From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #111 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Thursday, February 13 2003 Volume 2003 : Number 111 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: war NJC [dsk ] Out of town (NJC) ["Lori Fye" ] Re: war NJC [sl.m@shaw.ca] Re: war protest njc jimmy started it ["Lavieri, Vince [185776]" ] NJC Heathrow ["Kate Bennett" ] Cheap Trick (NJC) ["Happy The Man" ] war njc ["ron" ] Re: compuserve? NJC JMDL Digest V2003 #110 ["Eryl B Davies" ] test, please ignore NJC ["Wally Kairuz" ] Re: war (njc) protest ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: war (njc) protest [FMYFL@aol.com] Re: war (njc) [AzeemAK@aol.com] Re: NJC Heathrow [colin ] Re: war (njc) protest [colin ] Re: war njc [Catherine McKay ] joni mitchell sings joni mitchell [Rob Procyk & Tracy Tolley ] Re: war (njc) [AzeemAK@aol.com] Re: joni mitchell sings joni mitchell [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: war (njc) [AzeemAK@aol.com] Re: compuserve? NJC [TerryM2222@aol.com] Re: missile shield (njc) ["kakki" ] compuserve? No! Cable! NJC [vince ] Re: joni mitchell sings joni mitchell (njc) ["kakki" ] Re: war (njc) ["kakki" ] joni for joni haters/boston next week ["Wally Kairuz" ] heathrow njc ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: feb 12!!!! njc [Michael Paz ] Re: ciao for now [Michael Paz ] Re: Larry and Joni [Bobsart48@aol.com] Nonesuch Travelogue Promo ["Christopher Treacy" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:30:11 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: war NJC sl.m@shaw.ca wrote: > > But the Pentagon says this will be a new type of warfare - a war > against infrastructure, not people. So all the people there need to do is make sure they're standing in the streets rather than inside a building and then they'll be ok? > The American plan is to take out the first two tiers of Iraqi > leadership in all government departments, but otherwise to leave > things as they are. The aim is to take over the country with > virtually no loss of innocent life, rule it for one year, then hold > elections. That's very neat and bloodless and it's not going to happen that way. For one thing, Saddam Hussein will probably manage to stay alive and a lot of innocent Iraqis end up very dead or maimed. You think Saddam and "the first two tiers" are going to stick around while all the buildings are falling? And if you, and we, know about the US plans, you don't think Saddma doesn't? Jeez! > Our intentions, unlike theirs, are decent. I believe that -- no > matter how ridiculous it may sound to a small number of you. Small number??? You're really dreaming now! > Those of you who say 'it's about oil' should spell out what you mean. One thing it means is that US oil companies have not been allowed to buy Iraqi oil since the embargo was put into place in 1991. Cheney (and probably others) would like to see that changed. ("Year that Dick Cheney, as head of oil field equipment manufacturer Halliburton, called for the end to sanctions against Iraq: 2000"). Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world. I think Cheney, Bush, and all those big oil company executives who gave money that helped get Bush elected would like to be able to get to some of that oil, as cheaply as possible, and then sell it as expensively as possible so they can maximize their profits, for the shareholders, of course (very good excuse in a capitalist society, and an excuse that's been used A LOT lately for what turns out to be gouging the consumers). The US having easy access to that much oil means those companies wouldn't have to pay attention to the Saudis and their control over prices anymore. Those prices really were way too low, weren't they? and didn't help any US oil company executives, or, uh, shareholders, of course. Most actions Bush takes is to pay back his contributors (hey, he's an honorable guy), so the idea that he would pay back the oil company contributors is not far fetched to me. As I've often thought, Bush and his Bushies are going to be billionaires eventually through their various manipulations. And if people are dead, too bad. If consumers end up paying double or triple for energy, too bad. Bush's words of concern always sound good; too bad his actions don't match them. Another thing was a report months ago was that Bush offered to share some of that Iraqi oil with Russia (and another country, maybe France) if they would back up the US in this "venture". Apparently, the idea didn't go over well with those countries. Most importantly, why is it Bush's oil to give away? There's no reasonable explanation for this venture (sorry, hawks, as much as I like Colin Powell, the PhD paper just doesn't do it) so people start looking elsewhere for reasons. Moral issues? Hmmm, let's see... the Kurds were gassed in 1988. Now, all of a sudden, Bush is concerned about them? I don't think so... (although he may himself may now believe he is concerned since he's said it so often, and since he's talked about the al Qaeda connection so often he probably genuinely believes that too, and for the time being, has forgotten all about that oil thing; a person's mind can rationalize anything; Bush will remember the oil thing eventually I'm sure... Cheney will remind him when the time is right). So let's "liberate" Iraq and claim we're doing it for the good of the people there so righteous Americans and a few other righteous people can be distracted (and let's ignore that many Iraqis will be dead, maimed, or sick for the rest of their lives from the chemicals US bombs will release), let's get their oil, and then US companies will have control over a huge part of the oil supply. That makes a lot more sense to me then the "we're concerned about the Iraqi people" claim. There's never been any evidence of that before. So, as I see it, those are some of the reasons some people say "it's about oil". > What is it about the Iraqi people that makes them unworthy of being > liberated? Who here has ever said that??? Your attempt to push buttons and push the hawkish line rather than spend a second looking at things another way is really getting on my nerves. As I assume, some of what I write gets on some people's nerves. I won't deny that. However, because of your insistence, Sarah, on the Iraqis' need for help, I did spend some time wondering and writing about how people there could be helped without mass killings. I guess you missed that. > Those of you who oppose this war should suggest a viable alternative. Alternatives have been mentioned. Guess you weren't paying attention. No one has said that Saddam is a good guy. No one has said that the Iraqi people do not need help. People ARE saying that bombing those Iraqi people is not an appropriate solution. Debra Shea, truly dreading this world changing event we're heading toward. We're ALL getting screwed with this one, one way or another. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:37:27 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Out of town (NJC) My apologies if this comes through twice ... I'm getting ready to leave for New Orleans on Thursday morning and I'm swamped at work (in fact I'm still here at this ridiculous hour). I don't expect to be able to keep up (or catch up!) with regular Joni mail, so I've switched to digest mode until I return. I guess I won't be engaging in the usual flame wars for a few days. (Darn!) Once again, many many thanks to all of you who have helped me raise so much money for such an important cause! (Hey look - there's your name --> http://www.aidsmarathon.com/participant.jsp?runner=DCNO-3144) Have fun, everyone! (Paz, Jack, Christina, Donna - see you soon!!) Lori, hoping to make it through the entire 26.2 miles ~ http://lrfye.lunarpages.com ~ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:40:08 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: war NJC I've been working in this area for about 15 years, so I have spent "more than a second" thinking about it. But if I'm getting on your precious nerves, then blow me, I'd better bow out right now. Sarah At 3:30 PM -0500 02/12/2003, dsk wrote: Your attempt to push buttons and push the hawkish line rather than spend a second looking at things another way is really getting on my nerves. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:04:21 -0500 From: "Lavieri, Vince [185776]" Subject: Re: war protest njc jimmy started it By coincidence I received the following email today - I didn't share on the JMDL right away because I thought it was dated and sexist and certainly not seasonal considering the temperatures now but since naked people are the rage at the moment - As we all know, the Taliban considers it a sin for a man to see a naked woman who is not his wife. So, this Sunday at 2:00 PM Eastern time all American women are asked to walk out of their house completely naked to help weed out any neighborhood terrorists. Circling your block for one hour is recommended for this anti- terrorist effort. All men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of their house to prove they are not Taliban, demonstrate that they think it's okay to see nude women other than their wife and to show support for all American women. And since the Taliban also does not approve of alcohol, a cold six- pack at your side is further proof of your anti-Taliban sentiment. The American Government appreciates your efforts to root out terrorists and applauds your participation in this antiterrorist activity. God Bless America! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:11:39 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: war NJC sl.m@shaw.ca wrote: > > I've been working in this area for about 15 years, so I have spent > "more than a second" thinking about it. But if I'm getting on your > precious nerves, then blow me, I'd better bow out right now. Well, if you must... although keep in mind it's not something anyone has suggested. So, all you saw in my last message was what you quoted below? LOL! LOL! Point proved. Debra Shea > At 3:30 PM -0500 02/12/2003, dsk wrote: > Your attempt to push buttons and push the hawkish line rather than > spend a second looking at things another way is really getting on my > nerves. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:22:05 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: NJC Heathrow colin >>John is flyin to Minniapolis froom there. really wish he wasn't.<< colin, i think he will be okay now that there is awareness of the specific threat...but i understand how you feel...jeff is soon flying LA to NYC (& back) for important business...a direct flight...i'm a nervous wreck... ******************************************** 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: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:37:23 -0600 From: "Happy The Man" Subject: Cheap Trick (NJC) Saw Cheap Trick last night. It is good to see these guys and finally they have turned down the volume. I actually kept the ear plugs out last night. Stood right in front of Rick Nielsen and if you know Rick he likes to flick picks at the crowd all night. At 6'7" I was dodging picks all night. And a lot of drunk people also. Craig NP: Asleep at the Wheel - Route 66 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 03:55:05 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: war njc hi anne - that was a wonderful posting about war. i did time (6 months) on the namibian (then south west africa) and angolan border during the war there during 1980. i didnt see any actual action there - i worked in the weather reporting dept, helped out on comms, and air traffic controlling (the only zero rank holding atc in the entire air force - we - me & the military just didnt get along - my file had big red writing across the front - "NO PROMOTION" and i am so fucking proud of that achievement now :-) anyhoo - part of my duties involved me going into the ops room every hour to write the latest weather data/forcast. so i got to see all the "top secret" stuff lying around. photographs, reports etc. war dehumanises. it turns ordinary people into fucking morons, who will do stupid, violent, cruel and inhumane things, in the situation. and will then spend the rest of their lives without getting over it. often damaging/destroying people around them in the process. suicides in military service are common. accidental deaths are common. so are murders. (esp non coms - corporals, sergeants etc) these three killed more people than the war did where i was unfortunate enough to be. yeah - we had all three. anybody who supports, or looks for war, either doesnt understand what its all about, or is a complete fool. i can make no apology for that statement - its the truth. sorry about the strong language - its a strong subject which brings up strong emotions. if i had my way thered be no more war, no more weapons, no more armies. but i guess that aint gonna happen, "that was just a dream some of us had" ron np =- baxtop -- work it out coincidentally bringing back wonderful memories of an incredible weekend - including catching tina turner live - before she jumped the shark - spent with the bandmembers & friends in 1980 - just before heading off to war!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:42:15 -0000 From: "Eryl B Davies" Subject: Re: compuserve? NJC JMDL Digest V2003 #110 JMDL Digest V2003 #110 Emily Gray Tedrowe i'm scared of AOL! (or should i not be?) YES YOU SHOULD! According to e-Library Compuserve has been owned by AOL since 1998. They're getting fingers in as many pies as SONY and Amazon (did you know they were connected with a company collecting user intrests, spamming and providing spammers with e-mail addresses?). At last Microsoft stand by their own brand and don't hide. I accepted their 'free' trial a few yars ago when I first went on line. I stayed with them for two weeks. The thing to recomend them is the family filtering facility. If you don't need that then look elswhere. As for reccomending an ISP in the US, sorry I can't help there. Sorry. Eryl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:03:26 EST From: FMYFL@aol.com Subject: Re: compuserve? NJC In a message dated 2/12/03 9:07:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, ekg200@nyu.edu writes: > i want a good-priced monthly deal for unlimited internet... > and i'm scared of AOL! (or should i not be?) > > Hi Emily, I've had compuserve, earthlink, and finally switched to AOL about 6 years ago. They've improved so much in the past couple of years, even though people still call it AOHell. I think because it's so big, and used by soooooo many people, they still get picked on. There's only one complaint I have about AOL, and it's because since I'm on "individual mail" as opposed to digest, I can't read any email that Wally K. post to the list. I've found away around that now, but all in all, I really like AOL. It's the most user friendly ISP I've tried. You can always get a free trial month. AND congratulations on the upcoming baby. Put the headphones to your stomach so he or she will start liking Joni right away. Jimmy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:10:02 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: war (njc) sarah >I take your point about being an armchair soldier, and agree with it.< i respect your honesty... >Our intentions, unlike theirs, are decent. I believe that -- no matter how ridiculous it may sound to a small number of you.< actually the number of people who don't believe this is quite large in this country & abroad... >Those of you who say 'it's about oil' should spell out what you mean. It has turned into a chant that no-one understands.< those who chant it do understand...if you mean that YOU do not understand (& you want to), i'd suggest doing an internet search as there is oodles of info & opinions out there on the subject... >What is it about the Iraqi people that makes them unworthy of being liberated? How many of you who are anti-war have spent time with one single Iraqi in your entire lives?< people who protest this war are not against the iraqi people being liberated from saddam so i'm not sure where you get this assumption from...however many believe that an attack on iraq would do more harm than good...again, there is much info out there on the subject which you can read, much of it by people who have served in the military & past administrations... ******************************************** 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: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:14:16 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: test, please ignore NJC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:28:31 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: war (njc) protest lol jimmy, now that's a way to get the media to notice...here's another one in san fran: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/01/12/BA128025.DTL&typ e=news jimmy >>Did any one see the 750 naked women in Australia that formed the words NO WAR surrounded by a heart? I guess it got the attention of the Prime Minister. See article and photo at: "http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/02/09/australia.nude.reut/ I'm sure Aussie jmdler John Low was looking from afar with his binocculars :~)<< ******************************************** 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: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:41:49 EST From: FMYFL@aol.com Subject: Re: war (njc) protest In a message dated 2/12/03 6:27:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, kate@katebennett.com writes: > lol jimmy, now that's a way to get the media to notice...here's another one > in san fran: > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/01/12/BA128025.DTL& > typ > e=news > > Damn Kate, Vince was right on all this nude protesting. Doesn't the Taliban consider it a sin for a man to see a man naked? I'd rather see that kind of protest :-) Oh, and just because I'm injecting some so called *humor* in my post, doesn't mean I don't take the impending war seriously. Jimmy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:51:07 EST From: AzeemAK@aol.com Subject: Re: war (njc) In a message dated 12/02/2003 16:14:46 GMT Standard Time, sl.m@shaw.ca writes: << So what? Most of the Athenian assembly believed that Socrates should be put to death for corrupting the young. They were the majority, but they were also wrong. Majoritarianism doesn't make you right. >> So, "majoritarianism" doesn't make you right. That isn't exactly headline news, Sarah. However, your insinuation elsewhere that people who oppose the war are in the minority (which I dispute, by the way) begs the question "does being in a minority mean you're wrong?" For someone who professes so much knowledge of this area, I'm amazed at how many of your posts revolve around tendentious statements and links to opinion pieces written by loud-mouthed rent-a-gobs like Davids Aronovitch. Azeem in London ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:06:07 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: NJC Heathrow In 'normal' circumstances, I worry. But this time it is worse. i think the last place he ought to be going is the States and on aeroplane to boot. I also don't think it is imperative. His lecture giving can wait. Still, he is going and that is that. He s back Wednesday. i have a feekling this coming week will be a long one.... Kate Bennett wrote: >colin >>John is flyin to Minniapolis froom there. really wish he wasn't.<< > >colin, i think he will be okay now that there is awareness of the specific >threat...but i understand how you feel...jeff is soon flying LA to NYC (& >back) for important business...a direct flight...i'm a nervous wreck... > >******************************************** >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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:07:39 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: war (njc) protest The big march planned here for the weekend is now being painted as an Anti Israel march........ sounds to me like Mr Blair and Mr Bush are getting desperate..... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:15:22 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: war njc --- ron wrote: > war dehumanises. it turns ordinary people into > fucking morons, who will do > stupid, violent, cruel and inhumane things, in the > situation. and will then > spend the rest of their lives without getting over > it. often > damaging/destroying people around them in the > process. I've seen enough so-called "normal" people acting like morons during a strike, something most people couldn't give a rat's ass about; and that's nothing compared to war - having seen what I did of people making asses of themselves that way, it scares the bejeezus out of me to think about a war. It kind of negates anything you try to tell your kids about what being civilized and adult is all about. Have we evolved? not bloody likely. ===== Catherine Toronto ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:02:24 -0600 From: Rob Procyk & Tracy Tolley Subject: joni mitchell sings joni mitchell Yes, our Bobby was right, Joni was wearing this pink dress (OMG, I am sorry, the dress is hideous, but it was still cute because she looked like she was going to the prom or something). They showed 1/2 hour of it, and she sang...oh hell.. let me think... "For Free", "BSN", "California", "Chelsea Morning" and a couple others that I can't think of right now. So listas, I miss ya! Somebody email me some gossip (or make something up, I'll never know the difference!). I see that the topic of circumcision has reared its ugly head again (no pun intended), and I saw a post on gluten -- LOL, why would anyone stay on onlyjoni is beyond me! xo Evian, who is both circumcised AND a glutton for gluten! p.s. -- btw, can't make it to Jonifest AGAIN this year -- we'll have the pitter-patter of little feet once again around that time! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:00:47 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: RE: compuserve? NJC emily, just a thought. are you going to get cable tv? does your cable provider provide internet access? it's not cheap, more in the $45 range (it's actually $88/mo for cable and internet for me, up to four email addresses) but for me, it meant no telephone landline. (i'm now cell-only) 'twas my happiest day in a long time when i called verizon and said "i'm sorry, your services are no longer required". the modem is free i think. set-up was painless. my cable provider in ny is time/warner, you may have heard of them. i think they're pretty protective of their clients, i've gotten exactly ONE piece of spam in 15 months. patrick, always happy to hear from emily and excited about mama-ness np - radiohead, knives out -- one of my favourite bands paying tribute to the smiths, another of my favourites. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:12:34 EST From: AzeemAK@aol.com Subject: Re: war (njc) In a message dated 12/02/2003 16:00:17 GMT Standard Time, sl.m@shaw.ca writes: << But the Pentagon says this will be a new type of warfare - a war against infrastructure, not people. I can't know whether that's true, but their descriptions make sense, and it does seem possible. Don't you remember the search in the 60s/70s for the bomb that would kill people, but leave buildings standing? Well, these bombs do the opposite. >> I can't believe that you are so willing to accept this line. The lie of "smart bombs" was exposed after the gulf war. Bombs kill people, they always have done, and they always will. If you're willing to countenance massive civilian casualties, then say so - don't try to sweeten it up by fooling yourself that these bombs won't kill civilians. And why destroy the infrastructure, for Christ's sake? I thought the goal was regime change. Or was it to counter the threat against the USA (for which no credible evidence has yet been produced)? Or punish Iraq for its connections with Al Qaeda (ditto)? << The American plan is to take out the first two tiers of Iraqi leadership in all government departments, but otherwise to leave things as they are. The aim is to take over the country with virtually no loss of innocent life, rule it for one year, then hold elections. >> I have not seen a coherent explanation for why the USA thinks it has a right to go into another country and install a leadership, despite the number of times they've done it. A look at the history of Iraq's next-door neighbour Iran, which was subjected to the inhumane leadership of the USA-sponsored Shah might give pause for consideration as to just how positive an outcome can be expected here. The upshot of that exercise in dictating another country's business was the upsurge of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, which wasn't exactly what was intended. And then, of course, we had to sponsor a neighbouring strongman to counter the Iranian threat, and we all know who THAT was, don't we? << Did Osama bin Laden intend minimal loss of life when he attacked New York? Did Saddam intend it when he gassed the Kurds? >> No. And what is your point here? I thought "we in the west" had different, superior values to these thugs. Are you suggesting that because these madmen don't care about loss of innocent human lives, we needn't either? << Our intentions, unlike theirs, are decent. I believe that -- no matter how ridiculous it may sound to a small number of you. >> It does sound ridiculous, to more than a small number of people, unless you are ignoring the people on this list who are opposed to the war. You seem to think that you know what the USA intention is. What if it IS to get their hands on the oil. Is it still decent? << Those of you who say 'it's about oil' should spell out what you mean. It has turned into a chant that no-one understands. >> You are wrong. Whether or not you agree with it, I refuse to believe that "no-one understands" what is meant by this statement. It is really very simple: the arguments in favour of war are simply a fig-leaf for the true aims of the campaign against Iraq, which are to do with getting control of the vast oil reserves in Iraq. You don't agree with that? Fine. You don't understand it? Give me a break. << What is it about the Iraqi people that makes them unworthy of being liberated? How many of you who are anti-war have spent time with one single Iraqi in your entire lives? >> As someone has already pointed out, this is the hoary old rhetorical device of setting up an argument that nobody is actually making, so that it can be knocked down. << I don't know what Churchill's motive was when he pushed Britain into a war against Germany. I do know that he ended up liberating the people in the concentration camps. So who cares what he intended? >> So the ends justify the means? Churchill has become something of a secular deity, which conveniently ignored the fact that he was pretty anti-semitic himself (which was far more prevalent in those days, to be sure, not that this excuses it), and was very enthusiastic about gassing the Kurds. << If George Bush wants oil, let him have it. Who cares? All that matters, IMO, is that the people of Iraq are liberated. >> Oh that's alright then. Doesn't it even matter to you if the MAIN reason for waging the war is to get the oil, as long as Iraq is "liberated"? And I think we have to be very careful with this notion of liberation. Nobody has any idea what the fate of the average Iraqi will be when the last bomb has been dropped and the last fire is put out and the last corpse has been buried. << Those of you who oppose this war should suggest a viable alternative. >> I'm not even sure I agree with this proposition. I think it's more important to make a convincing case FOR war. Not making war is the default position, surely. There are any number of countries that are doing despicable things to their own people now, which have been mentioned on this list. We are not being asked to come up with reasons NOT to make war on them, because the USA is not suggesting making war on them. Now we are being told to come up with reasons NOT to make war on. Well I'm sorry, this proposition is back-to-front. War is a drastic step, and those waging it are the ones on whom the burden of proof rests. The efforts to prove that the war is justified are pretty feeble; it seems that every line they come up with fails to convince, so they search ever more desperately for a new one. There is no question that the Iraqi people are woefully benighted and deprived of freedom of speech and expression and most other human rights. The sad fact is that they are not the only people in this world who are suffering. You may think this point is irrelevant, but I don't. Nobody is suggesting that we wage war on Mauritania or Western Sahara, which are totally repressive societies, where slavery still goes on; or China, where the whole make-up of the population has been fatally skewed by the regime's insistence that families only have one child, and where, as a consequence, millions of girls (who are not as highly valued as boys) have been abandoned at birth or even murdered. And let's not forget China's illegal annexation of Tibet, where they have trampled on Tibetans' human rights and effected something akin to a cultural genocide. Nobody is suggesting waging war on any of these countries, because there are two crucial factors: 1. Do we trade with these countries? and 2. Do they have something we want? If the answer to the first question is "no" and the second is "yes", then war is a viable option. In the case of Mauritania, Western Sahara and more, it's "no" and "no", so no war. For China it's "yes" and "yes", so no war. And so it goes. There is, of course, another question that takes ultimate precedence: Does this country have the wherewithal to launch a nuclear reprisal? That'll explain the extraordinary silence over North Korea's recent sabre-rattling. I'll be going on the march on Saturday, along with several hundred thousand poor deluded fools who don't like the idea of war. I don't suppose it'll m ake a blind bit of difference to The Revd Blair's evangelical zeal to support military action; at least if a lot of people show their opposition, he won't be able to say nobody opposed the war. By the way, people outside the UK might not be aware of this, but our government actually tried to ban the march on Saturday. Their reasons for it were so preposterous that they might have come from The Onion. They said the ground in Hyde Park would be too wet, and that it would be getting too dark. I wish I were making that up but I'm not. Azeem in London ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:20:46 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: joni mitchell sings joni mitchell In a message dated 2/12/2003 8:03:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, evian@sk.sympatico.ca writes: > (OMG, I am > sorry, the dress is hideous, but it was still cute because she looked > like she was going to the prom or something). Hush yo' mouth boy! Joni looks beautiful, and sings so beautifully on this show. It amazes me how much control she has in that upper register here. Anyway, you're right it about it looking like a prom dress, but lordy it's miles ahead of those Miyake nightmares that look like a window blind from a Holiday Inn in Tahiti. > > p.s. -- btw, can't make it to Jonifest AGAIN this year -- we'll have the > pitter-patter of little feet once again around that time! Congrats dude! You're a glutton all right - for PUNISHMENT! :~) Bob NP: John Mayer, "Why Georgia" (live from Birmingham...is that Cindy V. screaming in the background?) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:33:39 EST From: AzeemAK@aol.com Subject: Re: war (njc) In a message dated 12/02/2003 18:49:54 GMT Standard Time, sl.m@shaw.ca writes: << But because I support the liberation of Iraqis, some of whom I know as friends, I'm suddenly a rightwing fascist warmonger! >> I don't remember reading a post from anyone calling you a rightwing fascist warmonger, although I may have missed it or it may have been sent to you privately. "Fascist" is a ludicrous term to throw around in this context. As to "rightwing", well, I don't know what your politics are; there are people on the left who support the war, and on the right who oppose it. "Warmonger?" Yes, I think that's fair comment in this instance, don't you? I support the liberation of Iraqis too. Who doesn't? I don't agree about bombing Iraq. You seem to be saying "if you oppose war, then you oppose the idea of Iraqi people being free." It doesn't work like that. Azeem ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:53:43 EST From: TerryM2222@aol.com Subject: Re: compuserve? NJC I do a lot of work online and have tried a lot of different services. I use AOL for family/friends and it's true that the service has improved over the last few years. But the browser really stinks. Compuserve is now the same as AOL, so if you're choosing between the two, go with the cheapest. AOL also offers a discount if you bring your own access. NetZero was a nightmare. I used it when it was free and could never get a connection. But Patrick has a great solution, which I use with my business email. I connect via cable. Pricey, but fast. Terry www.addconsults.com > hi joni list. i have a computer/internet service. i'm looking for a cheap, > basic internet service provider (we used to have highspeed, but our new > building > isn't wired for it yet). so i need to use a dial-up access, a modem that i > think > is 56K, and i want a good-priced monthly deal for unlimited internet... > and i'm scared of AOL! (or should i not be?) > > any suggestions? i tried earthlink, but they apparently don't have any > access > numbers in my area (chicago). so now i'm looking into compuserve...they > offer 1 month free (700 hours) and then 19.95 for unlimited monthly usage. > is that a good deal? anyone like or detest compuserve? anything i should > know? > > i'm totally clueless about this stuff, so i appreciate any advice--i know > there are lots of internet whizzes on the list...thanks for the off-topic > help! > > -- emily, in chicago > (33 weeks pregnant and feeling fine! still on schedule for april 1) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:55:50 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: missile shield (njc) Anne wrote: > Just because a lot of people are involved doesn't mean it > works. From what I understand, it doesn't and can't > work, because of design flaws. Again, I think that there is a misunderstanding as to the system I am referring to. Here is a link again of a successful test using the laser system, as opposed to the "missile hitting a missile" system. http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2002/december/12_24_3.html As for the missile hitting a missile system (which I would tend to agree is the more costlier and less effective system) it has even had at least four out of six successful tests in the past few years. Here is an article reporting on one of those successful tests. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1875864.stm I have also read an article on one of the "missile to missile" tests that failed, which I can't locate right now. The reason for the failure was a technical malfunction where the booster did not detach from the missile. To say that means the system doesn't work is like saying because a car has flat tires, the car radio doesn't work. I remember when there was much opposition to the development of the space shuttle, with many saying it was a boondoggle and would never work. No matter what was reported in the media regarding its early development, the opponents and naysayers never gave up their stance until, I guess, they saw the actual first successful mission. Some people still maintain that we never really went to the moon and that it was all staged on a film lot out in the California desert. Even when the first automobiles were being developed many did not believe there would ever be a safe vehicle they could use for travel and stuck to their horse and buggy long after people were traveling around in their Model Ts. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:24:07 -0500 From: vince Subject: compuserve? No! Cable! NJC Terry wrote (and how great to see Terry's name in the In box): >But Patrick has a great solution, which I use with my business email. I >connect via cable. Pricey, but fast. > > > > > Patrick and Terry are both right. Go cable. I will never ever go back to dial up. There is no comparison to the speed, the fact that one can always be on line and not have to listen and wait for all those annoying noises and being disconnected if you don't use the internet fast enough according to them - if I want to take a 20 minute break to walk the dogs why should I be disconnected - and the speed and the always being on and the speed... The speed is not just a luxury thing. I have cable connections at work and at home and I can do so much so much faster than it used to take - got a client in the office I can check records or snare internet or whatever in seconds, always impresses the client (and the boss) and at home, it has saved me endless amounts of time. Vince ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:33:17 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: joni mitchell sings joni mitchell (njc) Hey Evian! It's great to see you around again! We've dearly missed your humor! > Somebody email me some gossip (or make something up, I'll never know the difference!). LOL - the truth is always stranger than fiction, though! > p.s. -- btw, can't make it to Jonifest AGAIN this year -- we'll have the > pitter-patter of little feet once again around that time! Congratulations!! Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:25:49 -0800 From: "gene mock" Subject: war NJC come on you guys, get real. hi tech war w/minimal collateral damage. what does that really mean? for all you guys out there who believe that means war with very little lost of life, all i can say is you've been watching too many movies. all the smart weapons (they don't come cheap) do not take physical possession of any land. sooner or later some poor ass human being has to go in and do some taking from people who are probably surrounding themselves w/ innocent people. that's when the shit hits the fan. that's when nobody likes war. war is a last resort. we have not exhausted all our resorts. let the united nations do what it was intended to do--------prevent war not make war. it is truly amazing that at one time i was willing to fight and die for our country and government. and it's really the pits that i don't trust my government. in the name of Allah, what dumb terrorists would act now to incite the American people to side w/ bush? the scary part is i wouldn't put it past our government to do just that and blame other parties. sad!!! real sad! anyway happy valentines to all, gene ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:05:44 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: war (njc) War? If you took a poll asking people a general question as to whether they want a war, probably 99% would say no. Even now, I don't think most people want a war. However, how they react to that differs. Some are protesting a war, while others feel that some of us are in danger and would not oppose a war that is in our self-defense. I think that liberating the Iraqi people would be a perceived side benefit of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. I have never thought that the reason so many countries support a military offensive as a last resort is *primarily* for the purpose of liberating the Iraqis. Rather, it is because they perceive Saddam to be a very dangerous and destabilizing influence in the middle east and beyond. If he were on the up and up he would have declared or detroyed his weapons long ago. He's had, what now, 14 years to comply with the 50 or so UN resolutions? As I posted a link recently, the US State Dept. throughout Clinton's 8 years said that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorists. There are reams of reports going back all those years from intelligence agencies, the UN, etc. that detail his support of and links with terrorists, including Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda affiliated groups, Abu Nidal, Carlos the Jackal, the Palestinian suicide bombers and so on. In the latest Al Qaeda tape from yesterday, there are numerous exhortations to join in the fight supporting Iraq. Lots of people do believe all this evidence and that is why they are wary and not so quick to say antiwar at all costs. The "violence begets violence" argument does not hold up for some. Taking it to a simple level - we have all heard of violent husbands and boyfriends who have beat their wives and girlfriends for years. And the women usually never fight back, ever, but just take it because they are so cowed. These violent men seem to become only more empowered by the woman's acquiesence and it is usually not until law enforcment and/or social service authorities intervene that the men are finally stopped or locked up. In such cases of violence, only intervention from the outside stops the cycle of violence. The oil motive does not hold up for many people, either. If that were true "Bushie I" and the US could have just wormed their way in and taken over Kuwait after it was liberated from Saddam. Or could have kept going and taken out Saddam and installed its "oil empire" 14 years ago. Or never agreed to the sanctions and said "we're going to keep getting all the oil we can out of Iraq" like it is now being reported that France and Germany have done through the back door in defiance of the UN sanctions all along. Oil is definintely part of the overall equation, no doubt, because it is Iraq's primary export and many other countries rely on Iraqi oil much more than the U.S. does. The Iraqi people would most likely be far better off economically under a different regime. But ultimately, I think the reasons why it has come to this point are ALL of these factors involved and the most overriding reason is many people's true belief that Saddam is a threat to the US and some other countries through his long-detailed complicity with supporting terrorist groups. Whether one believes that or not, the reality is that many people do believe it and do not want to just sit back and do nothing and let him continue. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:43:15 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: joni for joni haters/boston next week i have just discovered that the best way to convert joni haters into joni fans is to use BSN and travelogue. amazing! i don't even like those two, but i've been trying them out on friends who before would have run out of the room if i mentioned joni, and it works! it makes me wonder. is it because bsn and t'log are NOT mitchellesque enough? when i play the original versions of the tracks on t'log, the subjects of my experiment say they prefer the new versions, particularly amelia and love. so i wonder if i'm doing joni a service or quite the opposite. do you get what i mean? incidentally, i'll be in boston from feb 20 to march 10. isn't that splendid? let me know if you want to get together. love, wallyK, wondering why t'log attracts more people than hejira... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 01:11:40 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: joni for joni haters/boston next week i have just discovered that the best way to convert joni haters into joni fans is to use BSN and travelogue. amazing! i don't even like those two, but i've been trying them out on friends who before would have run out of the room if i mentioned joni, and it works! it makes me wonder. is it because bsn and t'log are NOT mitchellesque enough? when i play the original versions of the tracks on t'log, the subjects of my experiment say they prefer the new versions, particularly amelia and love. so i wonder if i'm doing joni a service or quite the opposite. do you get what i mean? incidentally, i'll be in boston from feb 20 to march 10. isn't that splendid? let me know if you want to get together. love, wallyK, wondering why t'log attracts more people than hejira... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:30:39 EST From: Dflahm@aol.com Subject: ciao for now Judy & I are heading for Michigan; two concerts and some down time. I'll be back reading e-mail the 25th. Everyone be well, LAHM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:38:31 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: NJC Heathrow i can't find this info being reported by the media...(re the specific missle threat)...would appreciate someone providing a link or source of this, if you have it...thanks... >>Tamsin, there's a specific threat from a terrorist cell with links to al-Qaeda - they apparently intend to blow up an aircraft leaving or arriving at Heathrow using a ground-to-air missile. Tamsin, there's a specific threat from a terrorist cell with links to al-Qaeda - they apparently intend to blow up an aircraft leaving or arriving at Heathrow using a ground-to-air missile.<< ******************************************** 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: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:47:09 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: heathrow njc nevermind found the info in the guardian...sorry! ******************************************** 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: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:56:12 -0800 From: Michael Paz Subject: Re: feb 12!!!! njc Happy Birthday to our darlin' Nikki. Hope all is well in your world and you are not working too hard and having a little fun and much music. Hope to get to see you and play some good music this year. All is well here for now. Love Paz P.S. Tried your cell but you are probably out partying. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:03:09 -0800 From: Michael Paz Subject: Re: ciao for now Have a wonderful trip and come home safe. I will call you sometime after you get home and Mardi Gras about the pending Volume 3 of Pazfest. Have a great time. Love Paz > Judy & I are heading for Michigan; two concerts and some down time. I'll be > back reading e-mail the 25th. > > Everyone be well, LAHM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:09:00 EST From: Bobsart48@aol.com Subject: Re: Larry and Joni Bob "Covers" wrote: > You missed my point, Andrew...I wasn't talking about co-production, I was > talking about the *compositions* they did together, which are: > > From DED: > Tax Free > Fiction > > From CMIARS: > Lakota > Tea Leaf Prophecy > Snakes And Ladders > Reocurring Dream > > From NRH: > Nothing Can Be Done > > I would note that the 'music' from the DED and NRH songs noted above is credited solely to Klein. From CMIARS, the music credits are shared. That said, Bob M, I agree with you that Nothing Can Be Done is the weakest cut on NRH (the only weak cut, IMO, except that Come in from the Cold is about twice as long as it should be). However, I disagree vehemently with your choice of 'abysmal' to describe CMIAR. I think it is quite a good effort, except for Snakes and Ladders and Reocurring Dream (and A Bird That Whistles is sort of a weak closer). I think it was an ambitious attempt at artistic (rather than commercial) work, and I respect that, even in those cases where I think it failed. I realize we disagree about the merits of Tea Leaf Prophecy (which I like a lot) and Dancin Clown. However, even if you consider it abysmal, I think you owed it an asterisk when you wrote as much. As in "abysmal *" * By Joni's Standards Bobs'art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:11:00 -0500 From: "Christopher Treacy" Subject: Nonesuch Travelogue Promo Well, they were very slow to respond, but Nonesuch came through. When I arrived home this evening, there was a large cardboard flat package in the hallway for me, and inside it was a (I'm still a little blown away) LITHOGRAPH of the cover portrait on heavy paper, just like the one's they sold at the BSN shows (no, it's not signed). It suffered a teeny-tiny bit of damage on it's way here, but I believe it's something I can cover up prior to framing. My JM poster collection has become quite extensive over the past few years, and I'm very pleased to add this to my shrine. I will say that I had to become an outright pain in the ass to get them to send it (last attempt at contact, I sent the same note 3 times in a 5 minute period...). Paid Off. - -Chris ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #111 ***************************** ------- 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)