From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2000 #599 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 599 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: IMHO NJC ["Kakki" ] Re: Craziness, NJC ["Jim L'Hommedieu" ] RE: (NJC) maybe I'll go to Amsterdam. maybe I'll go to Rome... ["Jim L'Ho] Re: Hand counts (NJC) ["Kakki" ] a non joni fans reactions to joni tunes ["Garret" ] RE: a non joni fans reactions to joni tunes ["Deb Messling" ] RE: Hand counts (NJC), LONG! ["Jim L'Hommedieu" ] re IMHO NJC [Don Sloan ] "Punchcards 101- For Non-Majors" was Re: Hand Counts- NJC ["Jim L] RE: Why did the chicken cross the road?NJC ["Wally Kairuz" ] Re: Joni and politics NJC [Don Sloan ] Look out the left the captain said. [Richard Rice ] RE: Hand counts (NJC) ["Deb Messling" ] Re: Joni and politics NJC [IVPAUL42@aol.com] Re: IMHO NJC [Vince Lavieri ] Re: re left leaning Joni-fansNJC [catman ] Re: re IMHO NJC [Vince Lavieri ] bjork NJC ["Wally Kairuz" ] Re: signing off (NJC) ["Mark or Travis" ] RE: signing off (NJC) ["Wally Kairuz" ] RE: Hand counts (NJC), LONG! ["Deb Messling" ] Re: A Joni moment....... [catman ] Not Joni and politics anymore NJC [Vince Lavieri ] Re: Look out the left the captain said.NJC [catman ] Re: Hand counts (NJC) [catman ] Re: left leaning males NJC [catman ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:13:51 -0800 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: IMHO NJC Vince wrote: > 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. For the record, I agree. And I appreciate your summary of the evolution of the two parties since the 19th century. It looks fairly accurate to me in a general sense. > 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. I'm not sure I follow this, though. He's not president yet and not acting as an official of the U.S. to block state's rights. He is acting as an individual who has a direct and personal interest in the way the process of recounting (and re-recounting) ballots is taking place in Florida. Every individual in this country has a right to appeal to a court of law if they think they believe their rights are being violated. By the way, he is not filing for injunction to stop the recount but rather to stop the second recount by hand of certain ballots. Big difference. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:21:19 -0500 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: Re: Craziness, NJC Hi Deb, I'm not trying to be argumenative, but I'm still confused. You seem to have a handle on this so, let's go through this. You said, [[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.]] Wait a minute. If the first count was by machine, then what you called "yesterday's" count (completed on Saturday?) would have been the Second count, or the 1st hand count. Or am I missing something? Then you said, [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.] So, are you saying that there was an "automatic recount", by machine, in Palm County, in addition to the 2 counts already discussed in this post? So we have had 3 counts already?? Then you said, [ 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.] I'm genuinely confused by your observations, not argumenative. It seems like each news outlet is reporting different things, each of them irresponsibly incomplete. I've been reading CNN's web site and watching ABC News. What are your sources? CNN says that the Palm Beach County's voting bosses just decided (Sunday) to re-count by hand. Is this in addition to what you called "yesterday's" count? If so, we have had 1. The original machine count. 2. What you called Saturday's "1st hand count", (which was only a partial re-count? I could have sworn that this was started on Friday. Why didn't CNN mention that it was 'partial'? How do you count 'part' of a county? Just the double-marked ones?) 3. The automatic, state-wide re-count by machine, mandated by a close election that you mentioned. I hadn't heard about this either. 4. The county's Sunday-announced 2nd hand count, mentioned on the CNN web site. Did you hear about this? If they just finished a hand count on Saturday, as you suggest, why did they decide ON SUNDAY to re-do what they had just completed? This is getting exponentially wackier by the fricken hour! Respectfully, Jim L'Hommedieu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:27:59 -0500 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: RE: (NJC) maybe I'll go to Amsterdam. maybe I'll go to Rome... You said, > What I remember, though, is > that he insinuated that Joni's ass felt great in > another, er um, respect (poor choice of word, > actually). OH!! So THAT'S WHY HE GOT IN TROUBLE!! Yikes! I never understood that I guess..... I've never been curious about uhm that style of sex so it sailed right by me. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:37:29 -0800 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Hand counts (NJC) Jim, I won't answer for Deb here, but it is a bit blurred to me, too. What I understand but am not clear on is: 1. There has been a complete recount by machine of all ballots in the state 2. There has been a partial recount by hand of ballots in certain counties. 3. Now some officials are calling for a second recount by hand of all the ballots. (? - not clear on this) From what I've read (but am not positive is the fact) is that they want to -re-recount by hand ballots which were rejected by the machines because the holes were not punched all the way through (?) and they want to visibly inspect the partial punches in an attempt to "divine the intent of the voter." What personally bothers me about this is that if they are looking for evidence of the so-called "hanging chad" it seems to me that anything "hanging" off the punch hole would have fallen off to reveal its proper selection when it went through the machine in the first recount.. I am concerned that these ballots are being handled and rehandled and rehandled. I agree with James Baker (so shoot me) that this situation is presenting more and more of an opportunity for "mischief" all the time. I also just read on MSNBC online that there were also 22,000 ballots double-punched in Jacksonville and that was with a different ballot design. Hmmmmm. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:35:01 -0000 From: "Garret" Subject: a non joni fans reactions to joni tunes Taking a step out from politics here. wehn in the states this summer i met a guy named Jim that seemed to love music, but was totally Joni-ignorant. against my own wishes he got me to record two cds worth of Joni tracks (i know, not very ethical). twenty eight or twenty nine songs in total, not taken from Jonis entire catalogue i must admit, but limited to the albums i had taken with me to the states. were i to make these choices again i would make a very different selection. the first set of my choices were more or less like the Hits package. kind of trying to show variety within Joni's career, choosing some of her most easily likeable songs (or so i thought). well, Jim finally sent me his dissection, and scored the songs out of ten from teh first cd. i have copied his email below. just remember that he had never heard any Joni before. i'll be sending him my official e-mail of rebuttal/agreement shortly. let me see what ye all think of his opinions: "Ok here I am finally recording my thoughts on Ms. Mitchell. Big Yellow Taxi- I'm not so sure on this one. On the one hand, it's jaunty and fun. On the other hand, I can't stand the end when she giggles. (Not a huge complaint, I know.) Score 5. Chelsea Morning- I like this one. Jaunty as above. Nice guitar work. Folky sounding. Score 9. Both Sides Now- I think you know how much I like this. It almost doesn't matter who has covered it, whether Judy Collins, Maire Brennan or even Leonard Nimoy. I like the guitars in this. I like the way she sings it too. I must say that I enjoy Judy's version a bit more and speeded up since that is what I grew up on. Score 10. Carey- I'd have to say it was a disadvantage that I was able to listen to Cyndi's version. I grew much more attached to that one. I enjoy the song quite a bit but I like it slowed down. That percussion in the background makes it sound like one of Vince Guaraldi's scores for the Peanuts cartoons. I think it carries much more emotional weight that way. Score 7. Cyndi's 10. River- Love this one. Probably due to Travis. I like this version best though. It carries a lot of emotion. Kind of a plaintive tone to it. I absolutely am a sucker for piano such as this. It makes me melt. Score 10. California- Listening to this with headphones on you can hear the guitar picking at different times thru each ear. Very nice track. Nice slide guitar. Score 8. Real Good For Free (from MOA)- Don't care much for this as a live track with her giggling. But it is beautiful as a solo piano piece. Is it that way in studio form? Score 8. You Turn Me On I'm A Radio- I like this one. I don't think I can make any complaint on this. Score 9. Harry's House/ Centerpiece- This first part I like. It reminds me of James Taylor. I can't say why, really. I don't like the second part. It's too jazz/swingy. It is totally incongruous to the earlier part. Score Harry 10- Centerpiece 5. Hejira- The opening part of this is terrific. Very moody. Very low key as well. Score 9. Why Do Fools Fall In Love- Forgive me this attack. It is utter shite. She should steer well clear of doo-wopp. It doesn't suit her style, sensibility, or voice. Score -10. Free Man In Paris (S & L)- This is ok. Doesn't do anything special for me. Might be better studio. Score 5. The Dry Cleaner From Des Moines (S & L)- Same as above. Score 5. Chinese Café/Unchained Melody- I like this one. I think most of the appeal lay behind the UM undertones. It has always been a favorite tune for me. (Except oddly enough, the Righteous Brothers version. I love U2's.) This is a very relaxing tune. Score 10. The Reoccurring Dream- This reminds me of Laurie Anderson. And I don't think fondly of her. It smacks of experimental late 70's. Score 3. Turbulent Indigo- I like the guitar. Sounds a little funky. Nice with the minimal sax. Again, very moody piece. Score 9. The Magdalene Laundries- Very nice opening with synth and whatever. (I'm no musician.) It's very atmospheric. Score 10. The Sire Of Sorrow-I like this piece as well. I think I tend towards her more introspective or quiet pieces. Score 9. Sometimes I'm Happy- Jazzy. Big band. But you knew that. Nevertheless, I like it. Score 9. All of the reviews were made while listening to the song on headphones. Please feel free to debate the merits of any particular track. It may be January before I get to disc 2 but who knows." so, what do ye think?? GARRET np- Oasis- Whatever ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:46:57 -0500 From: "Deb Messling" Subject: RE: a non joni fans reactions to joni tunes I think your friend has a good ear, and is fairly adventurous in his tastes, since he gives high marks to songs throughout Joni's career. I'm not advising you to violate copyright, since "it would be wrong," (to quote Richard Nixon), but wouldn't it be interesting if your friend got a chance to hear some of the LESS "easily likeable" stuff? I bet he could handle it! > Chelsea Morning- I like this one. Jaunty as above. Nice guitar work. > Folky sounding. Score 9. > > Both Sides Now- I think you know how much I like this. It almost doesn't > matter who has covered it, whether Judy Collins, Maire Brennan or even > Leonard Nimoy. I like the guitars in this. I like the way she sings it > too. I must say that I enjoy Judy's version a bit more and > speeded up since > that is what I grew up on. Score 10. > Carey- I'd have to say it was a disadvantage that I was able to listen to > Cyndi's version. I grew much more attached to that one. I enjoy the song > quite a bit but I like it slowed down. That percussion in the background > makes it sound like one of Vince Guaraldi's scores for the > Peanuts cartoons. > I think it carries much more emotional weight that way. Score 7. Cyndi's > 10. > > River- Love this one. Probably due to Travis. I like this version best > though. It carries a lot of emotion. Kind of a plaintive tone to it. I > absolutely am a sucker for piano such as this. It makes me melt. > Score 10. > > California- Listening to this with headphones on you can hear the guitar > picking at different times thru each ear. Very nice track. Nice slide > guitar. Score 8. > > Real Good For Free (from MOA)- Don't care much for this as a live track > with her giggling. But it is beautiful as a solo piano piece. Is it that > way in studio form? Score 8. > > You Turn Me On I'm A Radio- I like this one. I don't think I can make any > complaint on this. Score 9. > > Harry's House/ Centerpiece- This first part I like. It reminds > me of James > Taylor. I can't say why, really. I don't like the second part. It's too > jazz/swingy. It is totally incongruous to the earlier part. Score Harry > 10- Centerpiece 5. > > Hejira- The opening part of this is terrific. Very moody. Very > low key as > well. Score 9. > > Why Do Fools Fall In Love- Forgive me this attack. It is utter > shite. She > should steer well clear of doo-wopp. It doesn't suit her style, > sensibility, or voice. Score -10. > > Free Man In Paris (S & L)- This is ok. Doesn't do anything > special for me. > Might be better studio. Score 5. > > The Dry Cleaner From Des Moines (S & L)- Same as above. Score 5. > Chinese Café/Unchained Melody- I like this one. I think most of > the appeal > lay behind the UM undertones. It has always been a favorite tune for me. > (Except oddly enough, the Righteous Brothers version. I love U2's.) This > is a very relaxing tune. Score 10. > The Reoccurring Dream- This reminds me of Laurie Anderson. And I don't > think fondly of her. It smacks of experimental late 70's. Score 3. > Turbulent Indigo- I like the guitar. Sounds a little funky. > Nice with the > minimal sax. Again, very moody piece. Score 9. > The Magdalene Laundries- Very nice opening with synth and > whatever. (I'm no > musician.) It's very atmospheric. Score 10. > > The Sire Of Sorrow-I like this piece as well. I think I tend towards her > more introspective or quiet pieces. Score 9. > > Sometimes I'm Happy- Jazzy. Big band. But you knew that. > Nevertheless, I > like it. Score 9. Deb Messling "I like cats. They give the home a heartbeat." ~Joni Mitchell ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:45:10 GMT From: "Phil Klein" Subject: A Joni moment....... Not sure if anyone's mentioned this already, but spotted a Joni reference on reading Ben Elton's "Inconceivable". Towards the end, the guy in the novel's wife leaves him, and he decides to write a novel called "You Don't Know What You've Got Till It's Gone". Can recommend book, for those who don't know it, its a comedy about infertility and IVF and all that. Quite a sensitive treatment, with some poignant moments, and also plenty of good knob gags. Phil _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:51:30 -0500 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: RE: Hand counts (NJC), LONG! What scares the bejezus out of me is that these recounts are being lurched into action by an extraordinarily small number of people (only 3 in Palm Beach County) and they ALSO can interpret the punches. There are no checks on these people's motives, even if both sides watch them do the inspection. I keep hearing that they (the voting commission) are concerned about "19,000 double-punched ballots", as if no one has ever heard of statistics! Is 19,000 a statistially significant number? Is it a _statistically significant_ difference from the double-punch outcomes in other counties? Using other ballots? In previous elections in the same county? Apparently no one is doing the math! At least we know for sure that no one is REPORTING the math. Not that I'm hearing. If it's not different statistically from previous elections in that county, and in previous elections, when they simply discarded the double-punches, is it okay to change the process now? It sounds to me, and I've been keeping up as I said, that THESE THREE PEOPLE DECIDED ON THEIR OWN that 19,000 was too much. Then they decided ON THEIR OWN what to do about it- recount. Next, THESE SAME THREE PEOPLE decide amongst themselves what a pregnant chad looks like. Next, THESE SAME THREE PEOPLE decide whether a pregnant chad is present. Finally, THESE SAME THREE PEOPLE decide upon an INTERPRETATION of that pregnant chad. Whew! Where are the checks and balances? (I'm not making this up. Last week, on npr, I heard one of the officials describe the process exactly that way. She said that the three of them decided, that is legally defined for the rest of us, what a chad looks like, then proceeded to examine the ballots based on their own definition, and attached an interpretation of the voter's intent. Don't they have LAWS guiding hand counts??) What if there's a ballot that the machines THOUGHT was blank but has an indentation, without any confusion or double-punch, for Bush? Does he get the vote? Will the democratic panel look as closely at blank ballots as they look at double-punched ones? If a ballot is double-punched, yet there is a pencil mark circling one of the two candidates's names, I guess these three people might decide to give it to that candidate. In my opinion, it's STILL an invalid ballot, but I'll abide by the process. Again, we have been throwing out double-punched ballots for a long time. And for good reason- the voter's intent is impossible to glean. It is only clear that they didn't work the process in a valid way. I just hope that there's significant review of this hand count so that we can all feel comfortable with their tallies. (Maybe we will never be 'comfortable' with the results of this process. ) For a while it looked like we were going to have a small number of lawsuits and I was cool with that. But today it seems like it's going to be a big ole protracted mess. BTW, when the word "lawsuit" came up at work, one of my co-workers, a baggage handler for an airline, said, "See, that's what's wrong with this country! I mean, why should someone get RICH because the voting is screwed up?" I calmly began to explain that the remedy being sought in this case would not be money, but a re-count. I was completely drown out and ignored. It's kinda scary sometimes when you realize that everyone gets to vote. And they all count the same......... Cool hand Lama is becoming agitated. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:59:01 -0800 From: Don Sloan Subject: re IMHO NJC Vince... Thanks for taking the time to outline the evolution of the various political parties. Looks pretty right on the money to me. you wrote: <> My oft-referred to copy of the Constitution is lying on my bedstand, right next to a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. you wrote in part: <> I'll second that. Don ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 02:26:58 -0500 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: "Punchcards 101- For Non-Majors" was Re: Hand Counts- NJC A little background on punchcards. Punchcards were around before electronic computers. A guy named Hollerith (a Brit if I recall) invented them for what later became the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). It was created because a client, the US Census Bureau, was taking longer and longer to process info as the population grew. The Gov't projected that soon the info would not be tabulated by the time the NEXT census occurred! So this guy Hollerith invented a piece of cardstock, with holes in it, that could be stacked up with other cards and read, one at a time, hundreds in a stack, by attempting to press a polished steel rod through it. If the rod went through, it was a "Yes" or "One". If it didn't, it was a "No" or "Zero". Mechanical counters, using clockworks technology, kept score. If a card was bent, it sometimes failed to go through the tracks correctly. If someone had "spindled" it, the card reader would mis-interpret the spindle hole as data. (In the old days, they stored pieces of paper by jamming them onto steel spindles. And yes, Virginia, lots of people stabbed themselves instead of the cardstock.) It is because of these limitations of the technology that punchcards must never be "punched, bent, folded, spindled, or mutilated." Anyway, if I recall, around the time that the first electronic computers came out (using vacuum tubes don't cha know) they switched from steel rods to light beams. Just as the present day hand-counters hold a ballot up to a light to see if there's a hole there for "Buchanan", that's _exactly_ how a 60s vintage optical card reader works. A pulse of light sends a "yes" to the counter. What a card reader doesn't see is a 'circled' ballot instead of a punched one. And if someone weakly makes an indentation (without puncture), naturally the card reader can't 'see' that. If a card is punched but the "chip" doesn't fall off the card, it can hang on by a corner or an edge, becoming a "chad". If the chad falls over the hole during the reading process, no light gets through, so it misses the vote. It's possible that an early count didn't see a hole (because of a chad) but during all of this handling this week, the chads are falling off. Of course, it's also possible that cards are picking up extra holes either by accident or by a felony fraud. An unmarked ballot? Oops! No more! It just became a valid vote! A valid vote? Oops! No more! It just became a double-punch! So the technology has some limitations but it is other-worldly in its impartiality. I guess the primary limitation is that stupid, reckless, senile, ill-informed, illiterate, or just plain hurried voters simply "do not compute". Jim This edition of Ask Doctor Science has been brought to you by the letter "V" and the number "1". ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:30:31 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: RE: Why did the chicken cross the road?NJC colin!!!!!!!!! where did you get this??? it's so funny! for the record, we've been having torrential rains too, but the clouds were coming from the south. i suspect there's a secret enclave of republicans in patagonia! wallyK ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 02:36:01 -0500 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: RE: Hand counts (NJC), LONG! Obviously, my proofreading is not up to my normal, already low, standards. :) Sorry Michael Y.. Take pity on me. I've used my entire weekend keeping up with the returns of an election in which I did not vote! I said: > If it's not different statistically from previous elections in that county, > and in previous elections, when they simply discarded the double-punches, > is it okay to change the process now? Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:43:32 -0800 From: Don Sloan Subject: Re: Joni and politics NJC Paul I wrote: <> i don't understand. <> True. But I believe just about *everyone* wants to at least protect what they have and most want to add to it... whether they be rich, poor or in the middle somewhere. However I don't believe it is right to employ force to take from some and arbitrarily give to others and/or use force to keep people from getting more (whatever the "more" may be for them). <> I won't argue with you here, but I will respectfully disagree. I know a couple of libertarian blacks and you should hear them rant about "their people" being "enslaved" by many of the policies of the Left over the last 30 or more years (since The Great Society of the Johnson era). <> I am not familiar with the experiment you refer to... can you direct me to a place where I can check it out? I guess in the end, I am just an old 60s hippy who still believes in "peace, love and do your own thing"... as long as you aren't interfering with someone else doing *their* thing. Although libertarianism may not be perfect, IMO all people would be better off if we leaned more in that direction. Democrats and Republicans... and Greens, the left and the right, believe in and employ the use of force... with the threat of imprisonment or even death... to make people obey their will. Sure, it's *cleaner* and less personal if you use the government as your agent of force simply because you are among the majority, but each *side* is willing to use that force when they cannot convince others to cooperate with them of their own free will. I believe using force except in self defense is evil and that is why I hold a libertarian philosophy. Regards... Don ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:30:24 -0600 From: Richard Rice Subject: Look out the left the captain said. Joni Fans lean to the left...? Really? Well, it will be hard for me to make any serious commentary about that since... just about anything I would say is self-agrandizement. (fun living on the left being certain I'm right.) Joni's appeal is that she is very introspective and reflective, which may appeal across a broad spectrum of political views, but will most appeal to those who have endured a good deal of introspection and reflection in their own lives. People who have found themselves 'on the outside' are more likely to reflect on their position. The 'outside' can be of many human experiences, being outside of a positive love relationship, or outside the power brokering of Washington politics. Perhaps a larger portion of the right never felt the need to question as much. Also, musically, she has stepped across wide boundaries of culture and divides. --Not the sort of thing most conservatives I've met hold in the highest regard. And for all her fluff about women's lib, she is the model of the type of woman they aspire to. Lots of reasons with this girl for libs to glam on to her. Not to mention having written an anthem to the hippie movement... As for rhetoric of the right being 'evil.' I respect conservative politics and in many ways my own views are very conservative. (I would hire out to pull switches at Federal Pens, for example...) My good buddy Mark (who bears an uncanny resemblence to Bob Muller btw...!) is a die-hard conservative. We never see anything the same way but we both respect the other's position. Great guy, great stance in life. But there is a great deal of what is going on with the Republican party and it's leaders that is VERY evil to me. When people pass legislation to limit rights, constrain benefits, deny constitution protections and access to goverment processes, and to do these things WILLFULLY, well... to me that is evil in its purest form. They do harm to the quality and well being of other people's lives. As an example, the lack of effort and the intense homophobic bias shown by the Reagan and Bush adminitrations during the AIDS crisis is nothing short of evil. People suffered needlessly and died because of their bias. The 'company' Al Gore has kept for the last 8 years pales in comparison to the company Bush embraces. His politcal friends have nothing but the lowest contempt for the value and lives of gay people. I'd rather vote for neither, but given the choice of putting my rights, my benefits, my representation in government in the hands of someone I can't trust (Clinton/Gore) or putting my rights in the hands of someone I can absolutely trust WILL NEVER RESPECT THEM, well... the choice is easy. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:47:04 -0800 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Hand counts (NJC) "Hand job" would probably be a more appropriate title at this point or maybe "RIP USA July 4, 1776 - November 7, 2000" Aw, get over it, Jim, they know what's best for us and will proceed and we will agree in time, right? Meanwhile the U.S. stock market is plunging and foreign interests are starting to pull their money out because of this. "They open and close you, then they talk like they know you, they don't know you, they're friends and they're foes, too." JM Kakki, nonetheless getting great ideas for the screenplay I'll write when I move to New Zealand "no one gets out of here alive" - the other JM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:14:30 -0500 From: "Deb Messling" Subject: RE: Hand counts (NJC) Kakki asked for clarification: > 3. Now some officials are calling for a second recount by hand of all the > ballots. (? - not clear on this) The "partial recount" was in effect a sampling, done in Palm Beach County. Based on this sampling of 1% of the ballots, it was determined that a full recount was justified. It is not the second hand recount in Palm Beach County, it is the first *full* hand recount. There are also plans for hand recounts in Dade, Broward and Volusia. To review, hand recounts are provided for in Florida law. The Bush campaign is attempting to make new law by challenging this long-established procedure. Ironically, George W. himself signed legislation providing for hand recounts in Texas. But suddenly he decides hand recounts are a bad idea? As for "mischief," I don't see a big potential for mischief in this instance. The world is watching, for god's sake. There was a bigger potential for mischief on November 7th, when some political operatives might have thought the world *wasn't* watching. Deb Messling "I like cats. They give the home a heartbeat." ~Joni Mitchell ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:15:21 EST From: IVPAUL42@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni and politics NJC In a message dated 11/12/00 7:35:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, donbvs@lightspeed.net writes: << Paul I wrote: <> i don't understand.>> Poorly worded. What I mean is they are selfish but don't think they are. <> True. But I believe just about *everyone* wants to at least protect what they have and most want to add to it... whether they be rich, poor or in the middle somewhere. However I don't believe it is right to employ force to take from some and arbitrarily give to others and/or use force to keep people from getting more (whatever the "more" may be for them).>>> I'm not sure I agree with that. Whatever happened to altruism? <> I am not familiar with the experiment you refer to... can you direct me to a place where I can check it out?>> It is well-documented in Sociology textbooks. My books are still boxed up, so I cannot pull it out, but you shouldn't have any problem finding something about it in a library. In a capsule, some groups of English farmers formed a common area where their herds could graze, thinking it was a better land-use plan. But because it was a common area with no individual responsible for it, each farmer allowed his herd to overgraze the area, trying to get as much for himself out of the deal as he could. In the end, the overgrazing made the commons useless to anyone for a while until it could recover. <> Libertarianism, like Marxism, is a utopian philosophy that, frankly, will never work on this planet. The problem with Libertarianism, for the most part, is that many men and women and most corporations do not care enough about you and me to be responsible for themselves. Libertarianism does not recognize the fact that some people are basically evil and out to take whatever they can get. Having covered more than enough murder trials as a journalist, I can assure you there are some people for whom the death penalty is not severe enough, but it is the best we can do as a society to protect ourselves. Furthermore, the environmental damage that such people and corporations can cause is often long-term and sometimes irreversible. What would the Libertarians have done with Saddam Hussein after he invaded, raped and pillaged Kuwait? And then tried to destroy the oil fields once it became apparent he would not be allowed to keep them? There is a need for a government that can regulate and intercede BEFORE the damage, rather than a lassez-faire approach that is only willing to punish people AFTER the damage is done. Sorry, but I regard Libertarians as foggy-thinking fools who do not live in the real world. Respectfully but candidly, Paul I ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:35:30 -0500 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Re: IMHO NJC Kakki wrote: > Vince wrote: > > > 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. Kakki responds: > > > I'm not sure I follow this, though. He's not president yet and not acting > as an official of the U.S. to block state's rights. He is acting as an > individual who has a direct and personal interest in the way the process of > recounting (and re-recounting) ballots is taking place in Florida. Every > individual in this country has a right to appeal to a court of law if they > think they believe their rights are being violated. By the way, he is not > filing for injunction to stop the recount but rather to stop the second > recount by hand of certain ballots. Big difference. > Good question, good friend, but I disagree and here is why: Bush is acting as an individual who wants a federal court to rule in an area where it has never ruled before, and that is the federal intrusion in a state matter. Doesn't matter how he gets it to the court, should the rule in his favor then he has caused a new intrusion and a violation of tghe strict construction that he claims to uphold. My guess is that he won't get it. And it makes no differtence what recount he asks for an injunction against, even though he signed into Texas law a bill that says that hand counting is the best way to recount (what a hypocrite but I digress). He is trying to stop counties from recounting their vote in accordance with Florida law, and absent a civil rights claim, that is opening the door to a massive federal instrusion of a state - and county - matter. When all of this is over, we all get littler certificates that we have all brushed up on our civics, which is always a nobel goal! Of course we have bored the hell of the nonUS citizens... (the Rev) Vince ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:26:41 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: re left leaning Joni-fansNJC Steve wrote: > 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 ))) Maybe you know this-a tailor will ask a man he is measuring for a suit which side he dresses on-meaning which side he puts his penis and testes. This is really so. They make the trousers a little fuller on the side he dresses. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:39:41 -0500 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Re: re IMHO NJC Don, you're a gem! I am delighted that your copy of the Constitution is next to the Bhagavad Gita. Anyone have it next to the Kama Sutra? And to paraphrase a joke from Woody Allen, there are worse things than death; spending an evening with a Libertarian would be one of them! (the Rev) Vince Don Sloan wrote: > Vince... > > Thanks for taking the time to outline the evolution of the various > political parties. Looks pretty right on the money to me. > > you wrote: > > <> > > My oft-referred to copy of the Constitution is lying on my bedstand, > right next to a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. > > you wrote in part: > > < issues as are the Democrats, and if you doubt me on that, spend time > with a Libertarian.>> > > I'll second that. > > Don ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:31:11 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: bjork NJC and happy birthday bjork!!!!!!!! wallyk - -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]En nombre de kerry Enviado el: Domingo, 12 de Noviembre de 2000 04:07 p.m. Para: Murphycopy@aol.com CC: joni@smoe.org Asunto: Conservative music NJC ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AND on a totally different note -- HAPPY BIRTHDAY NEIL YOUNG!!!! Kerry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:30:28 -0800 From: "Mark or Travis" Subject: Re: signing off (NJC) > 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!) Sounds like a wonderful adventure, Ange! All the best to you. You will be missed! Mark in Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:32:58 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: RE: signing off (NJC) bye bye angela!!!!! we'll miss you! have fun and be happy in thailand and everywhere else. love wallyK - -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]En nombre de Takats, Angela Enviado el: Domingo, 12 de Noviembre de 2000 04:02 p.m. Para: 'joni'; 'john'; 'penny' Asunto: 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. Sydney, soon to be Bangkok (AH!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:36:27 -0500 From: "Deb Messling" Subject: RE: Hand counts (NJC), LONG! Jim asked: > I keep hearing that they (the voting commission) are concerned > about "19,000 > double-punched ballots", as if no one has ever heard of statistics! Is > 19,000 a statistially significant number? Is it a _statistically > significant_ difference from the double-punch outcomes in other counties? > Using other ballots? In previous elections in the same county? > Apparently > no one is doing the math! At least we know for sure that no one is > REPORTING the math. Not that I'm hearing. For a point of comparison, let's look at the 1996 election. Apparently, there were 14,000 invalidated ballots in Palm Beach County that year. That includes over-voting (double-punch) and under-voting (no punch). Election officials state that under-voting is typically more prevalent than over-voting. So let's say that half the invalidated 1996 ballots were over-voted. That means we jumped from 7,000 double-punched ballots in 1996 to 19,000 in 2000. Sound significant. What are my sources for these numbers? Hell, I don't know. Just stuff I've seen on CNN or MSBNC or the New York Times or whatever. > It sounds to me, and I've been keeping up as I said, that THESE > THREE PEOPLE > DECIDED ON THEIR OWN that 19,000 was too much. Then they decided ON THEIR > OWN what to do about it- recount. No, they did a partial hand-recount at the request of the Gore campaign, as provided for in Florida law. It wasn't arbitrary. My final take is that all the recounts of these crappy Palm Beach ballots will never undo the injustice of the ballot design itself. Putting Pat Buchanan second on the ballot, when the law states and every experienced voter expects that the two major parties will be first, is a fatal flaw that justifies a re-vote. I'm not saying a re-vote would be prudent, I'm saying it would be justified. Deb Messling "I like cats. They give the home a heartbeat." ~Joni Mitchell ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:36:08 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: A Joni moment....... > novel called "You Don't Know What > You've Got Till It's Gone". This line is also being used on the BBC right now to advertise David Attenborough's new series on the state of the planet. bw colin ps glad to see you are still with us ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:50:14 -0500 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Not Joni and politics anymore NJC From the Best of Don Sloan album, last tract, Don wrote: > I guess in the end, I am just an old 60s hippy who still believes in > "peace, love and do your own thing"... as long as you aren't interfering > with someone else doing *their* thing. Although libertarianism may not > be perfect, IMO all people would be better off if we leaned more in that > direction. Democrats and Republicans... and Greens, the left and the > right, believe in and employ the use of force... with the threat of > imprisonment or even death... to make people obey their will. Sure, it's > *cleaner* and less personal if you use the government as your agent of > force simply because you are among the majority, but each *side* is > willing to use that force when they cannot convince others to cooperate > with them of their own free will. I believe using force except in self > defense is evil and that is why I hold a libertarian philosophy. > I differ with the Libertarians on many things but it would be an extraordinarily healthy thing for the two major parties to actually dialogue with the Liberterians as they have raised some issues that need toi be raised, and I respect that a great deal. No one party has all truth, to say the least, and when a new political movement arises (this one around 20 to 24 years now I think) it is because they have new insights that the rest of us are missing. At the last candidate forum I attended, my faithful Libertarian cohort spoke out against the drug war, as usual, and said we should legalise the street drugs. (Calm down, everyone...) Then a high school girl asked if you legalise street drugs (to end the drug war, people have a right to consume what they want), what about perscriprion drugs? Why keep that under regulation and let other drugs be legal? An interesting question. Percodan for everyone! Demoral for the masses! Birth control pills and the new morning after drug for all who want it! And there we have the problem of how libertarian we really want to be. But still, we all benefit by dialoguing with others. (the Rev) Vince ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:39:05 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: left leaning males NJC this is true! one of my late uncles was a tailor and he told me taught me this fact of his profession when i was a child. even at that early age, i found the prospect of becoming a tailor filled with promise. wallyK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from colin: Maybe you know this-a tailor will ask a man he is measuring for a suit which side he dresses on-meaning which side he puts his penis and testes. This is really so. They make the trousers a little fuller on the side he dresses. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:42:26 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: Look out the left the captain said.NJC > (I would > hire out to pull switches at Federal Pens, for example...) If i understood this correctly, this would make you no more moral than the person you pull the switch on, and in my mind worse because 1. the elctric chair is barbaric and has no place in a so called civilised country 2. It is calculated and cold and cowardly. I find it so hard to understand why someone would gladly offer such a vile thing up as something to feel proud of. (if you didn't mean what i took you to mean, then what i wrote still stands but doesn't apply to you.) bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:27:44 -0800 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Hand counts (NJC) > The "partial recount" was in effect a sampling, done in Palm >Beach County. Based on this sampling of 1% of the ballots, >it was determined that a full recount was justified. It is not >the second hand recount in Palm Beach County, it is the >first *full* hand recount. I knew it wasn't a second hand recount. I think I said, or at least meant, it was a second recount (after the first machine recount) by hand. > To review, hand recounts are provided for in Florida law. Yes, but I thought the lawyers in Florida were saying the statute provides for a hand recount in the case of the machine not working. There is some legal dispute about having a hand recount for other reasons. > The Bush campaign is attempting to make new law by challenging this long-established procedure. Not at all, at most they are trying to get an interpretation of the current law and a ruling on the legality or illegality of the way this is being handled. > Ironically, George W. himself signed legislation providing >for> hand recounts in Texas. But suddenly he decides hand >recounts are a bad idea? He had no individual choice whether to sign it - it was Omnibus legislation. The hand recounts in Texas are also provided for in the event of machine problems, not, I believe for second review interpretative purposes. > As for "mischief," I don't see a big potential for mischief in >this instance. The world is watching, for god's sake. There >was a bigger potential for mischief on November 7th, when some political operatives might have thought the world *wasn't* watching. Matter of opinion. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:45:15 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: Hand counts (NJC) Listening tot he news about Bush's suit, it makes one wonder what he is afraid of. Is he worried that a correct counting will mean he has lost? Surely it would be better for him to know he had really won rather than have all this doubt? bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:47:18 +0000 From: catman Subject: Re: left leaning males NJC Wally K you really are "£$%%$$£" !!!! luv colin Wally Kairuz wrote: > this is true! one of my late uncles was a tailor and he told me taught me > this fact of his profession when i was a child. even at that early age, i > found the prospect of becoming a tailor filled with promise. > wallyK > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > from colin: > > Maybe you know this-a tailor will ask a man he is measuring for a suit which > side he > dresses on-meaning which side he puts his penis and testes. This is really > so. They make > the trousers a little fuller on the side he dresses. - -- bw colin colin@tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2000 #599 ***************************** ------- 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?