From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2002 #584 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 Monday, December 23 2002 Volume 2002 : Number 584 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: 'prepare' njc ["kakki" ] Re:Singing from within [Chorando6@aol.com] Re: 'prepare' njc [sl.m@shaw.ca] Last Travelogue Track/Circle Game question [NJC] [Richard Goldman ] Re: 'prepare" njc [colin ] Islam versus the West ["mike pritchard" ] apology NJC ["mike pritchard" ] Re: 'prepare' njc [AzeemAK@aol.com] Re:Singing from within njc [Catherine McKay ] Peter Gabriel's UP , NJC ["Laurent Olszer" ] Re: Islam versus the West [sl.m@shaw.ca] sarah1 ["mike pritchard" ] Apologies NJC ["mike pritchard" ] Re: 'prepare' njc [sl.m@shaw.ca] Happy Holidays [Steve Polifka ] Re: Islam versus the West [AzeemAK@aol.com] Re: Court and Spark Question [Scott Price ] Re: 'prepare' njc [sl.m@shaw.ca] Re: Islam versus the West njc [sl.m@shaw.ca] river ["mia ortlieb" ] Two Towers vs Two Towers NJC [BRIANASYMES@aol.com] RE: 'prepare' njc ["Kate Bennett" ] new cd njc ["Kate Bennett" ] b'day njc ["Kate Bennett" ] RE: 'prepare' njc [sl.m@shaw.ca] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:06:43 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: 'prepare' njc Kate wrote: > if we attacked iraq it would be the first time the USA has ever attacked > another country, unprovoked... What about World War I, North Korea, Cuba, North Vietnam, Grenada, Bosnia? The US assisted Europe in winning WWI, fought alongside South Koreans and South Vietnamese, launched an (unsuccessful) attack on Cuba on behalf of the Cuban exiles, launched an attack on Grenada to help the Grenadines, and went to war in Bosnia on behalf of the Muslims there. In none of these wars, had the US been directly attacked. In the case of Iraq there is at least a growing compilation of evidence that they have assisted terrorists who have directly attacked the U.S. I dread any war and hope Saddam and his family will take the standing offer to move to Libya. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 05:14:13 EST From: Chorando6@aol.com Subject: Re:Singing from within Just my tuppence worth here. Celine fails to sing from within when singing in English. There is too too much production going on and her voice is flattened, put simply the English output is formulaic. In French however it is another experience entirely. French speaking Canada has produced many many great singers and interpreters of song. Also When seeing Celine live, and i don't mind admitting I've seen her four times! She certainly has soul. In particular when she gets those pipes round Jaques brel, Plamondon and Jean Jaques goldman, she positively shimmers and those goose bumps respond like its party time. I don't feel my opinions are biased because, though i possess all of her output thus far in my Cd collection, I rarely listen to the english stuff. Even with a song like Vole (fly) which she sang in both english and french you can hear the difference, fly is not felt...Vole is and the arrangements are exactly the same. Finally when she sang Calling you from baghdad Cafe it was astounding, the pleading in her voice was heart breaking and I don't mind admitting I shed a tear, well more than that i fell apart, ripped of my clothes, lit my lighter, and ran up to the stage naked shouting Celine I love you. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 04:26:17 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: 'prepare' njc Exactly right. There were no volunteer human shields when Saddam was attacking the Kurds and the shi-ite minority. None to protect Afghan women from the Taliban. Or to protect Arab journalists who end up in jail for trying to report other points of view. Or to protect the people of Ireland from being buried in the bogs by the IRA. There are no human shields to protect Israelis against suicide bombers. Some causes are fashionable, some not, and that boils down to ideology and has little to do with facts, which are tailored to fit the arguments, instead of the other way round. But at least we have the freedom to be wrong in our various ways without having the secret police knocking on our doors at 3 am ready to cut our tongues out, as they do in Iraq. I think an important question when judging the value of any regime is: where would you rather be caught shoplifting? America or Iraq, Colin? You think they're both just as bloody? Israel or the Occupied Territories? Where you rather be shoved in jail for theft? At least in America, your family would get to see you again, and you'd be let out of jail with both your hands still on your wrists. Sarah From: "Jim L'Hommedieu \(Lama\)" Okay. But what is this group doing to keep Iraq from running over the Kurds again? Or Iran again? It must be an anti-USA thing or a pro-Iraq thing cause keeping us (USA) out won't help Iran or the Kurds. (?) Kate said, >>>>> there is a group called www.becomethechange.org that is organizing a human shield to go to iraq in january to try & prevent an attack by the usa....they need 5,000 people...very courageous ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 02:26:04 -0800 From: Richard Goldman Subject: Last Travelogue Track/Circle Game question [NJC] Ok kids... maybe I missed this bit in an early post, or.... maybe i'm totally crazy... but ... i have just been savoring each track...and only today, after a week, listened to the last track, on disc two, The Circle Game, on Travelogue, and... at the end...it kept looping and looping, playing over and over: "and go round and round and round in the circle game". Over and over. Endlessly. Until I stopped the player. So I thought: "huh, wow!" and took the disc out and went over to a friend's. But ... it only did it that once. It did not do it over at my friends later on, and...it won't do it again on my CD player. Hello? Did I just have a major hallucination? or ... is this some sort of cosmic trick!? Richard - ------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:56:13 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: 'prepare" njc sl.m@shaw.ca wrote: > Now why do you find that ignorant, Colin? because it isn't true and is racist propaganda. > From the point of veiw of Islamists, there is certainly a war > against the West. bollocks. SOME people who are Muslim feel this way. The Arab world has legitimate reason to resent the West. However, to think that all of people who follow the Islam religion want war with the West, or even hate westerners, is racist shit. And shows alarming ingnorance. It is no different to the crap people say about Jews. > They've felt that for many years, and have said so openly, but weren't > taken seriously. > > Sarah > > > > > At 3:12 AM +0000 12/23/2002, colin wrote: > >> (Islam versus the West) >> >> >> it is just this sort of ignorant statement that makes me feel despair. >> the media do their job very well and we the people just lap it up. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:02:41 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: 'prepare" njc colin wrote: > It is very sad that a few people can always rule a whole country with > terror. People allow this to happen, If people REFUSED to be treated > this way, they wouldn't be. Common sense tells us that if the > population stood to be counted, and took their power back, much > trouble would be ended. > Unfortunately, the majority of people won;'t do this thus they give > their power away. > So the populations of such countries are responsible for their fate. > > It is just like a an abusive family, the abuser rules, the others > comply, and the one that doesn't is ostracised not just by the abuser > but by the others abusees. > > The personal really is politcal. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:15:49 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: Islam versus the West Sarah said >>My own opinion, Colin, is that we're already in deep shit and that the war (Islam versus the West) began in the 80s with the first suicide attacks in Lebanon, and the rise of the Moslem Brotherhood, and it has just taken a while to make itself felt around the world.<< Whoa, hold on just a moment, here. Since when did this war become 'Islam versus the West'? Could this war not equally be called 'The West versus Islam'? As a journalist you should be aware of the newspeak elements inherent in this field, especially on the Israel-Palestine situation, but also on anything related to Iraq. Question: What made these people in Lebanon decide to launch suicide attacks? Whim? Folly? High spirits? Or perhaps a reaction to earlier events? Maybe we should look at these events before making such a statement. Perhaps a good place to look for anti-Islam acts is the career of Ariel Sharon, a veteran of over 50 years of atrocities against the Palestine people. Yes, The same Ariel Sharon who George Bush calls 'a man of peace'. Check the records, it's all there. As a journalist you must know this. Sarah also said >>I think the military plan is to destroy infrastructure, not people, and to invade Baghdad within days (within 2 days, they're saying) of the war beginning.<< What the plan is (as presented to the public) and what the plan really is (as prepared by the govt and the military) and how the plan works out in reality are three different things. Look at Afghanistan for a recent example. >> And then I think the assumption and hope is that the Iraqi people will joyfully surrender, and Saddam and his clansmen will flee the country, probably to Libya. << If this 'assumption' really works out like this "I'll show my arse in Burton's window", as we say in my home town; Burton being a high street clothing company for all you non-brits. >>But in fact, I have to say I think his (Bush) responses have been measured and justified, apart from the loss of civil liberties in the U.S. << Loss of liberty in the US, no big deal then. Kate said >>if we attacked Iraq it would be the first time the USA has ever attacked another country, unprovoked...<< Kate, I wish this were true but history shows that it is not. mike in barcelona ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:17:29 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: apology NJC Sorry for the no NJC on my post on the war mike ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 06:45:15 EST From: AzeemAK@aol.com Subject: Re: 'prepare' njc In a message dated 23/12/2002 05:42:28 GMT Standard Time, sl.m@shaw.ca writes: << Yet the Taliban waged a brutal war against women for years, and you're saying that wasn't justification for intervention? >> Well, it *wasn't* the justification used, was it? I was under the impression that the pretext for bombing Afghanistan was that it was harbouring Osama Bin Laden and significant numbers of people who were active members of Al Qaeda. Ousting the Taliban was seen as a "fringe benefit", albeit a considerable one. I agree that the Taliban's regime seems to have been particularly misogynist. However, it wasn't exactly a picnic before: Afg was a pretty lawless state, women lived in constant fear of being raped, and women's rights were pretty low on the list of priorities of the various warlords who were running the country. There were reports from inide the country that in some ways (and only some, and this does not excuse the anti-women measures that were brought in when the Taliban assumed power), women felt safer during the Taliban regime, in that the incidence of rape fell quite sigificantly, because everybody knew that the Taliban had imposed some kind of order on the country (the cities, at least), and that this kind of crime would be punished. There was also evidence (including a TV report from a UK journalist called Saira Shah) that some of the more extreme policies (such as women not being allowed to work) were either being slowly revoked or a blind eye was being turned to them, as even the crazed leaders of the Taliban were realising that they were unworkable. A ghastly regime, yes. Justification for declaring war? No. And I maintain that there are countries with equally bad human rights records - in addition to the ones I mentioned before, what about Burma/Myanmar, which incarcerated its democratically elected leader and has introduced what amounts to slave labour? And why didn't we bomb South Africa during the apartheid regime, which was surely as inhuman as any regime the world has seen? I still believe that the real reasons are not being declared, and that the tentacles of the most cynical realpolitik reach far into all of the West's decisions about where it wants to stick its oar in. For me, the bigger question remains. What is The West going to do to take responsibility for its actions, and when is it going to do it? As with Saddam Hussein, who is still in power by the grace of The West (as I'm sure I don't need to reiterate), so it was with the Taliban: they were trained, funded and armed in part by The West, to fight of the Soviet invasion of Afg. They were the heroes of the Mujahideen, plucky locals defending themselves against the beastly Soviet threat. When are we going to learn about the perils of making monsters? An objection to this point of view that is often raised is "yes, that's true, but it doesn't help us NOW - how do we deal with this monster/monstrous regime?" Well, yes, that is a very difficult question: however, if we don't answer the bigger question, we will just do the same thing over again, and will have even more intractable situations to worry about, some of them possibly much closer to home. People are talking now about installing a better regime in Iraq once Saddam has gone - some might call it a puppet regime. Maybe it would work for a while, then maybe the "puppets" would get a bit restless, sever the strings, and start doing things we didn't like. So we'd send in the bombers again? It's not a long-term solution. As to Bosnia, that was a whole different ball game, and I'll be honest: I simply don't know how that situation compares. I have read so much conflicting opinion and so many "facts" that were diametrically opposed to each other, and the situation was historically so complex, that I don't have a point of view about that conflict as it relates to the forthcoming campaign against Iraq. Azeem in London ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 06:53:48 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re:Singing from within njc --- Chorando6@aol.com wrote: > Just my tuppence worth here. > > Celine fails to sing from within when singing in > English. There is too too > much production going on and her voice is flattened, > put simply the English > output is formulaic. In French however it is another > experience entirely. > French speaking Canada has produced many many great > singers and interpreters > of song. I agree. I've heard Celine sing in French and it's a totally different experience. I love French singers and Quebec has produced so many excellent singers and songwriters - you have to wonder what they put in the water. ===== Catherine Toronto ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:12:37 -0000 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Peter Gabriel's UP , NJC "PAUL PETERSON" wrote: > > The new Peter Gabriel album is magnificent, and like Joni's new album is being > ignored by the music press. Rolling Stone listed it as the year's biggest > disappointment. Like Joni's album it is angry, complex, heartfelt, and > impossible to pigeonhole. Like Joni's music, it takes a few listens to 'hear' > the music. The arrangements and rhythms are incredibly rich, the lyrics deep > and wise. Even the CD booklet reminds me of Joni's album in that it includes > a gallery of photographs which relate to the songs. Like OVO before it, this > is musicmaking on a genius level that the U.S. appears to be unable to > appreciate. Check it out. > Couldn't agree more with you Paul. I've been a fan since the mid-70's. I believe PG's solo artistic and commercial masterpiece was SO in 86. The releases after SO failed to touch me as much, perhaps I didn't take time to search for the inner world but I found them less accessible and less creative. However, with this new album UP, it is as good as SO IMHO, and its beauty and emotions overwhelmed me on the 1st hearing (and thereafter). Of course this album is very different, but a climax in its own right. Why Rolling Stone is disappointed is beyond me. One of the best 2002 releases in my book. PG IS PRESENTLY TOURING THE U.S, hope you can catch him. PS: Would love to trade for a concert of this UP tour, if you know where there is one. PPS: Just a little anecdote: SO's big hit in the U.S. was Sledgehammer. In France it was Don't Give Up. Appropriate titles when you think of it. Laurent ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 10:18:43 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Islam versus the West Mike, whether I say 'Britain versus Germany', or 'Germany versus Britain' makes no difference regarding whether I believe Hitler or Churchill was responsible for the war. Yes, I take your point about Ariel Sharon. No, I didn't say the loss of civil liberties in America was no big deal. I think it's a very big deal, which is why I referred to it. Equally, I think the absence of civil liberaties in Iraq is a very big deal. To say "Islam versus the West" is not racist, as Colin said. Islam is not a race. If I oppose aspects of Judaism, that doesn't make me an anti-Semite. If I deplore Christianity, I'm not anti-white or anti-West. Pulling out the race card doesn't advance the discussion. This is a conflict between the modern world and the ancient world, between religious intolerance (whether represented by Islam or any other religion) and. . . whatever you want to call the West.....a progressive liberating ideology, in my view, an ideology that questions itself and is self-examining. I can't respect an ideology that suppresses women, where there are no gay rights, no rights for the mentally ill or the physically disabled, where menstruating women are regarded as filthy and irrational, where women can only report a rape if there are two male witnesses, where we can be beheaded for not covering our faces or stoned if our husbands think we committed adultery. Why would anyone in the West, where we place a high vaue on individual human rights, pay lip service to this bullshit? Granted, there are individual Moslems who don't believe these things should happen, just as there are individual Christians who don't believe in the Virgin Birth. But Islam as practised by the overwhelming majority of countries in which it's the ruling ideology does not respect human rights at all. And it's important to remember that Islam is not the Arabs. I hope one day that the Arabs will rise up against this or any other religion, and then they'll have a chance of becoming a great people. Sarah At 12:15 PM +0100 12/23/2002, mike pritchard wrote: >Whoa, hold on just a moment, here. Since when did this war become >'Islam versus the West'? Could this war not equally be called 'The >West versus Islam'? As a journalist you should be aware of the >newspeak elements inherent in this field, especially on the >Israel-Palestine situation, but also on anything related to Iraq. >Question: What made these people in Lebanon decide to launch suicide >attacks? Whim? Folly? High spirits? Or perhaps a reaction to earlier >events? Maybe we should look at these events before making such a >statement. Perhaps a good place to look for anti-Islam acts is the >career of Ariel Sharon, a veteran of over 50 years of atrocities >against the Palestine people. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:53:57 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: sarah1 Sarah wrote: >>Mike, whether I say 'Britain versus Germany', or 'Germany versus Britain' makes no difference regarding whether I believe Hitler or Churchill was responsible for the war.<< I see our point, but take issue with the reciprocity that you imply. Normally the entity in the subject position of such a sentence is the 'agent' of the action in the verb and the entity in the object position is the 'recipient' of the action. Perhaps you intended 'versus' to express two sides equally dedicated to the destruction of the other, in which case you could have chosen to place Islam in the recipient position, but you didn't. I find that significant, especially in the light of your other remarks. >>Yes, I take your point about Ariel Sharon.<< Good, but can you explain (you are under no obligation to, of course) how Bush can regard this man as a 'man of peace' when it is patently obvious that he is a monster and a war criminal of long standing. Should the west be lining up to support his terrorist campaigns against the Palestine people and their terrorist actions? >>No, I didn't say the loss of civil liberties in America was no big deal. I think it's a very big deal, which is why I referred to it.<< OK, but you referred to it as almost an afterthought, or at least it sounded to me like a small price to pay for Bush's 'measured and justified' responses, >>Equally, I think the absence of civil liberties in Iraq is a very big deal.<< Me too. >>To say "Islam versus the West" is not racist, as Colin said. Islam is not a race. If I oppose aspects of Judaism, that doesn't make me an anti-Semite. If I deplore Christianity, I'm not anti-white or anti-West. Pulling out the race card doesn't advance the discussion.<< Agreed, and these are points to take up with Colin. I did not mention any of this stuff. >>I can't respect an ideology that suppresses women, where there are no gay rights, no rights for the mentally ill or the physically disabled, where menstruating women are regarded as filthy and irrational, where women can only report a rape if there are two male witnesses, where we can be beheaded for not covering our faces or stoned if our husbands think we committed adultery.<< Neither can I, but these remarks could refer to many other ideological groups. And it does not give the strong (The USA) the right to destroy the weak when they bite the hand that fed it the weapons that allowed it to terrorise its own people in the first place. And why is the west not dedicating itself to bringing down these repressive regimes where they exist, namely Saudi Arabia, to name just one country which carries out public executions and shares a lot of the beliefs you mention in this paragraph? >>Granted, there are individual Moslems who don't believe these things should happen, just as there are individual Christians who don't believe in the Virgin Birth. But Islam as practised by the overwhelming majority of countries in which it's the ruling ideology does not respect human rights at all.<< An absolutely astonishing remark; as condescending as anything I've ever read anywhere, on any topic. >>And it's important to remember that Islam is not the Arabs. I hope one day that the Arabs will rise up against this or any other religion, and then they'll have a chance of becoming a great people.<< The Arabs have been a great people for thousands of years. Without them there would be very little civilised in the modern world. They could be a great people again if they were not spending all their time being starved, bombed, denied their human rights, robbed of their land and being attacked by other 'great' religious orders. mike in barcelona ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 18:36:43 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: Apologies NJC Apologies (again) for the recent messages which I sent without NJC. New e-mail system with teething troubles. mike ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:12:23 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: 'prepare' njc Azeem, I agree with most of what you say. I have to take issue with your point that women under the Taliban may have felt safer than previously with the warlords. Every report I read that was smuggled out by women's groups conveyed a sense of deep and sustained shock at the way they were being treated, not only by the regime, but by ordinary men, including their husbands and friends - people they had previously trusted. Women were not allowed outdoors unaccompanied by a male relative, except without special permission, which was virtually never given. They had to keep their curtains drawn at all times at home in case a male passer-by saw their faces and was corrupted. Women with sick children who ventured out alone to seek medical help were executed. Sick women were only allowed to be treated, except for mental illness, by female doctors, but female doctors weren't allowed to work. This kind of instutionalized hatred of women is unprecedented in the whole of human history. It led to huge levels of mental illness among women, especially among professional women, who had previously been allowed to be educated and to work as doctors, lawyers, teachers. One very brave psychiatrist threatened to take all his professional women patients and deposit them in front of Taliban headquarters to show what the regime was doing to over 50 per cent of the population. He reported that these highly educated patients would sit all day banging their heads against walls out of depression and frustration. Can you think of any other regime that has done this to any race or to either sex? Even in apartheid South Africa, black people were allowed to work, albeit with restrictions and often in terror, but it was not forbidden. And they were allowed to leave their homes. And they weren't lawfully killed because, for example, someone glimpsed a part of their flesh. To my mind, this was justification for war, and I'm only sorry it wasn't enough, and that America waited until after September 11th to get rid of them. As for the incidence of rape falling under the Taliban, women are now reporting that the Taliban were the biggest rapists of all. Remember: in Islamic countries practising Sharia law, there have to be two male witnesses to any rape before a complaint can proceed. A female witness doesn't count (especially not the raped woman) because women who may be menstruating are regarded as irrational and therefore unable to be witnesses in a court of law. As a result, hey presto, there is virtually no rape in Islamic countries. But I agree with you about realpolitik and I agree absolutely that the West created Saddam, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. For a great book on this, read John Cooley's Unholy Wars. He explains how the relationship between America, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and Islamic or Arab militants on the other, goes back to Carter in 1979. Cooley argues that the U.S., Pakistan and Saudi Arabia between them created and financed what has become the global Islamic fundamentalist movement. What to do now? We have to get rid of some of these monsters, and try not to create any more. Easy to say, I know. But we could start by trying to persuade Arab states to become democratic, and we could stop being so patronizing as to insist on democratic ideals for ourselves, while arguing that other cultures are used to different forms of life, and we shouldn't impose our values on them. Yes, we should, in my view. Sarah At 6:45 AM -0500 12/23/2002, azeemak@aol.com wrote: > >I agree that the Taliban's regime seems to have been particularly >misogynist. However, it wasn't exactly a picnic before: Afg was a >pretty lawless state, women lived in constant fear of being raped, >and women's rights were pretty low on the list of priorities of the >various warlords who were running the country. There were reports >from inide the country that in some ways (and only some, and this >does not excuse the anti-women measures that were brought in when >the Taliban assumed power), women felt safer during the Taliban >regime, in that the incidence of rape fell quite sigificantly, >because everybody knew that the Taliban had imposed some kind of >order on the country (the cities, at least), and that this kind of >crime would be punished. > A ghastly regime, yes. Justification for declaring war? No. >For me, the bigger question remains. What is The West going to do >to take responsibility for its actions, and when is it going to do >it? As with Saddam Hussein, who is still in power by the grace of >The West (as I'm sure I don't need to reiterate), so it was with the >Taliban: they were trained, funded and armed in part by The West, to >fight of the Soviet invasion of Afg. They were the heroes of the >Mujahideen, plucky locals defending themselves against the beastly >Soviet threat. When are we going to learn about the perils of >making monsters? > >Azeem in London ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:13:48 -0600 From: Steve Polifka Subject: Happy Holidays Everyone: I have enjoyed your many posts as of late; the diversity of this group is so wonderful! I wish you all the best, and will see you in the New Year! (Great vacation with my new love, so I must sign off...) Hugs to you all, Steve Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:20:29 EST From: AzeemAK@aol.com Subject: Re: Islam versus the West In a message dated 23/12/2002 16:16:25 GMT Standard Time, sl.m@shaw.ca writes: << But Islam as practised by the overwhelming majority of countries in which it's the ruling ideology does not respect human rights at all. >> This is offensively ignorant. Have you ever spent time or lived in a Muslim country? I have, and I can assure you that you are way off track. I've had many debates with my family in Pakistan around this subject, and the picture is much more complex than you seem to be seeing it. I am not a Muslim, and disagree violently with what is happening in some predominantly Muslim countries. I also disagree with what happens and has happened in some predominantly Christian countries. If, say, an English tourist gets lost travelling through Pakistan and knocks on someone's door, they will be taken in and given shelter and food, even if the household can barely afford to feed itself. Imagine a Pakistani man knocking on a door in a village in England, unable to speak a word of English. Maybe he will be shown that level of hospitality; more likely he will be told to "get the hell off my property". Maybe the police will be called to report a suspicious looking stranger. We may like to think we're more civilised than "them", but it's not so simple. Australia and the USA have participated in the genocides of their native peoples; in the case of the former this was happening within recent living memory. Britain has colonised large swathes of the world, subjugated local people, stolen their land and their resources and swiped many cultural treasures. Again, this is recent history, I have plenty of relatives who were directly affected by the complete fiasco over the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, which resulted in huge internecine strife and tens of thousands of deaths. The thing that appals me about the West is the assumption that "we" are right and have the right to tell other countries what to do. That satirical piece about sending a UN team into the USA to help establish democracy after a rigged election - it was funny, wasn't it? Only because we know it would never happen, not because there wasn't a case to answer. Azeem in London ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:45:24 -0800 From: Scott Price Subject: Re: Court and Spark Question At 12:54 AM 12/23/2002 -0500, Shnootre@aol.com wrote: >I feel certain that I read a quote from Joni where she stated that on the >album Court and Spark, she jammed with the band in the beginning, but >ultimately told everyone exactly what to play and when. I don't remember >where I read this, or what the wording was. A search through Les' archives would reveal the source of this quote but I too remember it much as you describe. Joni was quoted as saying she would sing or hum the riffs as she heard them in her head, then the musicians would play them exactly so. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:41:29 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: 'prepare' njc mike pritchard wrote: >I see your point, but take issue with the reciprocity that you >imply. Normally the entity in the subject position of such a >sentence is the 'agent' of the action in the verb and the entity in >the object position is the 'recipient' of the action. Perhaps you >intended 'versus' to express two sides equally dedicated to the >destruction of the other, in which case you could have chosen to >place Islam in the recipient position, but you didn't. I find that >significant, especially in the light of your other remarks. Well, yes, I do believe that Islam is at fault - is 'the bad guy' - although I also believe the West created the problem in the first place and therefore bears responsibility, which is why I believe we need to sort it out. >mike pritchard wrote: >can you explain (you are under no obligation to, of course) how Bush >can regard this man as a 'man of peace' when it is patently obvious >that he is a monster and a war criminal of long standing. Should the >west be lining up to support his terrorist campaigns against the >Palestine people and their terrorist actions? No, I can't explain why Bush called Sharon a man of peace, except that you can't fall out with everyone at once, I suppose, and Bush clearly prefers Sharon to Arafat, and I don't blame him. Both are old men willing to use young men and women to fight their ideological battles for them, both refuse to see the other's position, but Arafat is so deeply corrupted that it's hard to see how the Palestinians can ever move forward with him in power, and I suppose Bush feels more strongly about that than he does about Sharon's background and motives. > >mike pritchard wrote: >OK, but you referred to [the loss of civil liberties in America] as >almost an afterthought, or at least it sounded to me like a small >price to pay for Bush's 'measured and justified' responses. No, not an afterthought. It's just that we weren't talking about civil liberties. I do think it's a huge price, and an unnecessary price, to pay for September 11th, an excuse by government to do things they'd have wanted to do anyway but wouldn't have dared. The problem with a major terrorist attack is that it puts the terrorism and security experts in charge, makes them able to get their ideas taken seriously, and those people always want more and more security, because that's the nature of the beast. It takes a brave government to say no, we're not going to put security cameras on streets, because the first time there's a terrorist attack that MIGHT have been prevented by security cameras on streets, the public turns round and blames the government for the deaths. This is a general problem with keen-jerk politics, not Bush in particular. mike pritchard wrote: >And why is the west not dedicating itself to bringing down these >repressive regimes where they exist, namely Saudi Arabia, to name >just one country which carries out public executions and shares a >lot of the beliefs you mention in this paragraph? I agree about Saudi Arabia, and it wouldn't surprise me if America turned on them after the Iraqis have been dealt with, although not militarily. But for now, they're needed, not just for oil, but for political support in the Arab world and for their military bases. The Saudi ruling family has played a dangerous game for years - friends of the West on the one hand, financiers of Islamic and Arab terrorism on the other. It's hard to blame them as they're only trying to survive, but they're a British invention and shouldn't be there in the first place. >mike pritchard wrote: > >>Granted, there are individual Moslems who don't believe these >things should happen, just as there are individual Christians who >don't believe in the Virgin Birth. But Islam as practised by the >overwhelming majority of countries in which it's the ruling ideology >does not respect human rights at all.<< > >An absolutely astonishing remark; as condescending as anything I've >ever read anywhere, on any topic. I'm not being deliberately obtuse here - I honestly can't see why that remark is either condescending or astonishing. Name one country where Islam is the ruling ideology, in which human rights are respected, and particularly the rights of women. There may be one - I'm not saying there isn't - but I honestly can't think of it. >mike pritchard wrote: >The Arabs have been a great people for thousands of years. Without >them there would be very little civilised in the modern world. They >could be a great people again if they were not spending all their >time being starved, bombed, denied their human rights, robbed of >their land and being attacked by other 'great' religious orders. Agreed, except they also cause a lot of trouble themselves - e.g. the problems between Syria and Iraq. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:08:23 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Islam versus the West njc Azeem, why is it offensively ignorant to say that Islam as practised by the overwhelming majority of countries in which it's the ruling ideology doesn't respect human rights? No, I've never lived in a Moslem country, but yes, I've visited Arab countries many times. And I am not way off track. I agree that the picture is complex, more so than can be conveyed in a discussion list. But it's important not to use complexity as an excuse not to condemn. The reasons behind paedophilia are complex, but that doesn't mean it's okay to rape children. I take your point about the English tourist getting lost in Pakistan and being treated well. I think it could happen in Britain with a lost tourist from Pakistan, and I'm thinking particularly of Scotland. Maybe not so likely, I concede that. How has the USA participated in the genocide of its native peoples within recent living memory? What are you thinking of exactly? I agree about Britain. Almost everything that's happening now in the Middle East is because of British foreign policy and it's carving up of land, which is why so many of the borders are straight lines. There will have to be a realignment before there's peace in the Middle East and it's going to take a very long time. This stand-off between Bush and Saddam is almost a side issue in the big picture of the Arab world finding its post-colonial feet. But I think "we" in the West are right about many things, and shouldn't be ashamed to say so. We live in vibrant cultures, we have access to wonderful art and literature, education, a lot of freedom, good medical care (however much we moan about it, a lot better than most of the world). We respect other people's rights, we allow immigrants into our countries and do our best (not always successfully) to welcome them and we respect their rights to practise their own religions and cultural values after they come to live with us. This doesn't ever happen in the Arab world, I can promise you. Go live there and you do as they say, and stuff your own cultural values. The first time I was in Syria, I met this woman through work, and we became great friends in the three weeks I was there. She was in her 30s, modern, clever, educated. At the end of my stay, I gave her my address in London and invited her to come and visit me, and to stay as long as she wanted. She burst into tears. She explained how much she would love to do that, but she wasn't allowed because she was a woman. She would need her father's written permission before she could leave the country and he would never give it. Even with written permission, she would have to find a male relative to accompany her. Her only hope for freedom, she said, is if she's lucky enough to marry an Arab man who has been educated in the West and who has respect for women. But such men are hard to find, and they tend to prefer women who have also been educated in the West. So she saw her future as very bleak, and she doesn't believe she will ever see London. That was in Syria, which is liberal compared with some Islamic countries, and where women are not expected to wear the veil and are allowed to work and go to college. This is disgraceful, and we should not support it. Sometimes complexity can be reduced to very simple moral issues, Azeem. Sarah At 1:20 PM -0500 12/23/2002, AzeemAK@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 23/12/2002 16:16:25 GMT Standard Time, sl.m@shaw.ca writes: > ><< But Islam as practised by the overwhelming majority of countries >in which it's the ruling ideology does not respect human rights at >all. >> > >This is offensively ignorant. Have you ever spent time or lived in >a Muslim country? I have, and I can assure you that you are way off >track. I've had many debates with my family in Pakistan around this >subject, and the picture is much more complex than you seem to be >seeing it. I am not a Muslim, and disagree violently with what is >happening in some predominantly Muslim countries. I also disagree >with what happens and has happened in some predominantly Christian >countries. > >If, say, an English tourist gets lost travelling through Pakistan >and knocks on someone's door, they will be taken in and given >shelter and food, even if the household can barely afford to feed >itself. Imagine a Pakistani man knocking on a door in a village in >England, unable to speak a word of English. Maybe he will be shown >that level of hospitality; more likely he will be told to "get the >hell off my property". > >Australia and the USA have participated in the genocides of their >native peoples; in the case of the former this was happening within >recent living memory. Britain has colonised large swathes of the >world, subjugated local people, stolen their land and their >resources and swiped many cultural treasures. > >The thing that appals me about the West is the assumption that "we" >are right and have the right to tell other countries what to do. >Azeem in London ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:07:16 -0600 From: "mia ortlieb" Subject: river There's a TV commercial playing now that features a guy singing Joni's "River". It appears to be an ad paid for by the government in support of our troops. Has anyone seen this or know who is singing this? .....and why would Joni allow her music for propaganda purposes? I suppose it's really not support for war, just support for our friends and family who fight in the wars. Mia _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:02:12 -0500 From: BRIANASYMES@aol.com Subject: Two Towers vs Two Towers NJC A news paper review I read rated it up there with Lawrence of Arabia. Not quite I saw it twice, first in the front row then again in the last to listen in on audience reactions. I was struck with strange things in the movie that apply today. The suicidal bombing in Helmsdeep which ironically kills more enemy at least from the camara's view. The Evil Saruman sending his troops into suicidal combat to preform genocide and then staying in his tower The scene of Sarumans clear cuts in Fanghorn forest and treebeards reaction such destruction. The destruction of Gondors stone towered capital city looking like scenes of Ground Zero NYC after 9 11 The Movie omits so much infomation from the book, but that destuction of the land and enslavement of humankind toward that end is evil. Brian Symes ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:07:57 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: 'prepare' njc kakki, you are right, the usa has fought on foreign soil before without first being attacked...though this time it appears we are not going to the defense of a country but are on the attack...the reasons that those who support the war give are several: 1) to free the citizens from a madman 2) because there are links to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (so where is this evidence?) 3) because the country has weapons of mass destruction... there are those that believe war is the only realistic option before us but i disagree...it is a short term response with long term consequences...& not realistic at all... there are those who believe that the solution must address the fact that the usa is the worlds' largest arms dealer & i whole heartedly agree...war is big business & our government has blood on its hands... here where you can read more of what randy mentioned regarding the usa editing parts of the iraq dossier http://www.democracynow.org/Zumach.htm: "We have 24 major U.S. companies listed in the report who gave very substantial support especially to the biological weapons program but also to the missile and nuclear weapons program, Zumach said. Pretty much everything was illegal in the case of nuclear and biological weapons. Every form of cooperation and supplies was outlawed in the 1970s. The list of U.S. corporations listed in Iraq's report include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating." that's enough from me on this subject... may peace prevail... ******************************************** Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com Sponsored by Polysonics/Atlantis Sound Labs Over the Moon- "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" All Music Guide ******************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:08:05 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: new cd njc congrats randy! is this your first release? how exciting! ******************************************** Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com Sponsored by Polysonics/Atlantis Sound Labs Over the Moon- "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" All Music Guide ******************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:08:07 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: b'day njc happy birthday to john low! hope your day was fabulous! ******************************************** Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com Sponsored by Polysonics/Atlantis Sound Labs Over the Moon- "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" All Music Guide ******************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 16:05:49 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: RE: 'prepare' njc Kate, the democracynow.org link is broken. Translation of Zumach articles below. Sarah Informal translations of Andreas Zumach's articles from the Die Tageszeitung - for articles in German see http://www.taz.de/ 12/17/02: The report of the Iraqi government submitted to council last weekend contains names of more than 80 German companies, several private & publicly financed laboratories, as well as many individual German individuals who, since the second half of the 1970s, delivered complete construction sites, parts, ground substances, and technical know-how for Saddam Hussein's programs to develop nuclear, chemical & biological weapons, and ballistic missiles, as well as documenting the delivery of complete conventional weapons. According to the report, in some cases the cooperation, at least in the conventional area, continued till at least the year 2001. This information stems from chapters of the Iraq report that contains relevant information on international procurement cooperation, in all four sections (chemical, biological, nuclear & missiles). According to info from close associates of VP Cheney, the U.S. administration is trying to collect additional info to prove continuing military technical cooperation of Germany with Iraq. Among others, these concerns include the cooperation of a German micro-electronic company with Iraq, about which the German government has been informed since 1999. Back then, the German government was warned by German arms control experts that these technologies, officially described for only civilian use, some day might be used in the military field, and that this could lead to political problems with Washington. A long-term high-ranking member of the government in Baghdad (whose name is known to Taz), has signaled his readiness to the Bush administration to deliver more specific info regarding German arms cooperation with Iraq, in return for assurances of protection after a potential regime change. According to sources, the Bush admin might want to use this info to insure that Germany (which joins the Security Council in two weeks) complies with the U.S. position in the Sec Council. The overall figure of the German companies listed in the report is larger than the total amount of companies listed from all other countries. In second position, is U.S. with two dozen companies. In addition to that, the report points very prominent support of U.S. government institutions for the development of the Iraqi WMDs. Among others, the Dept of Energy in the 1980s delivered very relevant non-fissile parts for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. The report also lists a number of cases where German authorities and government institutions up to the Ministry of Economics, tolerated and in some cases even actively supported the illegal arms cooperation with Iraq, especially in the period from the end of the 1970s to the Gulf war of 1991. All cooperation in the field of nuclear & bio weapons is forbidden by international treaties since the 1970s, in the case of chemical weapons since 1993. Since the Security Council handed down comprehensive sanctions against Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait in early Aug 1990, this is also true of any cooperation with Iraq in the field of conventional weapons. According to German domestic law, Iraq was already, since the beginning of its war with Iran in 1980, been identified as an "area or region of tension" into which no conventional weapons were allowed to be delivered. It is unclear whether the information from Baghdad has been passed on completely and uncensored to all 15 members of the Security Council. The U.S. had exclusive access to the report for 24 hours, while it made copies for the other four permanent members, in the meantime conducting another round of editing allegedly only concerning nuclear weapons construction plans. The copies which Taz has obtained come from the only complete original report, which after its arrival in NY Sunday night, only US specialists had access to. Is it complete? Or does it include huge holes? The report contains information which the SC never asked Baghdad to provide. None of the five Perm members intended that Iraq should provide procurement information. This knowledge so far has never been published in a comprehensive manner. Bits and pieces exist - mainly from the intelligence agencies of several countries. Some of that has been published since Halabja in 1988, some since the Gulf conflict in 1991. In some cases publication was for the purpose of pressuring other govts, particularly regarding the illegality of shipping weapons. In context of chem weapons used in the war with Iran & against the Kurds, these were war crimes, genocide - knowing and full participation in providing the weapons means complicity. The UNSCOM inspectors found mountains of indications & proof of intl complicity, but that information is still secret. This happened because the 5 perm members, Germany, many other countries, who knew of responsibility, wanted to cover up as far as possible. The official reason from the UN was that they needed cooperation from companies, so the Council agreed not to release any of UNSCOM's material on this issue. The Iraqi government report for the first time gives a comprehensive overview, at least till 1998. After comparing with the UNSCOM documents, it appears all the earlier ones are listed in new report. It lists in detail every company, how they worked, what tricks they used, etc.; it lists in all cases when the cooperation with Iraq began, but does NOT list when that cooperation ended. For the period since Dec '98, the Iraqi govt has listed some cooperation with foreign companies, which are purely civilian use, or at maximum for conventional arms. In most cases, the intention is to reject accusations by the US & UK that Iraq has been running a new active program with nuclear & other WMDS since Dec 98. For instance, Iraq admits it did import special pipes, which would be illegal for any country to provide under the sanctions, but that they were for conventional armaments, not WMDs. According to US reports, those pipes were to be used for a uranium enrichment plant for an alleged nuclear weapons program. The apparent holes in the report - other than claims of a new active nuclear program -- on the bio & chem programs the accounting still not complete. Includes those materials found & destroyed by UNSCOM; materials found but not yet destroyed when UNSCOM left Iraq; other information only from documents that indicated there may be other materials but UNSCOM never saw. Could have been wrong count in the first place; possible yes had but has given away; much of it may have disintegrated with insufficient paper trail. 12/18/02 USA censors Iraq Report by Andreas Zumach Germany and the other non-permanent members of the UN Security Council received only a cleaned-up version of the weapons dossier. Data concerning foreign suppliers of Iraq are missing. Geneva: The 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council--to which Germany will belong starting in January--have been withheld substantial parts of the Iraqi arms report. All information about the supplies from--and the support of--foreign companies, research labs and governments from the mid-1970's on, related to Iraqi arms programs, have been deleted. Thefive permanent Council members, the USA, Russia, China, France and Great Britain, are aware of this censorship. According to the German Press Agency DPA, it has reduced the 12,00 page report to 3000 pages. From information gathered from UN diplomats of 2 of these 5 countries taz learned that the censorship was agreed on primarily upon the urging of the United States. Among the 5 constant members of the Security Council it was the USA that stood out by giving the strongest support to Saddam Hussain's regime by arming it with the means of mass destruction. The report gives us a complete overview of these supplies for the first time. In particular it names the 24 US companies and when and to whom in Iraq the supplies were delivered. And it makes clear how strongly the Reagan and the first Bush administrations supported the arming of Iraq, from 1980 up to the Gulf conflict of 1990/91. Substantial construction units for the Iraqi nuclear weapon and rocket programs were supplied with permission of the government in Washington. The poison Anthrax for the arming of Iraq with biological weapons stemmed from US laboratories. Iraqi military and armament experts were trained in the US and there received know-how having to do with their domestic arms programs. According to the estimation of Susan Wright, a US arms-control expert from the University of Michigan, publication of this information would be "especially embarassing for the USA." It would "remind people in the USA of a very dark chapter, which the Bush administration would prefer to forget about." Whether the USA had this information stricken before it made copies for the other four permanent Council members continues to be unclear. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2002 #584 ***************************** ------- 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? (http://www.siquomb.com/siquomb.cfm)