From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2001 #14 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk 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 Thursday, January 11 2001 Volume 2001 : Number 014 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. ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: joni in poetrymagazine.com ["Paul Pennington" ] Re: Another one for the list (NJC) [Scott Price ] Re: Another one for the list (NJC) [jan gyn ] Re: political sniping content NJC (md) [Randy Remote ] Lori's Long Rant NJC [catman ] Re: Hound Dog Taylor NJC [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: Another one for the list (NJC) [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: joni in poetrymagazine.com ["Mark or Travis" ] To Whom It May Concern [Michael Paz ] NJC things [Vince Lavieri ] Portland JMDL group gathering? [Vince Lavieri ] my chavez wrap-up NJC [Yael Harlap ] responses to the lovely Mr. P (NJC) [Yael Harlap ] Joni on PBS. [Richard Rice ] Re: NJC things [Randy Remote ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:49:04 -0500 From: "Paul Pennington" Subject: Re: joni in poetrymagazine.com Bob wrote: > Question: To what is Joni referring when she repeats "the ghostly garden grows"? Y'all are entitled to your opinions, but I think you're getting pretty far afield here. I always thought the song (Nathan La Franeer) was about a taxi ride in New York City. She makes other, more obvious, metaphors for the city (we crawled the canyons slowly), but I think "the ghostly garden" refers to the city as well. The whole line is: "With gangs and girly shows The ghostly garden grows" And also: "With parks and plastic clothes The ghostly garden grows" With some poetic license, the city might be considered a garden, with buildings growing out of the ground, and might become "ghostly" on a dark, foggy day. Paul Pennington Augusta, Georgia ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:52:16 -0800 From: Scott Price Subject: Re: Another one for the list (NJC) At 03:23 PM 1/10/01 -0800, Kakki wrote: >How about any Fleetwood Mac? Uh oh, John McVie has recently come out as a >"staunch Republican," too. Oh my, say it ain't so!...Fleetwood Mac?? I already had to get rid o' all my Steely Dan, Linda Ronstadt, and Doobie Brothers albums 'cuz Jeff "Skunk" Baxter went Republican too! Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:57:52 -0800 From: jan gyn Subject: Re: Another one for the list (NJC) At 03:52 PM 1/10/01 -0800, Scott Price wrote: >At 03:23 PM 1/10/01 -0800, Kakki wrote: >>How about any Fleetwood Mac? Uh oh, John McVie has recently come out as a >>"staunch Republican," too. >Oh my, say it ain't so!...Fleetwood Mac?? I already had to get rid o' all >my Steely Dan, Linda Ronstadt, and Doobie Brothers albums 'cuz Jeff "Skunk" >Baxter went Republican too! >Scott I've always hated all that stuff. Except for Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Hendrix and a few others, the only good 'Classic Rock' came from England. - -jan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:10:59 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: political sniping content NJC (md) MDESTE1@aol.com wrote: > The destruction of Linda Chavez for what she did for that woman and in fact > many others is perhaps the most disgusting thing I have ever seen You're kidding, right? I happened to be watching the tube when they broke in to cover Chavez' press conference, which was very interesting. After making it clear what a wonderful person she is, and how she is a victim of character assassination, she brought up about six Hispanics, one a child, to tell the world how wonderful Ms. Chavez is and how she changed their lives. Fine and good. And immaterial to the question, which one of the reporters asked: Did you know Mercado was an illegal while you employed her? Yes, she said, I've known for ten years. She admitted on television that she had broken the law yet failed to see why she was being challenged for one of the highest gov. jobs in the land. To those who are wringing their hands over the wolf pack: How many milliions were wasted on the Ken Starr debacle? I can understand professional politicians bickering over all this stuff-they are fighting for power. When WE argue about it we are just arguing over which flavor of fascists we want to lord over us. Did Clinton commit criminal acts? Yes, absolutely. Did George Bush Sr? Yes, absolutely. Did Reagan? Aplenty. They are all criminals and shills for the folks who really run things; the moneyed interests. When you start looking at foreign and domestic policy in terms of how it benifits the multinational corporations who tell our leaders what to do, you see it in a whole different light. Check out "What Uncle Sam Really Wants" by Noam Chomsky for a vividly clear analysis of all that. As to Kakki's [good] question about whether we should feel just as squeamish about Gore's born-again Baptist orientation (or Leiberman, who can't seem to produce a sentence that doesn't refer to God) as we are about George W's deep ties to the religious right, the answer is yes. RR ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:14:48 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: Another one for the list (NJC) Kakki wrote: > How about any Fleetwood Mac? Uh oh, John McVie has recently come out as a > "staunch Republican," too. > I guess once you get into a certain tax bracket..... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:39:21 +0000 From: catman Subject: Lori's Long Rant NJC Lori-I don't know the people you are talking about. I know enough to know that there are good and bad apples on both sides. Don't trust anyone who thinks all the bad apples are on one side-they are immature and can't be trusted. However, I would like to comment on the bs about your society and ours being one of equal opportunity - that anyone get get a good education and a good salary and live well. That is BULLSHIT. and a lie people tell themselves to assauge their guilt because they know their blaming of the poor for being poor is wrong. Even if we got rid of the bigotry(fat chance as it is embedded in the religious beliefs of many) that prevents women, people of colour, homesexual mean and women, the disabled,we still would not be an equal opportunites society. Why? Because people are not born with equal abilities. Some people are born with learning difficulties, some with lower iq's, some are disabled, some are born into severely dysfunctional families. If these familes are aslo poor, the offsrping will not have access to the help they will need in order to function properly and in most cases will be left behind in the low paid jobs, if they can work at all. The plain fact is that the poor NEED to exist in order for the well off to be well off! You cannot have rich without poor. The belief that our societies offer equal opportunites is dishonest and self serving. If we did not have the people willing to do the jobs the well off consider beneath them, society would be up shit creek, literally. Who would take care of the sewers? The rubbish we amass? Who would lay and clean the roads and pavements(sidewalks), who would risk their lives building? All these jobs are VITAL for our existence as we know. Yet the job of say an advertisment person, is considered of more worth!!!!!!!! Teachers and nurses, are also absolutely vital to us yet they too are low paid. I agree with you-society as we know will burn out and probably violently. The have nots vastly outnumber the haves. Only a fool will ignore that little fact. For society to work for everyone, we have to get our selves out of fantasy land and work in a way that favours everyone, the strong, the weak, the healthy, the ill, the able and not so able. Anything else is just bullshit. Most of what I have read and hear from the 'pull your socks up' brigade is nothing more than a blame the victim stance, a compassionless 'i'm alright jack' attitude from selfish, greedy, arrogant people who instead fo pouring scorn and spite on those less well off thena they, should try a little gratitude for their good fortune and luck. And that DOES apply to those who feel they earned it by working themselves thru school into their good well apid careers. The should thank God that they had the abiltiy to do it! But instead they puff themselves up into something they think we should admire and spit on those with less luck and ability than they have. Gratitude goes a long way to creating happiness and a compassionate understanding of others. Do people really think they are well off because they are worth more? How pathetic. How sad. What self deciet. What arrogance. Well, Lori what started out as my note of agreement to your rant ended in one of my own.!!!! BTW, I was playing an association game the other day. America-Xtian, Guns, Death Row. - -- bw colin colin@tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:37:43 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Hound Dog Taylor NJC << I wonder if someone can help me wih some information. >> Hi John, I can't help you specifically with the information but I did see that Alligator Records (who Hound Dog recorded for) has a website at www.alligator.com. They have message boards, I'm sure somebody there can help as Hound Dog was THE cornerstone of Alligator. According to the liner notes in the Alligator Anniversary CD, Bruce Iglauer, the founder of Alligator, was passing by where Hound Dog and his band was playing, Bruce stopped, went in, and was so blown away that he signed the band on the spot, and started the label with Hound Dog Taylor's release as his very first record. Good luck with the search, bro! Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:59:41 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Another one for the list (NJC) << Oh my, say it ain't so!...Fleetwood Mac?? I already had to get rid o' all my Steely Dan, Linda Ronstadt, and Doobie Brothers albums 'cuz Jeff "Skunk" Baxter went Republican too! >> Y'all are wacky...KEEP the music, throw out the POLITICIANS! :~) Bob, who thinks a Fagen-Becker ticket would be a surefire winner... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:04:09 -0800 From: "Mark or Travis" Subject: Re: joni in poetrymagazine.com > With some poetic license, the city might be considered a garden, with > buildings growing out of the ground, and might become "ghostly" on a dark, > foggy day. > Or at night. Or a smoggy day. She also mentions dirty trees & wishing wells as being party of the city (or ghostly garden). Also Nathan grumbles at the gray (ghostly gray?). Thank you, Paul! Always seemed obvious to me! Mark in Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:10:00 -0800 From: Michael Paz Subject: To Whom It May Concern Hello All (you too Jim)- I am here in the studio tonight making dubs for all the participants of JoniFest2000, to send off for approval to do the final mixes for mastering of the cd project pending. WoW there is some amazing stuff here. I'm trying hard. Love Paz NP-Last Night of the World-Bruce Cockburn/Kink Live 3 Flor de Cana and Lime Juice (Thanks Penny) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:21:30 -0500 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: NJC things A lot of people have said something supportive these past few days and it is truly appreciated more than I can say. My father has blood clots in his neck and will have surgery next Monday and Tuesday so I will be leaving for Chicago on Sunday afternoon. Not sure why surgery is scheduled for both days but that is what I have been told. Thanks again everyone for their good thoughts and words. I will be getting ready for staying in Chicago for an undetermined length of time so I will be getting really scarce here. It is hard to plan to be away from work for an undetermined length of time in a law office - no court hearings will be re-scheduled because I won't be at work to get the paperwork ready so I am trying to work several weeks in the next few days - So: a computer question: I am very partial to Macs, to Apple. I have the chance to re-do the entire office with a new computer system. (Our ten year old LCIIs are still holding up, but they are 10 years old; we certainly got our moeny's worth out of them!) So for Apple people in offices: do you suggest the iMac or the G4 or whatever they call it, and what specs? We will have two work stations, and I want these computers to last another ten years because it will be that long before I get to update again. Any advice will be appreciated (including on printer, scanner, etc, what do we need?)! a Beatles question: "I Want to Hold your Hand" was on the US Capitol release, "Meet the Beatles" which was not the same as any original British release. (Wasn't it not until "A Hard's Day Night" or even "Help" or after that that the US and British albums were the same?) But "I Want to Hold your Hand" is not on the cds of "With the Beatles" or "Please Please Me" or "Beatles for Sale" so which early Bristish album that is now on cd that I can buy is "I Want to Hold your Hand" on? and passing political thoughts, very brief (for me) so as not to bore anyone (more than I usually do) but since I won't be here for a while: Linda Chavez has always been IMHO a most intellectually dishonest columnist. There was never any consistent philosophy but always just a vitriolic anti Clinton and anti Democratic screed. I was shocked that she was nominated for a cabinet position -- but I was not surprised that she was so dishonest with the FBI and the Bush people in the pre-nomination interviews. I note that I have never seen a president or president-elect dump a nominee so quickly, far, far faster than Clinton ever distanced himself from someone - which had I thought was unusally fast in some cases. That would suggest that Bush can be a colder, steelier person than we imagined, or at least has a colder or steelier side, than we have seen. (That is neither good nor bad by the way; it is just an observation that we haven't seen that side of W Bush yet until now.) As far as Ashcroft goes: he made his entire Senate career based on opposing various Clinton nominees on the basis of ideology. That was his right. He was not concerned with competence but with ideology. Thus, Ashcroft cannot complain if he is opposed on the basis of ideology. As Ashcroft used Senatorial priviledge to block Clinton nominess on ideological grounds, so shall he be opposed. To argue for or against Ashcroft on any other grounds is hypocritical based on his own just completed Senatorial record. I suspect he may just possibly not be confirmed... and I don't know if Bush would be that unhappy if Ashcroft did so down, because he will have cemented his ties with the religious right of the GOP for having nominated Ashcroft anyway. So Bush wins with that wing of the GOP no matter how confirmation goes. And my good friend and true Joni-lover Kakki wrote: > I may be completely naive, but I just don't see how a handful of people can > successfully overturn long-standing laws such as abortion, on their > political whim. I just can't see them being able to do that and get away > with it under our current system > All it takes is a 5-4 vote. If O'Connor retires as planned - or Ginzburg, who has battled cancer, or Souter, or Breyer, who are both mortal, or Stevens, who will retire because of age - any one of those is the 5th vote on any number of issues, including Roe v Wade - or the presidential election. Because Roe v Wade is not a law, but a court decision, as are so many other things we take for granted... well, that is why we all fought so damned hard to win the last election, because 1 vote in the right place will be that 5th vote to confirm or over-rule many things. Anyone who lived through the Warren Court - whether one agrees with what they did or not - knows how quickly "long-standing" things (Plessay vs Ferguson [spelling error there], pre-Miranda times, pre "one-person one vote" rulings) can be changed by the Supreme Court. And the irony of a "handful of people" comment is not lost on any of us who saw a 5-4 decision elect Bush and not Gore. That is why both sides fought so hard. But I love you, Kakki. Too many people rave about your consummate graciousness which we have all experienced in the JMDL for anyone not to love you! I have said enough, and will be back when I can be and probably all unpolitical after that because these things will be fought over enough, and my best wishes to everyone. Thanks again to all who sent good words in which I found support; that is the esseence of the goodness of this community. (the Rev) Vince ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:30:29 -0500 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Portland JMDL group gathering? If this Portland gathering is held in Portland, Michigan, it would be only 45 minutes from me, and all the Michigan and Ohio people could come too! Just a thought... (the Rev) Vince ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:40:53 -0500 From: Yael Harlap Subject: my chavez wrap-up NJC Mary said... <> I completely agree! I was trying to express this in my original message but Lori and Mary said it way better than I did. I think it is sort of ridiculous that Chavez was hounded about this issue - so small, really - but I think that there were all sorts of other issues that made me question whether she would be fit in the position... And I was hoping those would come up. Now it seems like they won't have to. - -Yael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:49:42 -0500 From: Yael Harlap Subject: responses to the lovely Mr. P (NJC) Patrick said... > i know sometimes >some of us ...cough...mature folk don't fully recognize the unique >perspective that comes with youth. you should get to know yael from >michigan. she's very very up beat and postive and plays joni songs and >often speaks for the young perspective. Why Patrick thank you so muchly for the lovely compliment :-) I can't speak for all young people but as I gradually grow out of that category I try to stay an ally! As far as playing Joni songs goes - - - my guitar playing has recently been under attack by the grad school workload. And I signed up for 4-5 more years of this? Then Patrick also told us about his grandmother - which was a great real-life story - I love that! Here it is: (my comment first:) << For example, will Ashcroft, as attorney general, be committed to upholding the law that keeps people from bombing and hounding abortion clinics? Whether or not one is pro-choice or anti-choice, it is important to uphold the law... Just as an example. >> hey yael, this made me think of my very italian, very liberal democratic, and very catholic mother. she hates the look of george bush. she hates his face.[...] my main point is this. she would never condone the bombing of clinics and would not look the other way of laws that protect the lives of abortion supporters. to her, that would be ...sick. [...] so i would hope that mr. ashcroft is able to separate the issues and work to protect all humans from injury and if he thinks that's important for unborn humans i would hope he'll see that important for born humans who work in clinics. My response is two-fold: 1. I totally did not mean to imply that all pro-life people are evil and want to bomb clinics. I know many pro-lifers and I can sympathize with their positions though I am staunchly pro-choice. 2. But as far as Ashcroft is concerned... My point with the abortion thing was that it was simply an example. Here is another example - he lobbied (or sponsored?) a proposed amendment to extend constitutional rights as early as fertilization. Not even fetuses - newly fertilized sperm+egg as much rights as the woman who carried little teeny-tiny mass of cells. The problem with that? Oh, many as far as I am concerned, but they include that it would make the birth control pill illegal because it sometimes functions to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb. My point? He is far, far, far right. And it isn't as if he has kept his religious beliefs aside from his politics. And to whoever made that comment about Gore and lots of others being Southern Baptist - I agree completely - I am concerned about anyone who feels the need to campaign on the premise of how religious they are. Just examples, always more where they came from. - -Yael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:48:45 -0800 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: NJC things Vince, I'm sorry to hear about your father and send all my best thoughts for a successful surgery. My own father (age 88) has been failing over the past several months and it has been very difficult, especially for my mother. There is no "instruction manual" to really prepare us for these events with our parents, only faith and sometimes a lot of courage. I've felt more a "grown-up" in these past few months than ever before in my life. Please give us an update when you can. As for the political content: > Linda Chavez has always been IMHO a most intellectually dishonest columnist. > There was never any consistent philosophy but always just a vitriolic anti > Clinton and anti Democratic screed. I was shocked that she was nominated for > a cabinet position -- but I was not surprised that she was so dishonest with > the FBI and the Bush people in the pre-nomination interviews. I note that I > have never seen a president or president-elect dump a nominee so quickly, far, > far faster than Clinton ever distanced himself from someone - which had I > thought was unusally fast in some cases. That would suggest that Bush can be a > colder, steelier person than we imagined, or at least has a colder or steelier > side, than we have seen. (That is neither good nor bad by the way; it is just > an observation that we haven't seen that side of W Bush yet until now.) I actually do appreciate hearing the "other sides" in these discussions if there is solid evidence to back them up. I don't want to be misled by any party, even if it is my own, and I want to learn the big picture if possible. News reports indicate that Bush indeed dropped her a bit abruptly. My first inclination was to be taken aback at this coldness. On the other hand, it is being reported that he was very unhappy that she might have deceived him. So he may be cold or maybe (I would like to believe) he wants upfront people with integrity attached to his administration. That wouldn't be such a bad thing, if true. > As far as Ashcroft goes: he made his entire Senate career based on opposing > various Clinton nominees on the basis of ideology. That was his right. He was > not concerned with competence but with ideology. Thus, Ashcroft cannot > complain if he is opposed on the basis of ideology. As Ashcroft used > Senatorial priviledge to block Clinton nominess on ideological grounds, so > shall he be opposed. To argue for or against Ashcroft on any other grounds is > hypocritical based on his own just completed Senatorial record. I suspect he > may just possibly not be confirmed... and I don't know if Bush would be that > unhappy if Ashcroft did so down, because he will have cemented his ties with > the religious right of the GOP for having nominated Ashcroft anyway. So Bush > wins with that wing of the GOP no matter how confirmation goes. I would have no problem with a block of Ashcroft based on proof that he only acts in lock-step with one narrow idealogy. What I had a problem with is trying to oppose him simply because of his personal religion or an as yet unproven speculation that he will somehow overturn abortion rights. That seems too simplistic to me - let's hear about his record instead and then decide. But I do appreciate the input from you, Mary, Lori and others and think it's good and productive to "talk it over", you know? > All it takes is a 5-4 vote. If O'Connor retires as planned - or Ginzburg, who > has battled cancer, or Souter, or Breyer, who are both mortal, or Stevens, who > will retire because of age - any one of those is the 5th vote on any number of > issues, including Roe v Wade - or the presidential election. Because Roe v > Wade is not a law, but a court decision, as are so many other things we take > for granted... well, that is why we all fought so damned hard to win the last > election, because 1 vote in the right place will be that 5th vote to confirm or > over-rule many things. Anyone who lived through the Warren Court - whether one > agrees with what they did or not - knows how quickly "long-standing" things > (Plessay vs Ferguson [spelling error there], pre-Miranda times, pre > "one-person one vote" rulings) can be changed by the Supreme Court. But it's been a Supreme Court decision that has been in place for almost 30 years. It is well-established case law. Even with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, I still cannot see them messing with this, if for no other reason than it would be highly controversial, provoke riots, provoke calls for their impeachment, threats to their well-being and so on. You may not think some conservatives are very enlightened but they are not that stupid, especially at the Supreme Court level. > And the irony of a "handful of people" comment is not lost on any of us who saw a 5-4 > decision elect Bush and not Gore. That is why both sides fought so hard. Now Vince ;-) The initial vote on the unconstitionality of the Florida decision was a unanimous 9-0. The second vote on the unconstitionality of the decision was 7-2. Only the vote on recounting the entire state for the third and fourth time was 5-4. Also no one ever mentions that in all except one of the many lower court decisions regarding the election, Democrat judges ruled against Gore's side. No one mentions that but rather diverts attention over to Katharine Harris, who truly was just doing her job, i.e., she did and does not have much actual authority in her official position for changing the rules mid-course, despite the wishes of some. > But I love you, Kakki. Too many people rave about your consummate graciousness > which we have all experienced in the JMDL for anyone not to love you! Thank you very much for the generous compliment. Love and strength to you, Vince. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:17:24 -0600 From: Richard Rice Subject: Joni on PBS. -If Joni is to appear on a PBS segment of American Masters, she'd better work fast. Our new President and Congress seem hell bent on putting all funding for public broadcasting into the deep dark past. John. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:45:11 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: NJC things Dear Vince: Best wishes concerning your father's health crisis. Hopefully the surgery will help him. > a Beatles question: "I Want to Hold your Hand" was on the US Capitol release, > "Meet the Beatles" which was not the same as any original British release. > (Wasn't it not until "A Hard's Day Night" or even "Help" or after that that the > US and British albums were the same?) But "I Want to Hold your Hand" is not on > the cds of "With the Beatles" or "Please Please Me" or "Beatles for Sale" so > which early Bristish album that is now on cd that I can buy is "I Want to Hold > your Hand" on? The first US Beatles album that was the same as the UK release was Sgt Peppers. In the UK the Beatles' singles were not on the albums. Capitol Records decided to use all the extra tracks to create their own Beatles titles, like "Meet the Beatles" You can find all the singles on the CD's "Past Masters Vol 1" (up to about '66 including "I Want To Hold Your Hand") and "Past Masters Vol 2 ('66-'70). Best, Randy ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2001 #14 **************************** ------- 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?