From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #39 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 039 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Article about anti-Americanism NJC PC [Steve Dulson ] Louis Vuitton (NJC) [Steve Dulson ] Oh, and another thing (NJC) [Steve Dulson ] Re: Antiwar groups NJC, PC ["chuty001" ] Off topic discussions (NJC) [Steve Dulson ] Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) ["Lori Fye" ] RE: War protests (PC, NJC) [] Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) [sl.m@shaw.ca] Re: Off topic discussions (NJC) ["Lori Fye" ] RE: War protests (PC, NJC) [sl.m@shaw.ca] Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq NJC [Kent Southard ] Re: Greatest Hits [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] RE: War protests (PC, NJC) [] Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq NJC PC [sl.m@shaw.ca] re: war protests Kosovo NJC ["mike pritchard" ] Re: Off topic discussions (NJC) [Steve Dulson ] RE: Oh, and another thing (NJC) ["courtandspark@earthlink.net" ] mlk NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) ["Lori Fye" ] Re: Just war (NJC) ["mike pritchard" ] Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) ["chuty001" ] Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) [sl.m@shaw.ca] Just war (NJC) ["Lucy Hone" ] Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq NJC PC ["Lori Fye" 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 Those of you who keep posting newspaper articles to the list - how about if you just post the URL, then those who are interested can look it up, and the rest of us don't have to scroll through a lot of (to me) useless crap in our digests. Humph! - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:59:44 -0800 From: Steve Dulson Subject: Louis Vuitton (NJC) Anne asked: >Is anyone else glued to the TV every night to watch the >Louis Vuitton Cup finals. Michele and I! Sure get tired of those commercials, though... - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:05:01 -0800 From: Steve Dulson Subject: Oh, and another thing (NJC) Oh, and another thing about posting newspaper articles. Several other lists that I am on ban this practice, as newspaper articles are copyrighted. By copying them in toto to the list you are infringing the copyright and exposing the list owner to potential liability. I don't want to get any solicitations from the Get Les Out Of Jail fund. :) - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:14:59 -0500 From: "chuty001" Subject: Re: Antiwar groups NJC, PC - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lori Fye" To: "kakki" ; ; ; Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 11:11 AM Subject: Re: Antiwar groups NJC, PC > Kakki wrote: > > > And as the one who mentioned ANSWER I did not mean to imply that ALL > > antiwar groups were Marxist/Socialist. Bit ANSWER and it's main > > affiliates ARE the prime organizers and activists in the movement. > > And if they are Marxist/Socialist, this is entirely bad? We have a > number of Socialists on this list, possibly Communists as well. > History has shown that Marxism works only in theory, but there's no > harm in continuing to believe that it *could* work. Socialism and > Communism do not automatically equal "evil," regardless of how hard > U.S. politicians and corporations have tried (and continue to try) to > make us believe that. (I can remember being a youngster in the 1960s, > when no one bothered to explain Communism to me; rather, they just spit > out the word "Communist" as if they were saying "Satan.") > > There are a lot of thing wrong with Capitalism, too, but I won't even > begin to "go there" right now, as it's another huge can of worms. But > please consider this: "our" way is not the only "right" way. > > Lori > Since Lori won't I will IMO Enron is proof enough as to how well Capitalism works or selling weapons to people then declaring war on them because they have them. Both capitalism and communism are destined to fail for the same reason, human nature.(GREED) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:13:16 -0800 From: Steve Dulson Subject: Off topic discussions (NJC) God, I'm verbose today! Lori wrote: >Really, the "problem" (if there really is one) is that we DO have a >clue, about so much more than just Joni. : ) And there's no better >place than here, with our friends of spirit, to discuss everything in >the world. The problem of course, Lori, is that despite the fancy that we are all "friends of spirit" these off-topic discussions (specifically those on religion, politics and sexuality) have led in the past to anger, bitterness, people leaving the list and broken friendships. You like these discussions. I respectfully disagree with you. - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:14:25 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) Sarah wondered: > 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? I'm not sure that ANY war is "just." That aside, while you've mentioned several times that the Iraqi citizens are in "shackles," I have yet to personally see much evidence that the Iraqis are so miserable that they are leaving their country in droves, or anything even resembling that. I know we're just getting the media spin on things, but please, point me to something that can help me understand the "real" Iraq better. Then maybe I can discuss morally significant differences. (And please forgive me if I've missed links that you've already provided.) Further, we knew for YEARS about the Taliban's horrible oppression of women, yet we did nothing until after 9/11. Then, suddenly, we "needed" to wage war on Afghanistan because that country was supposedly harboring Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Well, we didn't capture bin Laden or many of Al Qaeda's key people ... so why not wage war against every country who might be harboring them? Why not just blow up the entire Middle East, and make SURE we got them?! I'm very pleased that the Taliban is now longer in power, but as far as I'm concerned, going to war against Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction meant to make the American people feel like we had SOME sort of control (which is a joke - we don't, we never will again), and to appease the "jingoists" (thanks for that one, Kate) who were pissed off and wanted to strike back at someone, anyone, just so we could have our "eye for an eye." One more question, since Desert Storm has been brought up: does anyone honestly believe that the United States would've given one shit about Kuwait if there hadn't been precious OIL involved?? Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:16:38 -0600 From: Subject: RE: War protests (PC, NJC) Sarah wrote: "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." I agree completely that it shouldn't matter who is advocating the war, although, as a practical matter, I can't imagine some politicians *ever* advocating it. And yes, we should look at the matter with clear vision, although I wouldn't go so far as to say we should drop our "ideologies" (I would have said, "political philosophies and beliefs"; that's a little less inflammatory). Whatever we call them, they're part of who we are. That said, I've looked at the merits of this proposed war, and so far, I find them lacking. But then, you knew that. Finally, I completely agree with Lori that the anti-Bush sentiments being expressed now are a pale imitation of the anti-Clinton rants we heard pre-Whitewater, and pre-Lewinski. OK, this is politics. High stakes and a fevered pitch of feeling are often involved. Rants, on both sides of the aisle, are to be expected. But let's not hold one side to a higher standard than the other, please. Mary P. P.S. I find it not at all outside the realm of possibility that the anti-Clinton rants directly informed and flamed the anti-Bush rants. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:34:40 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) Lori, people are not allowed to leave Iraq without exit visas, and these are not normally given. All Iraqis who leave the country are regarded with great suspicion, even if they are friends of Saddam. One case mentioned recently was an Iraqi businessmen who was given an exit visa to go to Jordan on business. In his absence, something came up in someone's mind in Iraq that he was politcally involved. He was sent a message to go and pick up a gift from the post office in Jordan. The gift was a videotape of his wife being raped. It was a message saying: we're watching you and we'll get your family if you don't come back. So he went back. End of business trip. That is Saddam's Iraq. I'll send you a couple of links to British government reports - one on the weapons and one on torture. Maybe you'd find them interesting. I agree with you about the Taliban. Sarah At 2:14 PM -0800 01/17/2003, Lori Fye wrote: >Sarah wondered: > >> 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? > >I'm not sure that ANY war is "just." That aside, while you've >mentioned several times that the Iraqi citizens are in "shackles," I >have yet to personally see much evidence that the Iraqis are so >miserable that they are leaving their country in droves, or anything >even resembling that. I know we're just getting the media spin on >things, but please, point me to something that can help me understand >the "real" Iraq better. Then maybe I can discuss morally significant >differences. (And please forgive me if I've missed links that you've >already provided.) > >Further, we knew for YEARS about the Taliban's horrible oppression of >women, yet we did nothing until after 9/11. Then, suddenly, >we "needed" to wage war on Afghanistan because that country was >supposedly harboring Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Well, we didn't >capture bin Laden or many of Al Qaeda's key people ... so why not wage >war against every country who might be harboring them? Why not just >blow up the entire Middle East, and make SURE we got them?! > >I'm very pleased that the Taliban is now longer in power, but as far as >I'm concerned, going to war against Afghanistan was a knee-jerk >reaction meant to make the American people feel like we had SOME sort >of control (which is a joke - we don't, we never will again), and to >appease the "jingoists" (thanks for that one, Kate) who were pissed off >and wanted to strike back at someone, anyone, just so we could have >our "eye for an eye." > >One more question, since Desert Storm has been brought up: does anyone >honestly believe that the United States would've given one shit about >Kuwait if there hadn't been precious OIL involved?? > >Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:38:48 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: Off topic discussions (NJC) > The problem of course, Lori, is that despite the fancy that we > are all "friends of spirit" these off-topic discussions (specifically > those on religion, politics and sexuality) have led in the past to > anger, bitterness, people leaving the list and broken friendships. Of course you're right, Steve, and isn't it a damn shame? But I continue to fancy that we're all "friends of spirit" because that phrase came from Joni and it's our love of Joni that brought us here in the first place. For example, politically I am usually 180 degrees out of phase with Kakki, but I've been to her home (come to think of it, you were there too!) and aside from political opinions, I love the way Kakki thinks and she makes a damn fine martini besides. (This, from someone who otherwise hates martinis.) Actually, I love the way Kakki thinks about any topic, despite disagreeing with her on politics! (Kakki, I'm not picking on you; it's just an example. Are you coming to JoniFest this year??) I continue to be a naive impossible dreamer, perhaps, but I believe the members of this list can all agree to respectfully disagree about ANYTHING and still be friends and come out smiling. (Would someone please pass that doobie over here?) Those who can't ... well, they're just missing out on the other wonderful stuff that goes on here! : ) > You like these discussions. I respectfully disagree with you. I do like them. And I agree, with tremendous respect, that you have the right to disagree. Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:41:53 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: RE: War protests (PC, NJC) Well, no, I meant "ideologies". A political philosophy is meant to be something considered. When I say ideology, I mean the network of beliefs, desires, prejudices, presumptions into which we all feed any new bit of information to work out how to view it. We all do it. You can't live entirely without an ideology. But so far as possible, we have to make ourselves conscious of it, and not let it dictate to us, and not let it blind us to facts. So someone is who anti-war should try their hardest to find merit in the opposite position. Someone who is pro-war should do the same. And by weighing and balancing, and reading reliable sources, we stand half a chance of reaching a rational belief. It's hard to do it with so much conflicting information flying around, but worth the effort, I would say. Sarah At 4:16 PM -0600 01/17/2003, blckcrow@chorus.net wrote: >I agree completely that it shouldn't matter who is advocating the >war, although, as a practical matter, I can't imagine some >politicians *ever* advocating it. And yes, we should look at the >matter with clear vision, although I wouldn't go so far as to say we >should drop our "ideologies" (I would have said, "political >philosophies and beliefs"; that's a little less inflammatory). >Whatever we call them, they're part of who we are. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:44:44 -0700 From: Kent Southard Subject: Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq NJC Hi Sarah, The following is what I've read in regards to points you raise: 1. Simons doesn't deny saying this, but says it may have been said in a moment when 'he had too much to drink.' Former Pakistani foreign minister Naif Naik was present at these meetings, and is the original source for the quote, and also to the content of the meetings. The problem with saying the meetings with the Taliban were primarily for the purpose of handing over bin Laden, is contradicted by the fact that the Bush administration seemed to have the policy that it couldn't care less about him - they dismantled the many-layered military response Clinton had assembled to get bin Laden: took away the Predator surveillance drone, the AC-130 gunships, the two cruise-missile equipped subs, the special-ops troops in Uzbekistan. According to Jane's Intelligence Weekly, the Bush administration also made the 'political decision to ignore unprecedented intelligence' on bin Laden supplied by Russia, intelligence so detailed that, for a time, a successful hit would have been assured. 2. The accounts I've read are that Hussein requested an appointment with Glaspie, announced his intentions and asked what the U.S. position would be. She cabled home, and received the response you quote that she gave Hussein, 'We have no position.' 3. If the members of the PNAC all reside currently at the top of the Bush administration, shouldn't an overlap of aims seem self-explanatory? 4. The need for a new 'Pearl Harbor' was first written of by Zbignew Brezinzki; it's inclusion in the PNAC goals was noted by Chalmers Johnson in an op-ed piece in last Sunday's LA Times. Johnson is a former foreign policy insider, who much like Kevin Phillips, has gone apostate. 5. As for 'Americans having something to do with 9/11' - I look at facts such as John Ashcroft, who had the USA-Patriot Act all ready to go when the attack came; Ashcroft stopped flying commercial at the end of July due to a 'threat assessment.' Bush himself got out of town for the whole next month, as did Cheney. It's fairly inexplicable that while CIA Director Tenet was distraught with fear of an attack, was giving briefings, etc., that the Bush administration had still not put a priority for the NSC to translate transmissions from Al Qaeda and the Taliban - so when the messages came thru that basically said 'Tomorrow's the big one!' they sat without attention. And look at the FBI warnings that were not just ignored, but actively subverted. The supervisor who cut off Cowley's investigation just got promoted and an award, for pete's sake. If it's not all a matter of criminal intent, that they let it happen on purpose, then it's certainly a matter of criminal negligence. And as John O'Neill, the FBI counter-terrorism chief who quit to die at the WTC said, 'It all goes back to the Saudi's, and while protecting the Saudi's was important in every administration, it became much more so with Bush.' 6. No link has been established between Hussein and 9/11. A link that has been established is that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency wired Atta $100k, and the guy was in Washington visiting the CIA at the time of the attacks. He was soon sacked though, so maybe he was an embarrassment. In any event, we didn't attack Pakistan, nor Saudi Arabia, who funded Al Qaeda, and probably continues to do so. But then, our CIA encouraged them to do all that during the 80's, in the Reagan/Bush scheme to contain and subvert the Soviet Union by surrounding it with radical Islam. Like I said, Blowback. Hope this helps - Kent - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 1:58 PM 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 17:52:54 -0500 From: "chuty001" Subject: Re: war protests (PC, NJC) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: ; > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 3:32 PM > 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 see no difference between the two > > 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. Kind of like the way people speak about Sadam or Hitler and so on > > 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 This concept if just war is quite brilliant and profitable to boot. So when are they invading Canada or have they allready, and just forgot to tell us about it. Chuck > > > > > > 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 17:52:38 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Greatest Hits In a message dated 1/17/2003 4:30:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, sp@olympus.net writes: > Nevertheless, I couldn't fully understand her reasoning, and still don't, > if her stance on the issue is the same. Good points all, Scott...there are plenty of reasons why "Hits" & "Misses" is a good idea. First, the aforementioned "Gateway" idea. They DO make a nice introductory piece to newcomers about Joni's work, and will most likely prompt a few 'oh, I didn't know ahe wrote THAT' sorta comments, and as such are nice gifts from those of us who may want to be Jonivangelists, or at least recommend. Giving someone a single release could be misleading...imagine someone getting STAS, deciding they like Joni, and picking up Mingus or DED next...they'd be pretty surprised! Matter of fact, I haven't gotten around to picking up Hits or Misses myself. No sense in it, except for UFG which I already have on another cd anyway. Bob NP: Steve Earle, "Conspiracy Theory" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:53:54 -0600 From: Subject: RE: War protests (PC, NJC) Sarah wrote: "Well, no, I meant "ideologies". A political philosophy is meant to be something considered. When I say ideology, I mean the network of beliefs, desires, prejudices, presumptions into which we all feed any new bit of information to work out how to view it." And I guess I would say that a lot of us consider our "ideologies" to be "considered"--or perhaps, the fact that we are pro-war or anti-war to be part of a political philosophy, not an "ideology," as you are defining it. I know I do. Such a philosophy is part of the prism by which we see the world. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. But yes, I think we should always try to know, learn more about, and carefully consider various sides of any given issue. The new information may even deepen our political philosophies--or ideologies, as you will. Not quite sure we agree on this, but also, not sure we disagree. Have to fly--late for a commitment! Have a nice evening (morning; afternoon), all. Mary P. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:54:35 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq NJC PC But Kent, are you saying you believe the Bush administration may have caused 9/11? And the FBI was involved? This is arch-conspiracy stuff. It's like the Arabs saying the Jews caused it because there were no Jews in the WTC at the time. If you have time, I'd very much appreciate a link to the comment that America needs another Pearl Harbour, as I'd like to read the article. As for it being important to Bush to protect the Saudis, I've never read such anti-Saudi material coming from any administration before. Bush, unlike previous presidents, has put the Saudis firmly on notice that their days of working both sides are numbered. Sarah At 2:52 PM -0800 01/17/2003, Kent Southard wrote: >5. As for 'Americans having something to do with 9/11' - I look at facts >such as John Ashcroft, who had the USA-Patriot Act all ready to go when the >attack came; Ashcroft stopped flying commercial at the end of July due to a >'threat assessment.' Bush himself got out of town for the whole next month, >as did Cheney. It's fairly inexplicable that while CIA Director Tenet was >distraught with fear of an attack, was giving briefings, etc., that the Bush >administration had still not put a priority for the NSC to translate >transmissions from Al Qaeda and the Taliban - so when the messages came thru >that basically said 'Tomorrow's the big one!' they sat without attention. >And look at the FBI warnings that were not just ignored, but actively >subverted. The supervisor who cut off Cowley's investigation just got >promoted and an award, for pete's sake. If it's not all a matter of criminal >intent, that they let it happen on purpose, then it's certainly a matter of >criminal negligence. And as John O'Neill, the FBI counter-terrorism chief >who quit to die at the WTC said, 'It all goes back to the Saudi's, and while >protecting the Saudi's was important in every administration, it became much >more so with Bush.' ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:54:05 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: re: war protests Kosovo NJC >>But how does one, in his (Bush's) defense, provide proof of something that doesn't exist - what is the saying - proving a negative? It doesn't matter - truth has a way of eventually surfacing.<< Kakki wrote the above, on an entirely different matter, just as I was about to write something in relation to another post from another person entirely (Sarah) so the following remarks may be pertinent to her (Kakki's) rhetorical question but not inspired by it. My remarks may also apply to Kakki's argument about Bush and Clinton but they are directed at Sarah's. (see below) The references are to the Reagan/Thatcher years rather than the Bush/Blair ones. It's from a paper I wrote some years ago, bear with me please. Sarah's reply to Kakki was >> 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.<< mike says Berel Lang, in an article entitled 'Politics and the New History of Truth' (Lang, 1991:38), looks at the concepts of 'truth' and 'lie' and the blurring of the distinctions between them, especially as used by Presidents Nixon and Reagan. Many of the key concepts of the corruption of language emerged during their presidencies. Most people have a clear idea of the difference between telling a lie and telling the truth. The difference between the two concepts is so fundamental that: >>it would be difficult to find a child above the age of five who, at some level, is unaware of the difference, and indeed almost all the links that hold social institutions together - laws, contracts, promises, even simple descriptive statements - assume this very distinction (Lang, 1991:38). << The concept of 'deniability', however, muddies the waters and during the Watergate hearings the "Nixonians' working definition of truth" emerged (Lang, 1991:38). >>Where in common usage, the truth of a statement implies a correspondence with facts, including those that might be known only to the speaker, 'deniability' ascribes truth to any statement that cannot be disproved, all claims to the contrary can then be denied. (Lang, 1991:38). << The second step is to ensure that there are no claims to the contrary, such as the cases where films are banned or censored, therefore 'deniability' works hand in hand with censorship, ensuring that the official version remains the only version the public gets.... Public opinion, then, is based on a partial viewing of the facts (partial in both senses). Where claims to the contrary are available, the government uses the media to discredit the source. For example, some people attempt to ridicule Chomsky's political views in order to diminish the weight of evidence he provides. We should not underestimate what is going on here: without evidence to the contrary, the original assertion, however incredible, remains 'true'. Lang states: >>It means that the test of truth is now negative: all assertions - claims or denials of responsibility, descriptions of events - are true until they are disproved. If they are. The burden of proof is thus entirely on the audience and not at all on the speaker, whose main concern, once s/he has spoken, is to retain the power of deniability by assuring that possible counterevidence remains hidden.<< (Lang, 1991:39). Let's look at two examples of sound bites. When Mrs Thatcher heard that Amnesty International were planning an investigation into the Gibraltar shootings (1988), she said "I hope Amnesty has some concern for the more than 2,000 people murdered by the IRA since 1969" (Jack, 1988: 37). Of these 2,000 killed in the troubles, over 600 were killed by Loyalist paramilitaries, and over 200 by the British Army and the Police (Curtis, 1985: 109). Mrs Thatcher's soundbite went unchallenged and uncorrected. Secondly, a quote on the Gibraltar inquest: "What greater inquiry could one have than an independent inquest in an independent colony?" asked Jerry Hayes (Jack, 83). Ignoring the obvious paradox of the phrase 'independent colony', the actual number of witnesses who were completely 'independent' either of the British Government or the administration of its dependent territory was 16 out of 80. Hardly 'independent'. Hayes' rhetorical question also went unchallenged. mike in bcn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:55:31 -0800 From: Steve Dulson Subject: Re: Off topic discussions (NJC) >Of course you're right, Steve, and isn't it a damn shame? But I >continue to fancy that we're all "friends of spirit" because that >phrase came from Joni and it's our love of Joni that brought us here in >the first place. For example, politically I am usually 180 degrees out >of phase with Kakki, but I've been to her home (come to think of it, >you were there too!) You bet! It was another great evening chez Kakki. >I continue to be a naive impossible dreamer, perhaps, but I believe the >members of this list can all agree to respectfully disagree about >ANYTHING and still be friends and come out smiling. I agree with you 100%! That's the way it should be. And I must say, all the jonilistas I've met face to face are great people (including you) (blush). I wonder if we could persuade Les (and Kakki!) that drinking martinis at Kakki's place with a bunch of us old-timers be a prerequisite to joining the list? Off to meet the Paz Man and enjoy Mr McGuinn and Co. Of course, Paz has had a whole day at NAMM by himself, so at this point I wouldn't be surprised to find that he's arranged an intimate Byrds reunion party at Casa Alegre... Affectionately, - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:57:49 -0500 From: "courtandspark@earthlink.net" Subject: RE: Oh, and another thing (NJC) Oh, for goodness sakes. mack Oh, and another thing about posting newspaper articles. Several other lists that I am on ban this practice, as newspaper articles are copyrighted. By copying them in toto to the list you are infringing the copyright and exposing the list owner to potential liability. I don't want to get any solicitations from the Get Les Out Of Jail fund. :) - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:58:22 -0500 From: "courtandspark@earthlink.net" Subject: RE: Oh, and another thing (NJC) Oh, for goodness sakes. mack Oh, and another thing about posting newspaper articles. Several other lists that I am on ban this practice, as newspaper articles are copyrighted. By copying them in toto to the list you are infringing the copyright and exposing the list owner to potential liability. I don't want to get any solicitations from the Get Les Out Of Jail fund. :) - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:58:41 -0500 From: "courtandspark@earthlink.net" Subject: RE: Oh, and another thing (NJC) Oh, for goodness sakes. mack Oh, and another thing about posting newspaper articles. Several other lists that I am on ban this practice, as newspaper articles are copyrighted. By copying them in toto to the list you are infringing the copyright and exposing the list owner to potential liability. I don't want to get any solicitations from the Get Les Out Of Jail fund. :) - -- ######################################################## Steve Dulson Costa Mesa CA steve@psitech.com "The Tinker's Own" http://www.tinkersown.com "The Living Tradition Concert Series" http://www.thelivingtradition.org/ - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:59:34 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: re war protests NJC >> How could they have been SO organized in their opposition while most other people were still reeling from the events?<< Marxists are ALWAYS ready for the revolution. It's just a kiss away, it's just a kiss away, yeah... mike in bcn NP Gil Scott-Heron, 'the revolution will not be televised' ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:02:28 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: mlk NJC Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peaceif this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love. Martin Luther King, Jr, Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech ******************************************** 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 15:02:15 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) > Lori, people are not allowed to leave Iraq without exit visas, and > these are not normally given. Okay Sarah, but East Germans weren't allowed to leave either. Yet many of them found life in East Germany so unbearable that they risked their own lives and the lives of their families to crawl over and under the Berlin Wall. I'm not saying that Iraqis should do something similar, or that they're cowardly for not doing so. But I wonder why they don't. > I'll send you a couple of links to British government reports - one > on the weapons and one on torture. Maybe you'd find them interesting. Yes I would. Thank you. Lori ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:04:00 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: Re: Just war (NJC) >>America is planning an invasion, not an attack.<< An invasion which isn't an attack is an interesting concept. >>Whether you agree or disagree with it, you have to concede that it isn't mindless vandalism.<< I half agree with you. I concede that the vandalism isn't mindless. m in bcn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:07:19 -0500 From: "chuty001" Subject: Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 4:18 PM 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, The americans sat and waited to see who was going to win before commiting. Europe did not chose war they were attacked. America joined when it was over. There was little chance of winning it until Russia joined in. and we committed > atrocities like the bombing of Dresden. Hiroshima Nagasaki 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 17:18:35 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) They do risk their lives to leave Iraq, Lori. They're doing it all the time. This is why Europe, particularly London, has so many Iraqi exiles living in it. You need an exit visa from Iraq, or else you need to sneak through the border, and they usually go to Jordan. Once there, you have to persuade another country to give you a visa. The British Embassy does officially offer visas to Iraqis seeking political asylum, but there have been many occasions over the years where the Brits have manned their embassy with only one visa officer, so a queue of a thousand Iraqis can take months to process. They did this during the Gulf War, for example, to try to keep numbers down. Sarah At 3:02 PM -0800 01/17/2003, Lori Fye wrote: > > Lori, people are not allowed to leave Iraq without exit visas, and >> these are not normally given. > >Okay Sarah, but East Germans weren't allowed to leave either. Yet many >of them found life in East Germany so unbearable that they risked their >own lives and the lives of their families to crawl over and under the >Berlin Wall. I'm not saying that Iraqis should do something similar, >or that they're cowardly for not doing so. But I wonder why they don't. > >> I'll send you a couple of links to British government reports - one >> on the weapons and one on torture. Maybe you'd find them interesting. > >Yes I would. Thank you. > >Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:23:45 -0000 From: "Lucy Hone" Subject: Just war (NJC) Dear All JMDL-ers. I sit here, stunned, amazed, and humbled at the incredible and admirable lengths to which the contributors to this particular subject,(JUST WAR) are so cogently able to make their many, varied and valid points. What strikes me about all of this terrible situation, and the horrendous other attrocities that are being committed throughout the world,.. or are in the process of being planned to take place... is that each involved party, whether pro or contra that particular situation, manage to argue their various points with a passion that is amazing to behold. We are all only humans. I made the point in my first mail to the list about a man called Satish Kumar. He made a point to me, in our conversation, that the powerful people in this world, each and every one of them is "only a human". George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair, Putin, you name any of the heads of state in this planet, they are only human and only men... just as powerful women are only women. They have, as we do, all the foibles and failings of us less famous people, they have come to power because they sought it, and (at least where voting is almost certainly run properly) put into power because they are believed in by a voting populace... they are also manipulated by other humans would like to be in power and who place their own schemes in front of the men with the pens to sign and the buttons to push. I think it was Plato who said (and forgive me if I am wrong) that the very people who seek public office are exactly the people who should not have it. and that becomes more and more evident as this world turns ever closer to yet another conflict... there is no one answer as to what this "JUST WAR" is about but the words "SPIN DOCTORS" rise up in my mind very quickly.... hidden agendas and corporate greed are other words that hover on the edges. There is not one politician I would ever vote in to office and I try to avoid politics. However I live in a heaveily naval town and have seen the boats sailing out to see, the newly aommandeered merchantmen (ships) hanging about doing manoevres with landing craft two minutes from my house, and the very very empty moorings in the harbour where 4 days ago the ARK ROYAL was waiting (heavily draped to avoid prying eyes). I feel sick to the core of my being to think of any nation losing its men and women to battle. Each and every politician who is allied to the BIG NAMES has sent us to this flashpoint and I do not know how to tell my 11 year old daughter how it is that we are heading to conflict or actually the reasons why... Reading the amazing viewpoints on the list has made me think about it so much more deeply than I have ever thought about world conflict before. And however much the points are argued, however much the cases are cogently put, do any of us truly feel that this is a JUST WAR? There are too many lies, twists, misinformations and hidden agendas for this ever to be a JUST WAR... I apologise to any who lost relatives in the Twin Towers and whom my viewpoint may offend but there has to come a point where belief is suspended and a very long hard look at who has got what to gain from any conflict in the Gulf. I apologise for not quoting endlessly from everyone's mails but I am not equal to the task of arguing point for point. this mail is my gut feel. I am prompted to end with this late 50's early 60's anti-war poem, I do not know who wrote it but a friend copied it to me some years ago....... If night should come sooner than we thought it might remember that I loved you. Not, I grant, a love that sacrifices truth or light but still a love that leant the world a heart on some warm secret hillside in the night. We all of us have so much humanity to lose. Lucy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:25:14 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq NJC PC > Bush, unlike previous presidents, has put the Saudis firmly on notice > that their days of working both sides are numbered. I doubt that "C" student Bush is smart enough to put anybody on notice, except perhaps his daddy when he needs something. I'm absolutely convinced that Bush is the puppet of Cheney and Rumsfeld, nothing more, perhaps less. Even his "axis of evil" comment - which you could almost believe Bush might've coined - wasn't his own; it was David Frum's. Clever speechwriters, Bush has. Smarts, he has not. Too bad the puppeteers couldn't have found someone who can speak better. On the other hand, the "folksy" approach was no doubt exactly what they wanted. Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:27:01 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Just war (NJC) (PC) Lori, I'm sending you off-list two pdf files about human rights abuses and weapons in Iraq. Let me know if you have trouble opening them, as I'm on an Apple Mac and sometimes Windows doesn't open files sent from a Mac. Sarah At 3:02 PM -0800 01/17/2003, Lori Fye wrote: > > I'll send you a couple of links to British government reports - one >> on the weapons and one on torture. Maybe you'd find them interesting. > >Yes I would. Thank you. > >Lori ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #39 **************************** ------- 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)