From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #38 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 Friday, January 17 2003 Volume 2003 : Number 038 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- re: DJRD and Stravinsky album covers ["mia ortlieb" ] Re: re just war NJC PC ["Bree Mcdonough" ] Re: Just war (NJC) [sl.m@shaw.ca] Re: Greatest Hits NJC [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] My favorite Joni song - for Kate [Kent Southard ] Re: war protests Kosovo njc [sl.m@shaw.ca] come in from the COLD [] war protests (PC, NJC) ["Kate Bennett" ] war protests (PC, NJC) ["Kate Bennett" ] The Lies We Are Told About Iraq NJC PC [sl.m@shaw.ca] Re: war protests (PC, NJC) ["kasey simpson" ] RE: war protests (PC, NJC) [sl.m@shaw.ca] My Fav... Albums of 2002 ["Happy The Man" ] Re: come in from the COLD ["Blair Fraipont" ] Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) [sl.m@shaw.ca] Re: (NJC) Speaking of gun control ... ["Lori Fye" ] Very sorry - Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq [sl.m@shaw.ca] RE: war protests (PC, NJC) ["Lori Fye" ] Re: Greatest Hits [Scott Price ] Article about anti-Americanism NJC PC [sl.m@shaw.ca] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:47:45 -0600 From: "mia ortlieb" Subject: re: DJRD and Stravinsky album covers Striking resemblance,indeed! <> Don't forget the dark-skinned characters that are on both album covers. And you are correct - Joni is a big fan of Stravinsky. Thanks for sharing this wonderful catch! Mia _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:59:33 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: NJC Re: ATT Jonatha fans-- Carson Daley Jan. 21 Hi Patti! I've been enjoying Sycamore Tryst!! It's even better than LOS. I'll write a detailed review in the next couple of days. So when do YOU get to be on Carson Daley? THAT I might stay up for! :~) Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:02:31 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: DJRD and Stravinsky album covers In a message dated 1/17/2003 12:47:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, hvnphun16@hotmail.com writes: > Joni is a big fan of Stravinsky. Thanks for sharing > this wonderful catch! The piece that's highlighted on the record jacket (Rite of Spring) was the Stravinsky piece that Joni picked as one of her "Top 12" in 1983. That being said, I didn't see much of an influence from that cover, but it might have been that the colors didn't scan well for me. Still, Raf, thanks for sharing it! Bob NP: Dylan, "Desolation Row" 8/2/65 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:12:11 -0500 From: "Bree Mcdonough" Subject: Re: "Yellow checkers for the kitchen" > > My absolute favourite moment from HOSL is the lead > > into "Harry's House/Centerpiece." It gives me chills > > each time I hear it. > >I would wager a guess that it is perhaps Joni's favorite from that project >as well...it's the only HOSL song she did on her '98 tour, not that that's >any kind of real proof. Just that it's one she tends to keep in her >'arsenal'. > >Battalions of paper minded males >Talking commodities and sales >While at home their paper wives >And paper kids >Paper the walls to keep their gut reactions hid > >Yellow checkers for the kitchen > >The way she uses the word "paper"...such a simple word, yet it means one >thing to the husband/businessman, I get chills just reading this..I really do. I love the way she sings this...one of her best renditions. Any covers that do it justice? I would think this one and like you said the other day.."Help Me" very difficult to sing. You know I sound so good when I sing Help Me..along with Joni..but then the stark reality sets in when I go it alone. ECKKKKKKKK! If it was not for Hejira...I think THOSL would be my very favorite. (pretty darn close) Bree >Bob > >NP: Dylan, "Million Miles" _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:12:38 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: (NJC) Speaking of gun control ... Lori Fye wrote: >>(as opposed to the gun control threads where several major >>brushfires and flamings raged). > > > Let's start a new flame war ... ; ) okay! > > What do y'all think of the lawsuit just filed against Bushmaster (the > maker of the sniper rifle that was used in the DC-area attacks) and the > store who sold or lost that weapon? wel i think the shop should be done. it appears they were very lax and lots of guns went missing. Also, the guys were able to get guns even tho they shouldnt't have. I also think the right to bear arms is ridiculous. It makes me so mad I could shoot someone. > > http://europe.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/16/sniper.lawsuit/ > > Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:17:43 -0800 (PST) From: anne@sandstrom.com Subject: thud (njc) OK, so I guess there are no other snowboarders out there... (or nobody else wanted to admit it?) Is anyone else glued to the TV every night to watch the Louis Vuitton Cup finals. (It's sailing.) Or am I the only person (except sometimes my brother in law) who watches this stuff? (Although I can't imagine someone who hasn't raced a lot finding this the least bit interesting...) lots of love Anne ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:26:44 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: "Yellow checkers for the kitchen" In a message dated 1/17/2003 1:12:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, bree_mcdonough@hotmail.com writes: > Any covers that do it justice? The best one is from Anne Haigis. Come to think of it, it's the ONLY one! :~) And it's OK, not really a standout except that Anne's the only one to tackle that song so far. Wonder why? It's not really a PERSONAL song like some of Joni's other work. HOSL & FTR remain undervalued in terms of cover material. Bob NP: Dylan, "Visions of Johanna" 11/30/65 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:43:38 -0800 From: Scott Price Subject: Greatest Hits NJC At 09:49 PM 1/16/2003 -0500, SCJoniGuy@aol.com wrote: >Sure, there are a couple of artists that Greatest Hits are all you need - >among them: >Guess Who Gotta disagree with you here Bob. I personally think Burton Cummings was one of the greatest male rock vocalists of all time and wouldn't want to be restricted to only *one* of his albums. Also, in an era where highly-distorted guitars and other electronica ruled, Cummings' usage of the acoustic grand piano was always a welcome coloring. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:44:47 -0500 From: "Bree Mcdonough" Subject: Re: re just war NJC PC n >18 page vademecum containing certain instructions about how Catholic >politicians should act and vote. It expressly forbids them to support >abortion, euthanasia and homosexual marriage. It also opposes common law >marriages which it claims 'should not be considered to have legal >recognition >or be considered juridically equal to church-blessed marriages' (my approx >translation). There must be more, given the 18 pages but you get the drift. I feel I must defend the CHURCH. The Catholic church is like any other club..organization.. in that that have tenets..rules to follow. When you join anything one usually agrees with the rules..if not, get out. The Catholic church on morals and faith will not change with the whims of man. They have not for two thousand years. There are even rules to follow here at the JMDL. When Ashara had the fest at her house she specifically made a point of telling attendees: NO ILLEGAL DRUGS OF ANY KIND. Well..she had the right of course..it was her house...she was hosting the gathering. So I wrestle with the church I grew up in and loved..it has rules that are in direct conflict with my sexuality. I choose not to follow all those rules...so I got out. (personally..I'm glad some things never change...and are consistent) Bree >oh how generous of them. oh how ironic. > >Mags, not amused. > > >You open my heart, you do. >Yes you do. > - JM >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:53:09 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Just war (NJC) Hi Vince, First, please accept that omission is as important in morality as action. You are advocating no war. This, too, will claim lives. The lives lost will be those of Iraqi dissidents, or anyone remotely suspected of being one. And if Saddam develops a nuclear weapon, there will be many more lives lost in the future, inside and outside Iraq. I wasn't "moralizing", as you put it, when I wrote in my previous post about Hitler, just following the argument. If you argue that other nations have the right to choose their own form of government, and that we should never interfere, it follows that we shouldn't have interfered with the government of the Third Reich. If, on the other hand, the argument is that we should SOMETIMES interfere, then you have to spell out the conditions under which interference is justified. I can't see how you equate this argument with bin Laden's. Two points in response: 1. Bin Laden has spelled out the conditions under which an attack from him is acceptable i.e. if a nation is not strictly Islamic and supports Israel. But there is no moral argument in this position. He might just as well have said he'll launch an attack if any of us wear pink trousers on Saturdays. For interference in another country's affairs to be just, you have to spell out the MORAL conditions that would justify interference, and they would have to include either a direct attack on your vital interests (which would make it self-defence), or an abuse of human rights inside that country, which you can rectify. This last condition is important. You have to be able to do a better job than the government you're attacking. And you can't be a crazed relativist about this, because otherwise you'll have to argue that, just because bin Laden BELIEVES he would improve America by forcing American women to wear the veil, that gives him the right to try to facilitate that improvement. But not all beliefs are correct. At some point, you have to ditch relativism and be prepared to say "this is better than that" -- and in this case that would mean saying: "America's idea of human rights is better than bin Laden's", and if you don't agree with that, then we have no shared morality. When I argue in favour of interference, I'm not saying we can enter willy-nilly into another government's affairs. But when that government is killing millions of its own people, as Hitler did, or is torturing thousands of dissidents, as Saddam is doing, then there is a clear moral basis in favour of action by third parties. In the same way that you, as an individual, have a moral and legal right to detain (using violence if necessary) a man in the street if you see him attack a child, similarly as a nation, we have the moral right to interfere in a way that puts an end to abuse. Stress: in a way that puts an end to it - not in an arbitrary way. 2. Bin Laden attacks; he does not interfere with government, in the sense of trying to change or improve it. He launched a mindless attack on a civilian target using other civilians as bombs, an attack that had no chance of success (where 'success' is defined, in his own terms, as persuading or forcing America to become Islamic, or persuading or forcing America to stop supporting Israel). I can't think of anything further away from the concept of just war than that. America is planning an invasion, not an attack. They plan to help the people of Iraq, to rebuild the economy, and they plan to involve Iraq's Arab neighbours in that process, and then leave. Whether you agree or disagree with it, you have to concede that it isn't mindless vandalism. You asked who makes the decisions in my framework i.e. who decides when interference is just. It's not a question of who, but what - what conditions make the difference between something being right and wrong? The answer is that there is a 2,500 year old body of knowledge, stretching back to Socrates, defining the concepts of "goodness" and "justice". Our sense of right and wrong comes down to us via that body of knowledge. There is a similar body of knowledge about just war. If we were dealing with something on the margins, I could see where you were going with this. But Saddam Hussein's Iraq is as clear a case of a people living in hell as any I can think of. There ARE no moral arguments against overthrowing him, so long as it's done in a proportionate manner i.e. with as little loss of life as possible, and so long as the Americans stick around to make sure that a better government is put in place and that the country doesn't just sink into anarchy. Vince wrote: Remembering your previous attacks upon Islam and advocating of rejecting people "out of hand" I hardly wish to entrust you with the ability to fairly and objectively be the arbitrator of morality on the international scene. Sarah replied: When I talk about morality, I'm not moralizing or trying to be an arbiter of morality. I did my degree in philosophy and I specialized in moral philosophy as a postgraduate. I'm constructing arguments and following them, and trying to do it with facts, and not ideology. Vince wrote: Saddem Hussein is a neighborhood bully. Unfortunately, my country is prepared to act in the same way. There has been nothing advanced that distinguishes one side from the other. . . Sarah replied: You can't mean that. Nothing has been advanced that distinguishes America or the UK from Iraq?? To quote Tony Blair again -- a good test of a country is whether people are trying to get into it or out of it. If you were to open Iraq's borders tomorrow, the only people left would be Saddam and his missus, and probably not even her. Vince wrote: I have a long standing, life time long, problem with people who advocate policies that they are not affected by. Sarah wrote: Fair point, but do you apply it to yourself? You are advocating policies that will keep the Iraqi people in shackles. What do you say to them? Vince wrote: You want to go to war, but you will not go to war yourself personally, you will go to war with other people's children. Sarah wrote: I agree. It's easy to be an armchair warrior, and that's a good point. But our armies are volunteers -- they're professionals, they chose to be soldiers. I don't know what the mood is like in America, but in the UK, our soldiers tend to want to fight, because it's what they were trained for, and this attitude is in part what makes them a good army. When you're dealing with a professional army that is willing to fight, and you have decent generals who won't deliberately put their soldiers in bad positions, and you have great equipment, and your government is one that respects human life, then you've got as good a position as possible from which to start a war (and to advocate one, even from the armchair). But yes, I still think you have a valid point. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:54:07 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Greatest Hits NJC In a message dated 1/17/2003 1:43:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, sp@olympus.net writes: > I personally think Burton Cummings was > one of the greatest male rock vocalists of all time and > wouldn't want to be > restricted to only *one* of his albums. That's very cool, Scott. I agree with you on his standing as a superb vocalist, and it's mostly why I still love those Guess Who tunes to this day. I'm not familiar with their catalogue though, so for me the Greatest Hits works just fine. In support of what you said, one of the earliest LP's I bought was Elton John's Greatest Hits, and while it's certainly a fine collection of songs it's not as satisfying as the whole series of albums...eg ALL of Honky Chateau, not just "Honky Cat", etc. BUT, and this is getting back to Joni's "Hits" as a gateway, starting off with the Greatest Hits encouraged me to go back and plunder the entire back catalog of his work. Bob NP: Dylan, "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" 6/4/70 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:22:24 -0800 From: Kent Southard Subject: My favorite Joni song - for Kate My favorite Joni song - without a doubt 'A Song for Sharon.' I've noticed discussion here about when and where Joni fell out of large popular favor, and the consensus seems to be basically after Court and Spark - my sense is that while C&S was still about the life and loves of a young woman, her subsequent albums reflected a woman becoming ever more mature; and I don't think popular culture in this country has much room for that. I think the Hejira album was Joni finally at the peak of fierce independence, and 'A Song for Sharon' shows the breadth and depth of feeling that she has attained as well, and claims as her own. I just love it. - Kent ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:07:26 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: war protests Kosovo njc Kakki wrote: But how does one, in [Bush's] defense, provide proof of something that doesn't exist - what is the saying - proving a negative? This is ALWAYS the problem with conspiracy theories. A claim is made, and because it can't be disproved -- because no-one can prove a negative -- the claim is perceived by some to be accurate. Sarah ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:07:34 -0500 From: Subject: come in from the COLD Greetings from Toronto, where it is unbelievably cold. I think I have some sort of peculiar flu. I just feel...WEIRD. I haven't posted for awhile, but have been avidly reading all the digests. What an interesting group of people here. Always entertaining and thought-provoking. Some thought of my own. T'LOG must have been very expensive (the players, the orchestra, the packaging). If Joni indeed doesn't sell (TI, TTT and BSN were particularly disappointing, given Joni's '90s return to favour), why did Reprise green-light the project in the first place? T'LOG has gotten some respectable reviews, we must remember that. Would it have gotten more if had been a single CD? Is it bloated? How do people feel about the song selection? I think all of us would have welcomed a few more uptempo pieces, yes? By and large, I really love T'LOG, and find it grows on me with every listen. But I have to admit that I skip a number of songs: SLOUCHING (can't abide those "Head of a man"s! ouch!), LUDWIG (the worst performance of Joni's career; and too bad, because I love the orchestration), TRAIN (too damn busy by half); SEX KILLS (am I the only one who's fairly sick of that song?); and BORDERLINE (never one of my favourites; and not deserving of full orchestration). In my "imaginary" T'LOG, these are replaced by HELP ME, EDITH, SCARLETT, COTTON AVENUE, LOVE PUTS ON A NEW FACE. What is missing for YOU? This Sunday NY Times will no doubt include letters about the Rockwell review (they always appear two Sundays after the review was published). It'll be interesting to see what kind of responses it generated. I imagine he'll be taken to task on a number of levels. Do people here really dislike BSN? I think it's an amazing record myself. Remember when THOSL and HEJIRA first arrived? Wasn't it a thrill opening the package for the first time? CD design is cool, yes, but nothing can beat that large-format art: Joni in the pool; Joni on the sleeve of H as the crow flying, looking for something shiny; the covers of both albums when opened up; the way the words look against the H landscape, with "crow" Joni, with skates in place of claws, about to take flight. Magical! Speaking of HEJIRA, and of T'LOG, I think the new H is the best thing on T'LOG. Among its many pleasures, I really love the sound of Benny Goodman as it is captured here. In closing, La Joni may have lost a lot of power vocally, but -- as Rockwell noted -- there's a new "commucativeness" in her singing. And, as ever, patented Joni "thrills." For me: "Beautiful foolish arms" -- AMELIA "Through a glass darkly" -- LOVE "Oh, where is hope?" -- JOB "You gotta change / And that's not easy" -- TROUBLE CHILD "Not a lot of HELP" -- GMBABM That "oh oh oh" in HEJIRA "Grown up so fast" -- CHINESE CAFE The second, drawn-out "In the Broadwayyyyyyy bridge" in CHEROKEE LOUISE "And the dream of a baby" -- DAWNTREADER "And I fly-y-y away" -- RICHARD "Inside a jar" -- CIRCLE GAME Ah, Joni, I love ya! MICHAEL ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:10:58 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: war protests (PC, NJC) i remember reeling from 9/11 & on top of that reeling from so many jingoist responses to the attacks...as someone who felt quite alienated from what i perceived to be the general response to the attacks, i desparately needed somewhere to go to hopefully connect with others who might feel the same...thankfully, there was a silent peace vigil sponsored by a local organization called the nuclear age peace foundation http://www.wagingpeace.org/index.html they've been in existence for decades & i've worked with them in the past...the first week there was only a handful of folks gathered in silent candlelight vigil...as the word got out about the weekly vigils, the participants grew... my point is that this organization is a very mainstream, internationally known organization that states "Our Vision is a world at peace, free of the threat of war and free of weapons of mass destruction." the reason they were so organized is that is what they do 24/7... "It just has made me queasy personally that so many of the hard radical Marxist groups were so amazingly organized to protest any military action by the U.S. within days of 9/11. How could they have been SO organized in their opposition while most other people were still reeling from the events?" ******************************************** 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: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:16:53 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: war protests (PC, NJC) "Cynically, it makes me think that if a different person was in the White House pursuing regime change in Iraq, the voices would be a lot more subdued, if not silent." if there was another person in the white house i have doubts that this whole war in iraq scenario would even exist... ******************************************** 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: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:22:11 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: The Lies We Are Told About Iraq NJC PC Kate, I worked on the last Gulf War, and I know that some of what is in this article is correct, and some of it is not. I don't have time to outline it all right now. But just to point out - the author of the article works for the Independent Institute, founded by David Theroux, a well known libertarian. They have a tendency to oppose any interference in other countries, regardless of circumstance - because they feel that America should exist in splendid isolation politically. Sarah From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: The Lies We Are Told About Iraq NJC PC "Pentagon propaganda got us into the first Gulf War. Will we be fooled a second time? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:24:26 -0600 From: "kasey simpson" Subject: Re: war protests (PC, NJC) Kakki wrote: "Cynically, it makes me think that if a different person was in the White House pursuing regime change in Iraq, the voices would be a lot more subdued, if not silent." Kate wrote: if there was another person in the white house i have doubts that this whole war in iraq scenario would even exist... Kate I agree with you on this, I would add though that 9/11 would have only be a start. I' very glad we don't have another president. KaseyGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:32:17 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: RE: war protests (PC, NJC) Mary, I agree with Kakki that some anti-war campaigners seem to be more anti-Bush than anti-war as such. I'm not saying that you are, but some do seem that way to me, speaking as a non-American. There is a bitterness and vehemence in the way they speak about Bush that, in my view, may be blinding them to the facts of the case in hand. Because, really, it shouldn't matter WHO is advocating this war. What matters is - is the war a just one? To judge that fairly and with clear eyes, we need to drop our ideologies, as far as possible. Sarah Kakki wrote: "Cynically, it makes me think that if a different person was in the White House pursuing regime change in Iraq, the voices would be a lot more subdued, if not silent." Mary wrote: My political beliefs are more complex and informed by more than simply who happens to be occupying the White House at any given moment. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:12:24 -0600 From: "Happy The Man" Subject: My Fav... Albums of 2002 I have been holding out on this one! 10. Willie Nelson - Great Divide Cmon Marie Shut up and Kiss me 9. Neil Finn - One Nil 8. Flatlanders - Now Again 7. Diane Krall - Live in Paris 6. Patty Griffin - 1000 Kisses 5. Kasey Chambers - Barricades & Brickwalls 4. Joni - TLOG 3. Bonnie Raitt - Silver Lining 2. Van Morrison - Down The Road 1. James Taylor - October Road Favorite Concerts: Bonnie Raitt - Lyle Lovett Austin City Limits Music Festival (EmmyLou, String Cheese, Patty Griffin, Shawn Colvin, Arc Angel, WC Clark, etc. etc. etc. it was awesome) There were others... Peace, Craig NP: Jonatha.... Jonatha.... Jonatha..... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:12:13 -0500 From: "Blair Fraipont" Subject: Re: come in from the COLD I actually think that Slouching and Judgement of the Moon and Stars are extremely important to Travelogue in that (at least on the first disc) they create this chain of epic songs that compliment each other.. INfact that is why I like Disc One more, from "LOVE" to "For the Roses" each has this bravado and brilliance that outshines the second Disc, despite the fact that it contains "Hejira" and "Refuge". Disc one for me atleast is more consistent. BUt, I can understand about some of the words that Joni hits, from time to time can be a bit grating. I think one song I would add to Disc one would be "The Three Great Stimulants" I can picture it going well with the other epics contained therein. Blair NP: "JUdgement of the Moon and Stars"-Our Lady of Mitchell > >By and large, I really love T'LOG, and find it grows on me >with every listen. But I have to admit that I skip a number of >songs: SLOUCHING (can't abide those "Head of a man"s! >ouch!), LUDWIG (the worst performance of Joni's career; and >too bad, because I love the orchestration), TRAIN (too damn busy >by half); SEX KILLS (am I the only one who's fairly sick of that >song?); and BORDERLINE (never one of my favourites; and >not deserving of full orchestration). > _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:18:18 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) Lori, I was really thinking of Britain when I wrote that post, not the U.S. We (the UK) went into that war knowing what it might cost us, and knowing what Hitler was doing to the Jews (although at that point, there was no knowledge of a planned Holocaust). We waited until the invasion of Poland because we had a pact with that country. But long before that, Churchill and others in the UK were advocating military action against Hitler, even if the UK had to be the aggressor. And Churchill was condemned out of hand -- ridiculed -- for being a warmonger. Now he's a hero, even though that war was conducted in a way many today would say was unjust, because we had little chance of winning it until America joined in, and we committed atrocities like the bombing of Dresden. The interesting question is: do we view that with hindsight as a just war, and if so, why? And then, why not this one? What do we see as the morally significant differences? Sarah From: "Lori Fye" Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. After that invasion, the U.S. became "involved," but only to the extent that it approved the sell of arms to France and Britain. The U.S. was still trying to remain neutral. It wasn't until December 7, 1941, that the U.S. "awoke" (ah, that "sleeping giant," how poetic) and became truly involved in WWII. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:57:48 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: (NJC) Speaking of gun control ... > I also think the right to bear arms is ridiculous. What about the right to arm bears? > It makes me so mad I could shoot someone. LOL ... : D ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:58:36 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq Hi Kent, Thanks for sending in your interesting post. I agree with a lot of what you wrote, except a few points: 1. Tom Simons denies using the "carpet of gold/carpet of bombs" expression. But he admits they were trying to negotiate the handover of bin Laden for the attack on the USS Cole, and also raised the issue of the treatment of women, and were trying to find out whether the Taliban would be prepared to install a "broader government" as the Americans put it. That might have paved the way for the Americans to do business there. But the predominant thing for the Americans, with Clinton and Bush, was that the Taliban should hand over bin Laden, who was known to be a major threat before September 11. 2. It's not true that America via April Glaspie gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait in 1990. She responded to his war ramblings, just before the invasion, during a meeting called suddenly by Saddam, which she was given no warning of, and before which she had no time to contact her government, that "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab disputes". She didn't understand that he was warning her of an invasion, and when you read the very long transcript (and it is flowery language, hard to follow), you can only see that he might have meant this with hindsight. What he was saying is -- don't push me. I helped you with Iran, now help me with my economy. The Kuwaitis are trying to get more money out of me. Please warn them off. And she responded: "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab disputes." Saddam then called a series of meetings with the heads of state from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to which he didn't turn up at the last minute, sending an official in his place. An argument broke out between the Iraqi official and the Kuwaiti Crown Prince. The official left the meeting, telling Saddam that Kuwait had insulted Iraq. Hours later, Saddam invaded. It was all very dramatic and very avoidable. America was caught off-guard by it. 3. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a non-profit organization set up in 1997. What connection do they have, if any, with the Bush administration? 4. Can you refer me to the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle plan that was codified by the PNAC in the fall of 2000, and where they stated the need for a new Pearl Harbor? 5. Are you suggesting the Americans had something to do with September 11? 6. You say that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But in the 80s, everyone said of the rejectionist Palestinian movement (the Palestinians who oppose Arafat) that there's no way they would ever hook up with the Islamists, because the rejectionists were Marxists, secular. But they did, because they needed the money, and even as all the experts were insisting otherwise, the PFLP and PFLP-GC were being funded by Iran. Same with Saddam. You team up with people who can further your interests. Sarah From: Kent Southard It's generally been printed in only the 'better' papers, but this war on Iraq has been desired and planned, by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, etc., for some years now; as the first step towards American military domination of the oil of the Middle East. Their plan was codified most recently in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) written in the fall of 2000, in which they openly stated the need for a new 'Pearl Harbor' in order to galvanize American public support for such a plan - this was supplied by 9/11. . . . When Hussein sought to invade Kuwait because they were drilling slantwise under the border, he sought our permission, and our ambassador, April Glaspie, gave it. . . . the Bush administration had re-opened negotiations with the Taliban, cut off by Clinton because of their human rights record, for the building of oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan; these pipelines providing access to the reserves of the Caspian Sea, thought to be among the world's largest. The Taliban wasn't coming around, so Bush's representative, Tom Simons, told them 'Either accept our carpet of gold, or we will bury you in a carpet of bombs.' . . . Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Wahabi fundamentalist terrorism. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:00:15 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: thud (njc) Anne wondered: > Is anyone else glued to the TV every night to watch the > Louis Vuitton Cup finals. (It's sailing.) Or am I the > only person (except sometimes my brother in law) who > watches this stuff? Sorry, no time for that. I'm too busy watching reruns of old golf tournaments on the Golf channel. ; ) ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:01:57 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Very sorry - Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq Sorry to everyone on the joni-only list for not putting NJC on this post. Genuine error! Many apologies!! Sarah >Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:58:36 -0700 >To: cheapbmr@pacbell.net, joni@smoe.org, joni-digest@smoe.org >From: sl.m@shaw.ca >Subject: Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Hi Kent, > >Thanks for sending in your interesting post. I agree with a lot of >what you wrote, except a few points: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:27:30 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: RE: war protests (PC, NJC) Sarah wrote: > There is a bitterness and vehemence in the way they speak about Bush And I continue: that, in my view, will never even come close to the bitterness and vehemence and general disrespect in the way so many people spoke about Clinton, way before Whitewater or any of the rest of the "scandals." (Sorry, Mary P! I know Clinton has left the room. I just couldn't help myself!) Speaking of Bill, this morning Katie Couric interviewed Susan McDougal about her recently released book -- it looks like it could be an interesting read: http://www.msnbc.com/news/859776.asp http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- /0786711280/qid=1042838491/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-5120488-0422400? v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:31:10 -0800 From: Scott Price Subject: Re: Greatest Hits At 01:54 PM 1/17/2003 -0500, SCJoniGuy@aol.com wrote: >one of the earliest LP's I bought was Elton John's Greatest Hits, and >while it's certainly a fine collection of songs it's not as satisfying as >the whole series of albums...eg ALL of Honky Chateau, not just "Honky >Cat", etc. > >BUT, and this is getting back to Joni's "Hits" as a gateway, starting off >with the Greatest Hits encouraged me to go back and plunder the entire >back catalog of his work. Apologies for not trimming the above completely, but this post has gone back and forth between "JC" and "NJC." Since *this* post will have some JC, I have removed the "NJC" from the header and therefore had to leave in the first paragraph to (hopefully) tie it all together. Whew! :-) Lama brought up an interesting point...a person buys Joni's "Hits" and ends up buying most or all of her back catalog because he loved that introduction. His message to the record company, and to Joni, seemed to be "wake up." I had always been a bit proud of Joni for *not* releasing a "greatest hits" disc, buying into her argument that it would "kill her catalog." And I think it added an aura, a mystique, that she was "above" releasing a greatest hits set. I suppose I believed that her albums were to be taken as a whole, and her career shouldn't be condensed into one disc's worth of "greatest hits." Too, as she has self-effacingly stated before, she "never had any hits." I believe this refers to no "top-of-the-charts" singles, which are the usual mainstays of any musician's "greatest hits" album. Nevertheless, I couldn't fully understand her reasoning, and still don't, if her stance on the issue is the same. Here we have living proof of someone getting acquainted with her craft through the "Hits" disc and having it propel them deeply into this world of Joni appreciation. I do wonder, though, for each person like our new poster who started with "Hits" and purchased most/all of her other albums, how many started with, say, "C&S," or "Blue," or even something later, like "TI," and really liked the material and then went out and bought from her back catalog. Probably enough so that she *has* and *can* continue to resist putting out the typical "greatest hits" disc. I guess the question is, how to you get someone who isn't familiar with her work to take that first step, and which album should they be steered toward. What are we trying to accomplish? We want to not only enjoy the music ourselves, we want to turn others on to it, help sell more records, and thereby support the artist as best we can. For Joni Mitchell, is the best vehicle for all of this a "greatest hits" album or is it an individual "whole" album? I surely don't know! While the record companies must love these stories about someone going out and buying 20-plus albums, I like to think that for Joni, it's not just the sales of these albums, it's the converts. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:45:34 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Article about anti-Americanism NJC PC 'BOMB TEXAS': THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ROOTS OF ANTI-AMERICANISM Victor Davis Hanson The Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2003 With this past autumn's discussion in Washington over what to do about Iraq there arrived also the season of protests. They were everywhere. In the national newspapers, Common Cause published a full-page letter, backed by "7,000 signatories," demanding (as if it had been outlawed) a "full and open debate" before any American action against Iraq. More radical cries emanated from Not in Our Name, a nationwide "project" spearheaded by Noam Chomsky and affiliates, which likewise ran full-page advertisements in the major papers decrying America's "war without limit," organized "Days of Resistance" in New York and elsewhere, and in general made known its feeling that the United States rather than Iraq poses the real threat to world peace. At one late-October march in Washington, there were signs proclaiming "I Love Iraq, Bomb Texas," and depicting President Bush wearing a Hitler mustache and giving the Nazi salute. In the dock with America was, of course, Israel. On university campuses, demands circulated to disinvest from companies doing business with that "apartheid state"--on the premise, one supposes, that a democratic society with an elected government and a civilian-controlled military is demonic in a way that an autocratic cabal sponsoring the suicide-murder of civilians is not. Writers, actors, and athletes revealed their habitual self-absorption. The novelist Philip Roth complained that the United States since September 11 had been indulging itself in "an orgy of national narcissism," although he also concededIthat immediately after the fall of the Twin Towers New York "had become interesting again because it was a town in crisis". Barbra Streisand, identifying Saddam Hussein as the dictator of Iran, faxed misspelled and incoherent but characteristically perfervid memos to Congressmen, while Ed Asner, of sitcom fame, threatened publicly to "lose his soul" if we went into Iraq. The Hollywood bad boy Sean Penn, not previously known for harboring a pacifistic streak, demanded that the president cease his bellicosity for the sake of Penn's children. And the jet-setting tennis celebrity Martina Navratilova, who fled here to escape communist repression and has earned millions from corporate sponsors, castigated the repressive atmosphere of her adopted homeland. Harbingers of this sort of derision were, of course, on view a year ago, in the period right after September 11 and well into the campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Thus Michael Moore, currently making the rounds plugging his movie "Bowling for Columbine" bemoaned the 9/11 terrorists' lack of discrimination in their choice of target: "If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who did not vote for him!" Norman Mailer, engagingly comparing the Twin Towers to "two huge buck teeth," pronounced their ruins "more beautiful" than the buildings themselves. Not all the criticism of the American response to terrorist cells and rogue governments has partaken of this order of irrationality. But in the year since the slaughter of September 11 there emerged an unpleasant body of sentiment that reflects a profound and blanket dislike of anything the United States does at any time. For a while, The New Republic kept track of this growing nonsense, under the rubric of "Idiocy Watch," and the talk-show host Bill O'Reilly is still eager to subject exemplars of it to his drill-bit method of interrogation. The phenomenon they represent has been tracked daily by Andrew Sullivan on his Web log and analyzed at greater length by, among others, William J. Bennett (in "Why We Fight"), Norman Podhoretz (in "The Return of the 'Jackal Bins,'?" Commentary, April 2002), and Keith Windschuttle (in "The Cultural War on Western Civilization," The New Criterion, January 2002)I Some general truths emerge from any survey of anti-American invective in the context of the present world conflict. First, in each major event since September 11, proponents of the idea of American iniquity and Cassandras of a richly deserved American doom have proved consistently wrong. Warnings in late September 2001 about the perils of Afghanistan--the peaks, the ice, the warring factions, Ramadan, jihad, and our fated rendezvous with the graveyard of mighty armies gone before us--faded by early November in the face of rapid and overwhelming American victory. Subsequent predictions of "millions" of Afghan children left naked and starving in the snow turned out to be equally fanciful, as did the threat of atomic annihilation from across the border in Kashmir. No sooner had that theater cooled, however, than we were being hectored with the supposed criminality of our ally Ariel Sharon. Cries of "Jeningrad" followed, to die down only with the publication of Palestinian Authority archives exposing systematic thievery, corruption and PA-sanctioned slaughter. During the occasional hiatus from gloomy prognostications about the Arab-Israeli conflict, we were kept informed of the new cold war that was slated to erupt on account of our cancellation of the anti-ballistic-missile treaty with the defunct Soviet Union; of catastrophic global warming, caused by us and triggering floods in Germany; and always of the folly of our proposed intervention in Iraq. That effort to remove a fascist dictator, we are now assured is destined to fail, proving instead to be a precursor to nuclear war and/or a permanently inflamed Arab "street." On the other hand, a successful campaign in Iraq, it is predicted, will serve only to promote America's worst instincts: its imperial ambition, its cultural chauvinism and its drive for economic hegemonism (a synonym for oil). Those who oppose pre-emption warn on Monday that the Iraqi dictator is too dangerous to attack and shrug on Tuesday that he is not dangerous enough to warrant invasion. Take your pick: easy containment or sure Armageddon. The striking characteristic of such judgments is that they, too, are wholly at odds with the known facts. Confident forecasts of American defeat take no notice of what is the largest and best-trained military in history, and fly in the face of recent American victories in the Gulf War and Kosovo, both achieved at the cost of scarcely any American casualties. Alleged American hatred of Muslims hardly comports with our record of saving Kuwaitis from fascist Iraqis, Kosovars and Bosnians from Christian Serbs, or Afghans from Russian communists and then from their own Islamist overlords, all the while providing billions of dollars in aid to Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. It was Jordanians and Kuwaitis, not we and not Israelis, who ethnically cleansed Palestinians; Iraqis and Egyptians, not we, who gassed Muslim populations. And it is to our shores that Muslims weary of Middle Eastern despotism are desperate to emigrate. We are talking, largely though not exclusively, about a phenomenon of the aging left of the Vietnam era and of its various progeny and heirs; and once upon a time, indeed, the anti-American reflex could be linked with some rigor to the influence of Marxism. True, that particular religion is just about gone from the picture these days. Some of its fumes, though, still linger in the doctrines of radical egalitarianism espoused by postmodern relativists and multiculturalists and by now instilled, in suitably diluted and presentable form, in several generations of college and high-school students. Hence, for example, the regular put-down of George W. Bush as a "Manichean"--for could anything be more self-evidently retrograde than a view of our present conflict as a war of good versus evil, or anything more simplistic than relying on such "universal" arbiters of human behavior as freedom, pluralism, and religious tolerance? Eschewing any reference to truths of this kind, adherents of postmodernist relativism assess morality instead by the sole criterion of power: Those without it deserve the ethical high ground by virtue of their very status as underdogs; those with it, at least if they are Westerners, and especially if they are Americans, are ipso facto oppressors. Israel could give over the entire West Bank, suffer 10,000 dead from suicide bombers, and apologize formally for its existence, and it would still be despised by American and European intellectuals for being what it is--Western, prosperous, confident, and successful amid a sea of abject self-induced failure. But all such contradictions are lightly borne. Since, for our postmodern relativists and multiculturalists, there can be no real superiority of Western civilization over the available alternatives, democracy and freedom are themselves to be understood as mere "constructs," to be defined only by shifting criteria that reflect local prejudices and tastes. Like Soviet commissars labeling their closed societies "republics" and their enslaved peoples "democratic," Saudi officials assert that their authoritarian desert monarchy is an "Islamic democracy". In Afghanistan, the avatars of multiculturalism and utopian pacifism struggled with the facts of a homophobic, repressive, and icon-destroying Taliban, but emerged triumphant: According to their reigning dialectic, the Taliban still had to be understood on their own terms; only the United States could be judged, and condemned, absolutely. Our unprecedented affluence also explains much, although its role as a facilitator has been relatively scanted in most discussions of anti-Americanism that I have seen. The plain fact is that civilization has never witnessed the level of wealth enjoyed by so many contemporary Americans and Europeans. Obesity, not starvation, is our chief health problem; we are more worried about our 401(k) portfolios than about hostile tribes across the border. Homegrown hostility to American society and the American experiment is hardly a new phenomenon, but in the 19th century it tended to be limited to tiny and insulated elite circles. Now, it is a calling card for tens and hundreds of thousands who share a once rare material splendor. That brilliant trio of Roman imperial writers, Petronius, Suetonius and Juvenal, warned about such luxus and its effects upon the elite of their era, among them cynicism, nihilism, and a smug and crippling contempt for one's own. For many, today's affluence is also accompanied by an unprecedented sense of security. Tenure has ensured that tens of thousands of professors who work nine months a year cannot be fired for being unproductive or mediocre scholars, much less for being abject failures in the classroom. [Job] security is the norm. The combination of guarantees and affluence breeds a dangerous unfamiliarity with how human nature really works elsewhere. Such naiveti engenders its own array of contradictory attitudes and emotions, including guilt, hypocrisy, and envy. Among some of our new aristocrats, the realization has dawned that their own good fortune [exists] at the expense of others, if not of the planet itself. This hurts terribly, at least in theory. It sends some of them to their fax machines, from where they dispatch anguished letters to the New York Times about the plight of distant populations. It prompts others, more principled and more honorable, to work in soup kitchens, give money to impoverished school districts, and help out less fortunate friends and family. But local charity is unheralded and also expensive, in terms of both time and money. Far easier for most to exhibit concern by signing an ostentatious petition against Israel or to assemble in Central Park: public demonstrations that cost nothing but seemingly meet the need to show to peers that one is generous, fair, caring and compassionate. This brings us to another element of the new anti-Americanism. All of us seek status. This naturally selfish drive is especially problematic for radical egalitarians, who must suppress their own desire for privilege only to see it pop out in all sorts of strange ways. I do not mean the superficially incongruous manifestations: Hollywood actors in jeans and sneakers piling into limousines, Marxist professors signing their mass mailings with the pompous titles of their chairs, endowed through capitalist largesse, or the posh Volvos that dot the faculty parking lot. Rather, I have in mind the pillorying by National Public Radio of those who say "nucular" for "nuclear," the loud laments in faculty clubs over the threats posed to rural France by McDonald's, and all the other increasingly desperate assertions of moral and cultural superiority in a world where meaningful titles like earl, duke and marquis are long gone and in theory repugnant.. Is it because these elite Americans are so insulated and so well off, and yet feel so troubled by it, that they are prone to embrace with religious fervor ideas that have little connection with reality but that promise a sense of meaning, solidarity with a select and sophisticated group, moral accomplishment, and importance? Is it because of its very freedom and wealth that America has become both the incubator and the target of these most privileged, resentful, and unhappy people? And are their perceptions susceptible of change? If the answer to the first two questions is yes, as I believe it is, then the reply to the third must be: I doubt it. The necessary correctives, after all, would have to be brutal: an economic depression, a religious revolution, a military catastrophe or, God forbid, an end to tenure. At least in the near term, and whether we like it or not, the religion of anti-Americanism is as likely to grow as to fade. But it can also be challenged. The anti-Americans often invoke Rome as a warning and as a model, both of our imperialism and of our foreordained collapse. But the threats to Rome's predominance were more dreadful in 220 B.C. than in A.D. 400. The difference over six centuries was a result not of imperial overstretch on the outside but of something happening within that was not unlike what we ourselves are now witnessing. Earlier Romans knew what it was to be Roman, why it was at least better than the alternative, and why their culture had to be defended. Later in ignorance they forgot, and in consequence disappeared. The example of Rome, in short, is an apt one, but in a way unintended by critics who use passing contemporary events as occasions for venting a permanent, irrational and often visceral distrust of their own society. Their creed is really a malady, and it cries out to be confronted and exposed. (Victor Davis Hanson, Shifrin Visiting Professor of Military History at the U.S. Naval Academy, is author of "An Autumn of War" (Anchor). His article appeared in Commentary, December 2002.) ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #38 **************************** ------- 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)