSHHH up and down but the person who stands with one foot on one side and one foot on the other. That way you can control who goes up and who goes down..............a bit like the voters in Florida ;~) Steve.........the impossible dreamer........and sometime see-saw balancing act NP. Jackie Leven.....The Crazy Song ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:41:14 -0800 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Spin (NJC) > Me now. Kakki, I'm curious. What about Debra's >comments struck you as "spin"? Well, Mary, she seemed to be reacting to my original comments as if I'd stated Reagan and Bush, Sr. were "pure" Republicans, which I never said. I never mentioned those two nor was I discussing modern day Republican ideology other than to say it had changed from the original. She came back to assert the same thing I did (Republicans today are not the same as in Lincoln's day) but framed it in a way that tried to make it appear that I had said the opposite. > To me, she was expressing an honest opinion that didn't happen to be the same as yours. Wrong, to me she was expressing the same thing I had originally but trying to distance herself from that fact in a way that I thought was spinning my original comments. Maybe my definition of "spin" is incorrect, though. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:47:17 -0800 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Joni's left-leaning fans (VLJC) Mary wrote: > Kakki, I don't want to read into your comment a suggestion >that Joni's comments against Clinton, whatever they may >have been, implied that she did not sympathize with the >goals of the political left, because I'm not at all sure that's >what you meant. I never said it, did not mean to imply it and don't believe it. I'm also not the one who originally asserted that the Joni list is left-leaning, either. Some people here were appearing to say that Joni's beliefs are the same as theirs. Whether or not Clinton is right-left wing or left wing, Clinton is widely regarded and supported by many of the same people claiming Joni as their own politically. I was only showing an example that maybe Joni would not agree 100% with them. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:00:01 -0600 From: Mark Domyancich Subject: ISO: Joni, 4/15/73 hey everyone, Does anyone have a CD copy of Joni's performance from April 15, 1973 that they will be willing to burn for me for blanks and postage or a trade? It is the only CD I have that skips b/c I was stupid and didn't send the case with it when I got my copy made. It skips during Just Like This Train. Please don't bother replying if your burner can't extract audio correctly or it burns CDs in track at once mode (2 second gaps in between tracks). It's an awesome performance that I would like a flawless copy of. I can burn CDs too but my burner does put those gaps in between, so if that doesn't bother you and if you've got a copy of it, I'm in luck! I'm always looking for new Joni, especially any 1976 and 1972ish concerts. I've got tons to trade! I can remove any tape hiss from my collection and burn to CD making them sound as good as master of first generation copies. If you've got other stuff to trade I'm always willing to trade. My Joni colection has been pretty dormant lately since I've been trying to get larger non-Joni collections going. Thanks in advance! NP-Joni, 3/3/72-Cold Blue Steel - -- Mark Domyancich Harpua@revealed.net tape trading: http://homepage.mac.com/mtd/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:11:40 -0500 From: "Christopher J. Treacy" Subject: All Things Joni? I was wondering, what is the "All Things Joni" I've seen referenced here a # of times - video of some sort? Radio Show? Just curious. NP:The Way It Is -JM ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2000 #598 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe ------- Siquomb, isn't she?