From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #113 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, February 14 2003 Volume 2003 : Number 113 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: war (njc) protest ["mike pritchard" ] Re: war NJC [colin ] AOL or not? NJC [MGVal@aol.com] Travel in spite of uncertainity (NJC) [MGVal@aol.com] Re: Larry and Joni [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] compuserve vs. cable, NJC [Emily Gray Tedrowe ] RE: war (njc) ["Mary E. Pitassi" ] Hyde Park Demo against the War NJC ["Lucy Hone" ] Re: Hyde Park Demo against the War NJC ["Lavieri, Vince [185776]" ] Travelogue ["Suzanne MarcAurele" ] Re: war (njc) ["Kate Bennett" ] Own one of Joni's guitars... [Les Irvin ] NJC Re: Own one of Joni's guitars... [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: war (njc) [dsk ] Joni in Cincinnati '76 tour [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] war njc ["ron" ] Re: war (njc) [Randy Remote ] RE:Stephen Holden's BSN Review ["michael o'malley" ] Re: feb 12!!!! njc [RoseMJoy@aol.com] njc Grammy Strummer & Em [vince ] Re: war (njc) ["kakki" ] Protests Around the World NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] RE: Travel in spite of uncertainity (NJC) ["patrick leader" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:13:24 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" 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...<< the big marches here are not yet painted as anything other than 'no war' but Mr Aznar may yet try to turn them into something else. mike in bcn NP Gram Parsons. Hickory Wind ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:19:22 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: war NJC What really bothers me about all this: The other side are 'demonised'. They have their views and ideas just the same as we do. If we have the right to have our weapons of mass destruction, why are we trying to deny it to them? I can see why that would make them feel very threatened. If I lved in neigbourhood and was surrounded by people who had weapons and I did not, i would feel very threatend. Even more so if those with the power, tried to prevent me having weapons. Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, USA and UK, France. North Korea and I don't know who else, all have weapons of mass destruction. Some of these countries have used them. Painting these people as 'eveil mosters', ie de humainisng them, should not wash with thinking people. they have legitmate reasons for feeling the way they do. This DOES NOT excuse sept 11th nor any other attack. However, who are we to talk, after the stuff we do? War is war and so is terrorism. It is war by aother name. We deal with ex terrorists all the time. Some of them are even now hailed as heroes. I know who I feel more threatened by and I am not a minority in this. We no longer have a balance of power. One country has the power. that is dangerous and of that we ought to be afraid. bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:04:57 EST From: MGVal@aol.com Subject: AOL or not? NJC Emily wrote: > > i'm scared of AOL! (or should i not be?) > > Like Jimmy, I'm another happy AOL user. Of course my on-line needs are fairly modest which makes me like the user friendliness of it all. All I ever do is skim digests and chat with my betrothed. They do push the family filtering functions but my kids are light years ahead of me in their computer savvy and find ways around every thing. MG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:12:46 EST From: MGVal@aol.com Subject: Travel in spite of uncertainity (NJC) WallyK getting a jumpstart on his 10 year visa writes: > 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. > Wally and all, I'm firming up plans for a trip back home to the NYC area the week of April 12th for a visit to the fam and shopping for my wedding dress. (:-D Anyone out there interested in getting together? We can have a bachorlette party for me, I'm getting married in June! MG - who is nervous as heck about flying but I promised my mom and her disappointment makes me more nervous. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:14:26 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Larry and Joni In a message dated Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:09:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, Bobsart48 writes: > 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 see a lot more commercial compromise on CMIARS than I do ambition. Let's look at the "stars" that were recruited to "play parts" in her songs, and how obviously contrived and manipulative it was: Secret Place - Peter Gabriel (adult contemporary) Dancin' Clown - Billy Idol/Steve Stevens/Tom Petty (the MTV crowd) Cool Water - Willie Nelson (country pop) Snakes & Ladders - Don Henley (adult contemporary) If you've forgotten, go look at where these artists were on the charts in 1988, and you can see that there was the hope of drawing from their audiences and assimilating them with Joni. Then add to it the fact that most of the record has that dated 80's synth-wash all over it, and I see it as Joni (with a big push from Klein) trying to camouflage in with the zeitgeist instead of following the beat of her own drummer (or the beat of black wings as the case may be). Anyway, there are some highlights to be sure - and some outstanding songs and moments, and hey, even some of the commercial duets work. > I think you owed > it an asterisk when you wrote as much. As in "abysmal *" OK, I'll accept that - this is an abysmal record by Joni's standards (which would be how I would judge Joni's work), and an exceptional masterpiece by The Bay City Rollers' standards. Regardless of any of that, I enjoy listening to it from time to time and I'm glad that you treasure it as do many of our JMDL pals here. Bob NP: Joe Jackson, "A Slow Song" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:33:05 -0500 From: Emily Gray Tedrowe Subject: compuserve vs. cable, NJC hi again. thanks to all who are offering internet service suggestions...i REALLY miss cable access to high-speed--that's what i had in our last apartment. a deal like patrick mentioned, cable access and TV together from at&t. what's weird is that while our new building (a newish condo in chicago's south loop) uses at&t for our cable TV still, they haven't yet wired us for high speed cable internet! when i called about it, the building manager told me the only option thus far for cable internet is a company called off-shore...but they are too pricy (60ish for a month) and in any case the manager said that at&t were planning at some point to get off their butts and wire the building. so i'll wait and see on that. and thanks for the compuserve/AOL perspectives...one thing i'm also looking into is a telephone line plan from MCI that would give us unlimited local/ long distance service, which means i could log in via NYU's access number (a long distance call for me), at least while i'm still officially matriculated there (not much longer though). OK, i now realize this is way more info than anyone wants on my own personal internet issues... but i do appreciate all the good advice and suggestions. (and the best wishes for our baby! a tiny piece of JC: i packed up the CDs we'll be bringing to the hospital for labor and delivery, and chose "blue" and "for the roses" as my joni selections...ones that are near and dear and sweet and comforting to me.) - --emily ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:56:50 -0600 From: "Mary E. Pitassi" Subject: RE: war (njc) Kakki wrote: "Which ambassador and when? I really want to go back and find the Congressional Record on all this. It may still not convince some people, but it may show others that so much that is being alleged all these years later is total revisionist history." I'll jump in here. The ambassador Randy was thinking of was April Glaspie, and the promises allegedly occurred in maybe July of 1990 (Randy? Is this right?). I'm somewhat uncertain, because I admit to not following the buildup to the first war on Iraq as closely as I should have, and I was living in Latin America at the time. However, I must tell you that that provided a most interesting vantage point from which to which to see these events develop. I'm not sure the specific dealings of the ambassador, whoever it may have been, would be in the Congressional Record. I can tell you, as one with some experience in negotiations, albeit on a much smaller scale, that the most salient and interesting points of such pre-agreement discussions often do not find their way into the official record of an event. RE: "revisionist history": are you saying that that can only be practiced after the fact, and by those you regard as being on "the other side"? I may be reading you wrong, but it appears that way. I'd argue broadly that "revisionist history" can indeed be practiced as events are actually unfolding, if people are not told the complete truth by a government about what is happening for reasons other than those of pressing national security. And that may have been done during "Iraq I" by the very government you appear to so revere. Kakki also wrote: "The same arguments go around and around all the time. Some see nothing but nefarious motives in their country and some of its leaders, while others like myself look at what is asserted and just can't make the connection." Yes, the arguments do go round and round--on both sides. What bothers me about this discussion in the last several days is the attempt to discredit those on the left by those I would place as clearly on the right. "The other side" is ignorant. "The other side" is in the minority. "The other side" sees nothing but nefarious motives in their country and some of its leaders, while the writer, by contrast, is able to look at the "facts" and correctly discern that there is "no connection." Of course, another possibility exists. That is that some of those on the left, who do happen to see nefarious motives on the part of their country and some of its leaders **in this particular instance,** have looked at the facts and correctly determined that there IS a connection. A lot of this is simply a matter of interpretation. Obviously, the prism from which one views the world to start with has quite a lot of impact on one's final conclusion. As for the motives for our unprecedented preemptive strike, I will break ranks from many other liberals on this one and state that I'm not sure that it *is* mainly "about oil," although oil certainly has got to play a large role in the overall equation. I think it very possible that many in this administration honestly believe that it's in the U.S.'s best interests to topple Iraq's government by force in order to bring what they hope will be stability to the middle East. And the answer to the oft-posed question "why now?", even though we have no smoking gun linking Iraq with Al Quaida (in my opinion) would be, with some legitimacy: "because September 11 happened. The rules have changed. We can't be too careful." Now reasonable people can disagree forever about whether a preemptive strike will in fact bring stability to the region, or deescalate a situation that already closely resembles a powder keg. Reasonable people, especially those who know Latin American history, can disagree about whether the United States has any right to go about instituting "regime change" in any country other than its own. Reasonable people can disagree about whether, by launching an attack now without truly giving the inspections a chance or waiting for full-fledged UN support, the United States is not starting down the slippery slope to a very, very dangerous precedent which, some day, may be used against us by an entity who, like us right now, simply can. But do me a favor (and Kakki, know that this is not so much directed at you as to others on the list who have posted on this topic recently). Be honest about the motivation. If it's about the U.S. throwing its might around (or, alternately, "wielding its moral authority") to bring stability to the region, then say so. DON'T tell me it's mainly about liberating innocent Iraqi children, because I will simply never believe it. Those innocent Iraqi children have been suffering for years and years, at the hands of a man *we* helped bring to and keep in power, and we didn't care a flying f*** about it. Period. And there's no evidence of a sudden blinding conversion on our parts now. Please. Mary P. P.S. Obviously, all the above is based on my own views and conclusions. I am well aware that some of you may have looked at the same evidence and reached conclusions that are very different. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:51:21 -0000 From: "Lucy Hone" Subject: Hyde Park Demo against the War NJC Azeem, great post on the war in No 111..... I cannot get to London on Saturday, unfortunately. Please will you carry a sticker on you that says that Lucy Hone also objects... and I would like to suggest that everyone on the list , FROM WHEREVER IN THE WORLD YOU ARE THAT YOU ASK AZEEM OR ANYONE ESLE YOU KNOW WHO IS ATTENDING ANY RALLY ANYWHERE....to be your proxy protester.. Azeem can then claim truthfully that he is representing X number of people. It is justa thought... Lucy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:56:40 -0500 From: "Lavieri, Vince [185776]" Subject: Re: Hyde Park Demo against the War NJC Lucy wrote: WHEREVER IN THE WORLD YOU ARE THAT YOU ASK AZEEM OR ANYONE ESLE YOU KNOW WHO IS ATTENDING ANY RALLY ANYWHERE....to be your proxy protester.. Azeem can then claim truthfully that he is representing X number of people. Azeem also represents me - Vince ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:28:43 EST From: Murphycopy@aol.com Subject: Re: [NortheastJonifest] joni for joni haters/boston next week Muller writes: << Wally, it might be that they just never liked her higher register and her deeper richer voice is more palatable to them. >> That's what I was going to say. Anyway, Wally, I responded the day before yesterday to your last 2 posts re: your Boston visit and haven't heard back. More AOL trouble with your ISP? --Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:39:48 -0500 From: "Marianne Rizzo" Subject: missile shield njc >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 06:49:20 -0800 (PST) >From: anne@sandstrom.com >Subject: missile shield (njc) >Kakki wrote: It's one thing to say you are against this >system, but it is not right to say it either doesn't >exist or doesn't work. Thousands of people in SoCal >and a >few other cities have been working on it for too many >years to say that. >Well, thousands of people have worked for years on the >space shuttle, too. Technology that's very complex >often contains complex problems and errors. 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. >lots of love >Anne I agree with you here too, Anne. Even if missile shield technology happened to work a few times, any of our adversaries would eventually trump our defensive technologies with their offensive technologies. . . and we would be involved in the a war game that cannot be won. . . The result would be a depleting of our financial (and spiritual, physical) resources. We would be spending our money and our efforts disproportionately on the missle shield, while our schools fail (or continue to fail), our health care systems contiue to erode. . . etc, etc. . . all of the priorities that urgently need attention would be otherwise neglected because of our huge military budget. . . I am not advocating that we have no defense. Yet, I vote "no" to the missile shield. ps. I want out of this deficit. Bush is a radical president, and if allowed to pursue his agenda we will be paying for his mistakes for many decades to come. As one of my students (7th grader) (they are choosing statements for their inspirational poster designs), profoundly quoted this morning (I am assuming he didn't make this up): "We have not inherited the earth from our mothers and fathers, we are borrowing it from our children." Marianne _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:02:54 -0500 From: "Suzanne MarcAurele" Subject: Travelogue I believe we learn through listening to the fine tones of one's voice, choices of words, music etc. This work remains more difficult than the others. I hear many different emotional ranges in her voice maybe because I am trying to gauge whether or not she is serious about quitting the business. One more album after this, given some sound of retreat in this work, my mind is wildly speculating as to what the supposed final album ( i really hope not!!!!!!) will be. I hope Mitchell decides to create work on her own and sell it off the internet - offer my services anytime to make that happen. Dont need concerts, though I would love to see her again, but I am desperate for good input - the daily harange on the war in these pages is just a bunch of self serving as if such choices were as flippant as our long suffering of ourselves to speak!!! S. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:14:36 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: war (njc) kakki >>And everyone seems to forget, we didn't start the war that now faces us. It has been declared on us.<< i'm sorry kakki, i like you lots so try not to take this personally...but i don't know how else to state my reaction to the above statement other than to say it is a bunch of rotten baloney... talk about forgetting! the usa was not attacked by iraq...& the overthrow of saddam was on the current administration's agenda before 9/11 ever happened... & the opportunistic attempts (by king george II & his men) to link the two is deeply insulting to the intelligence of many many people here in this country & around the world... oh, but now we are told there is new evidence of a link! osama has told iraq to resist the attacks...this is certainly credible evidence...let's take osama at his word... colin >>I know who I feel more threatened by and I am not a minority in this.<< colin i recently read that the vast majority of the world feels the same as you by a very large percentage... ******************************************** 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 11:51:27 -0700 From: Les Irvin Subject: Own one of Joni's guitars... Joniphiles - Check under the sofa cushions, go through your pockets. Time to save up those nickels and dimes! Word has it that five or six Hejira-era guitars currently owned by one Miss Joni Mitchell will soon appear on eBay. Other Mitchell-related surprises will appear there as well. Stay tuned for the announcement. Les NP: Bright Eyes "The Calendar Hung Itself..." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:54:57 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: NJC Re: Own one of Joni's guitars... In a message dated 2/13/2003 1:51:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, ljirvin@jmdl.com writes: > Other Mitchell-related surprises > will appear there as well. Cool! I'll be looking, just for the fun of it of course. Also starting up on the 15th are the Beatles tapes from their concert in Memphis where someone threw a firecracker on stage and people thought it was a gunshot. That should get a pretty penny! Bob NP: Joe Jackson, "Jack, You're Dead" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:04:53 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: war (njc) Kate Bennett wrote: > > the usa was not attacked by iraq...& the overthrow of saddam was on the > current administration's agenda before 9/11 ever happened... Thanks, Kate, for pointing that out. Right after 9/11, one of the first thoughts from Cheney was "Great. Now we can finally go after Iraq." > & the opportunistic attempts (by king george II & his men) to link the two > is deeply insulting to the intelligence of many many people here in this > country & around the world... Yes. People everywhere were in deep mourning, and Cheney and Rumsfeld were focused on finally getting what they want. Is it any wonder I do not trust their motives? > oh, but now we are told there is new evidence of a link! osama has told iraq > to resist the attacks...this is certainly credible evidence...let's take > osama at his word... Osama is a very smart man. He knows exactly how to play the simple-minded Bushies. All accounts I've ever read say that he's never had any tolerance for drinking, womanizing, secular Saddam Hussein. He releases a tape in which he obliquely refers to Saddam, and the US government doesn't try to hold back this tape as it has others (out of a concern it's sending coded messages to sleeper cells) because this time it's more important to the administration that they prove that bombing Iraq is a good idea than it is protecting their own citizens. Again, no wonder I don't trust their motives. Osama and his successors will not need to do any advertising for recruits for generations to come. The US is playing right into his hands. I would much prefer that Osama be sought and brought to justice (not murdered outright because then he's a martyr, although I have a feeling he'll arrange that somehow anyway), that Afghanistan be made safe and rebuilt, and that US citizens be protected. It's appalling that the frontline protectors in this country (police, firemen, healthcare workers) have not been given the money yet by Congress to get the equipment and training needed to protect US citizens!!! And yet we're being set up as targets for retaliation!!! Something's very very wrong with that picture. If those things had been addressed, THEN I could tolerate (and possibly even trust) the claims being made about Iraq. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:24:08 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Joni in Cincinnati '76 tour One of the articles Les passed along this AM was a review of Joni's 76 show in Cincy: http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=721 It was a mixed review...I thought I recalled that Bree or maybe some other JMDLer's were there...was just wondering if they read it and had any thoughts or comments. Bob NP: Joe Jackson, "You're My Meat" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:18:25 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: war njc hi: >>>someone wrote >>>war - whats it good for uuuhhhh...... protest songs??? also - i came across this & thought it was quite cute :-) Sing to the tune of If you are happy and you know it clap your hands: If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq If the terrorists are frisky And Pakistan is looking shifty North Korea is too risky Bomb Iraq. If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq So to hell with the inspections Let's look tough for the elections Close your mind and take directions Bomb Iraq. It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq They've got weapons we can't see And that's all the proof we need If they're not there, they must be Bomb Iraq. If you never were elected, bomb Iraq If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq If you think Saddam's gone mad With the weapons that he had And he tried to kill your dad Bomb Iraq. If corporate fraud's a-growin', bomb Iraq If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq If your politics are sleazy And hiding that ain't easy And your manhood's getting queasy Bomb Iraq. Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq Disagree? We'll call it treason Let's make war not love this season Even if we have no reason Bomb Iraq. ron np - beth orton - stolen car ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:47:00 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: war (njc) kakki wrote: (randy said) > > "Bushie I" and the Emir royal family/rulers of Kuwait, like the > > bin laden family, have been business associates. > > So what? Tons of Americans and Europeans have been employed working in the > oil business in the middle east for decades. Doesn't it seem to you to be, at the very least, a conflict of interest that Bush Sr. is running around the middle east negotiating weapons and oil contracts while his son is president? That is why, when Dubya became pres, Judiial Watch publicly called for Bush Sr. to step down from that position. > >The US taxpayers and soldiers came to the rescue of Kuwait, which was > drilling > > diagonal oil wells under Iraqi soil (where all the oil was, and which > > was Hussein's cheif complaint). > > The UN, Saudis and many other countries asked the US to become involved > because no other ally had the military power to stop Saddam effectively and > quickly. I have not heard of this drilling into Iraq for their oil. I've > always heard that Kuwait, though small, has loads of its own oil. > > > A US ambassador told Hussein, who had been our ally and whose rise to > power we funded, that, > > were he to invade Kuwait, we would not become involved. > > Which ambassador and when? I really want to go back and find the > Congressional Record on all this. The Congressional Record (correct me if I'm wrong) is a record of conversations within Congress, where anyone can say anything. The Congressional Record does not reflect actions taken by the government, overt or covert. Regardless, here are the details on this aspect, from Mark Zepezauer's eye-opening "The CIA's Greatest Hits"(Odonian Press, 1994) His source for this chapter is Ramsey Clark's "The Fire This Time: US War Crimes In The Gulf" publ. Thunder's Mouth 1992. Feel free to disprove any of this. [beginning of quote] The Gulf War of early 1991 didn't change much. Our old buddy, the despotic Emir of Kuwait, is back on his throne. Our former buddy, Saddam Hussein, while knocked down a peg or two, is still in power and as brutal as ever. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, hundreds of US vererans are suffering from a mysterious disease, and the Persian Gulf has been ravaged by the largest oil spill in history. The question naturally arises, could any of this have been avoided? The whole dispute started because Kuwait was slant-drilling. Using equipment bought from National Security Council chief Brent Scowcroft's old company, Kuwait was pumping out some $14-billion worth of oil from underneath Iraqi territory. Even the territory they were drilling from had originally been Iraq's. Slant drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, and it's certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast. Even so, this despute could have been negotiated. But it's hard to avoid a war when what you're actually doing is trying to provoke a war. The most famous example of that is the meeting between Saddam and the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, five days before Iraq invaded Kuwait. As CIA satellite photos showed an Iraqi invasion force massing on the Kuwaiti border, Glaspie told Hussein that "the US takes no position" on Iraq's dispute with Kuwait. A few days later, during last-minute negotiations, Kuwait's foreign minister said: "We are not going to respond to [Iraq]... If they don't like it, let them occupy our territory...We are going to bring in the Americans." The US reportedly encouraged Kuwait's attitude. Pitting the two countries against each other was nothing new. Back in 1989, CIA Director William Webster advised Kuwait's security chief to "take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq..to put pressure on [Iraq]." At the same time, a CIA-linked think tank was advising Saddam to put pressure on the Kuwaitis. A month earlier, the Bush administration issued a secret directive that called for greater economic cooperation with Iraq. This ultimately resulted in billions of dollars of illegal arms to Saddam. The Gulf War further destabilized the region and made Kuwait more dependent on us. US oil companies can now exert more control over oil prices (and thus boost their profits). The US military got an excuse to build more bases in the region (which Saudi Arabia, for one, didn't want) and the war also helped justify the "need" to continue exorbitant levels of military spending. Finally, it sent a message to the Third World leaders about what they could expect if they dared to step out of line. [end of quote] > > > > Well, if there is one thing more profitable (for some) than oil, > > it is war. Turns out we can have two wars, and the oil. > > This just sounds so flippant. War COSTS us. Yes, it costs us, in so many ways. But defense profiteers do not make any money from peace. Think about it. The largest industry there is. Do they profit from war? You bet they do. And the taxpayers pick up the tab, that's true. (Harper's index says the US spends 50 billion/year to guard 19 billion worth of oil. So the military is the bigger business here, at least until we can seize Iraqi oil). > By the way, what did > people think when Clinton unilaterally launched weeks of air strikes on > Iraq? Is he in on the cut from the oil cartel, too? What were people to think when it wasn't even reported in the US media? > > Who will profit from all this? George Bush Sr. works for The > > Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor. > The Bush family > have been extremely wealthy since their ancestors came over this country I > think a couple hundred years ago. They don't need to put the whole world > and themselves in jeopardy to make a few bucks for some stupid Carlyle > Group. I agree that they don't need to, they should find some way to increase their vast wealth without killing and impoverishing millions. But that seems to be the history of the Bush family. Prescott Bush, Dubya's grandfather, helped Hitler's Germany come to power and made a large fortune in the process, stopping only when, in 1942, his businesses were seized by the US under the trading with the enemy act. Maybe it's genetic. Anyway, here is a well researched article detailing Bush family ties to Hitler, Hussein, and the bin ladens. The sources include such lefties as ABC News and the Wall Street Journal. http://www.hermes-press.com/crimes.htm Other related articles on Bush's oil interests, etc http://www.scoop.co.nz/archive/scoop/stories/ff/a4/200208141353.d2d38465.html http://www.flora.org/library/wtc/burleigh.html http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/editorials/radC77CE.htm http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson56.html I know I waste my words here but I hope some can see that it is really > difficult to make these connections. There is just too much contradictory > history that refutes it to me. > > Kakki History supports the notion that US intervention in foreign countries has been about $$ interests. The book that spelled this out so clearly for me was Chomsky's "What Uncle Sam Really Wants" I recommend it. RR ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:33:19 -0500 From: "michael o'malley" Subject: RE:Stephen Holden's BSN Review The catchy byline on this review hooked me and I plunged into this NYT review of BSN. I frequently avoid reviews because I usually find them to be inarticulate, and frankly, I already know what I like about JM. But this guy is a hoot! He writes well and his descriptions are right on the mark. Admittedly, I am a great fan of BSN and I don't necessarily share all his views, especially about ACOY, but it was great fun getting his take on this somewhat controversial album. See it again here at http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=454 Michael, in freezing cold Quebec ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:45:51 EST From: FMYFL@aol.com Subject: Valentines Day (NJC) Tomorrow's Valentine's Day (in the USA anyway), and since my JMDL buddies have the biggest hearts in the world, I want to wish everyone a happy Valentine's Day. I thank all of you for sharing your heart and making me happy. I'm still trying to work on my own Valentine's Day poem for my loved one, but I'm stuck on which one to send. It's between: I thought that I could love no other Until, that is, I met your brother or My love, you take my breath away What have you stepped in to smell this way? Oh Well, I better start over! love and peace to everyone, Jimmy NP: Crosby & Nash (and CPR) Live at the Troubadour Jan.'03 -THANK YOU PAZ!!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:09:09 -0800 From: "paul@anglesnet.com" Subject: Joni Mitchell's Guitar on eBay Greetings all: I'm currently doing Internet marketing for Fred Walecki's Westwood Music. Fred is a legend in the music business for having supplied guitars to just about everyone in music, including Joni Mitchell, David Crosby, The Eagles, etc. (Try googling "Fred Walecki" and you'll see.) Joni recently purchased new guitars from Fred and asked him to sell a number of her older ones that she used to record Hejira and to tour. So, to help him help her out, I'm putting them on eBay. You can find her Ibanez George Benson, complete with tablature, at: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2508437444. You can also see Fred's old website here: http://www.westwoodmusic.com and the new one that I'm working on at http://209.61.143.101/. The first Joni Mitchell guitar is in the top row center and there's a link to *lots* of pictures of it. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate. Best, Paul - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Angles | Marketing & Strategy paul@anglesnet.com | 310-704-9448 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:57:32 EST From: RoseMJoy@aol.com Subject: Re: feb 12!!!! njc Happy belated Birthday Nikki!!!!! We'll celebrate both our birthdays with Cagno on February 27th ;~) For the Northeasters.....Gregg will be playing at Godfrey Daniels coffee house in Bethlehem, PA http://www.godfreydaniels.org/ come join us Thu 8:00 pm gregg cagno An old friend of Godfrey's, Gregg Cagno returns with his laid-back soul and an open-tuned mind and guitar. Gregg is a journeyman acoustic troubadour who has been spreading his grooves, words, melodies and spontaneous stories across North America. Named "Songwriter of the Year" in 2002 by the Courier News, Gregg is joined tonight by his compadre on keyboards Karl Dietel and other special guests. "He's got the groove..." - Tom Prasada-Rao. Better ask questions before you shoot Deceit and betrayal's bitter fruit It's hard to swallow, come time to pay. That taste on your tongue don't easily slip away Let Kingdom come. I'm gonna find my way Through this lonesome day Better ask questions before you shoot Deceit and betrayal's bitter fruit It's hard to swallow, come time to pay. That taste on your tongue don't easily slip away Let Kingdom come. I'm gonna find my way Through this lonesome day ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:09:11 -0500 From: vince Subject: njc Grammy Strummer & Em New 45th Telecast Performers Named Show will also include special tribute to Joe Strummer and the Clash, Legend Award honor to Bee Gees The latest performances announced by the Recording Academy for the 45th Annual GRAMMY Awards telecast are Eminem, Sheryl Crow with Lenny Kravitz, and a special tribute to Joe Strummer and the Clash featuring Elvis Costello, Tony Kanal (No Doubt), Bruce Springsteen and Steve Van Zandt. In addition, the Bee Gees will be honored with the GRAMMY Legend Award in a special presentation that will include a performance by 'N Sync. These artists join previously announced performers Ashanti, Vanessa Carlton, Coldplay with members of the New York Philharmonic, the Dixie Chicks, Faith Hill, Norah Jones, Avril Lavigne, Yo-Yo Ma, John Mayer, Nelly featuring Kelly Rowland, No Doubt, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, and James Taylor. The music industry's premier event will take place on Feb. 23 at Madison Square Garden in New York City and will be broadcast on CBS from 8-11:30 p.m. (EST/PST). The show also will be heard on radio via Westwood One worldwide, and covered online at GRAMMY.com and AOL Keyword: GRAMMY. 'N Sync, Eminem, Sheryl Crow & Lenny Kravitz Five-time GRAMMY Award winner Eminem currently holds nominations for Record Of The Year, Best Male Rap Solo Performance and Best Short Form Music Video, as well as Album Of The Year and Best Rap Album. Eight-time GRAMMY winner Sheryl Crow garnered nominations for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, Best Pop Collaboration With Vocals, Best Female Rock Vocal Performance, Best Rock Album, and Best Country Collaboration With Vocals. Lenny Kravitz is a four-time GRAMMY winner. Elvis Costello, Tony Kanal, Bruce Springsteen and Steve Van Zandt will perform together in a special tribute to Joe Strummer and the Clash. Strummer, the former lead singer of the punk band, passed away on Dec. 22, 2002 at the age of 50. The Clash are currently nominated for Best Long Form Music Video for "Westway To The World." GRAMMY-winning artist Elvis Costello garnered nods for Best Alternative Album, Best Rock Album, and Best Male Rock Vocal Performance; Tony Kanal is nominated as a member of No Doubt for Best Pop Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal, Best Pop Vocal Album, and Best Dance Recording; and seven-time GRAMMY winner Bruce Springsteen captured five nominations including Album Of The Year and Best Rock Album, two songwriting nods for Song Of The Year and Best Rock Song, and Best Male Rock Vocal Performance. The GRAMMY Legend Award will be given to the Bee Gees during a special segment featuring a performance by 'N Sync. This Special Merit Award is presented by the Recording Academy to individuals or groups for contributions and influence in the recording field. The GRAMMY Legend Award was inaugurated in 1990. Previously announced presenters include Mary J. Blige, Michelle Branch, and Martina McBride. Additional presenters will be announced. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:33:09 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: war (njc) Mary wrote: > I'm not sure the specific dealings of the ambassador, whoever it may have > been, would be in the Congressional Record. I can tell you, as one with some > experience in negotiations, albeit on a much smaller scale, that the most > salient and interesting points of such pre-agreement discussions often do not > find their way into the official record of an event. That's true, but discussions about actions to be taken and debate is in there. For what it's worth (not much, I'm sure) here is an excerpt from the CR from 1992 where John McCain rants on at length about some of the same allegations that are being recycled now. McCain was so beside himself over the false rhetoric going on, he asked that several items of proof be put into the CR to clarify the US's actions to moderate Iraq, sanctions against them and the ban of the sale of materials to Iraq that could make weapons going back to the early 1980s. If you can bear to read through his blasts against then Senator Gore in particular, you may find some interesting information. http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/s921001-iraq.htm > RE: "revisionist history": are you saying that that can only be practiced > after the fact, and by those you regard as being on "the other side"? No. I try to find the facts and I base some of my positions on personal experience working with the government, defense contractors and in legal cases involving same for almost 20 years. Take for example my assertion that the missile shield technology works. Several people refused to believe me even though I provided proof of successful tests as reported by mainstream media. I also had some involvement with the development of this and other technology and know that it is nearly impossible to fake tests and get away with it. Every defense contractor has government and military auditors on site checking everything on a daily basis. What about all the links some have provided which show links reporting years of Iraq having weapons they are hiding and support of other terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. Links from the IAEA, the Clinton State Dept., news reports regarding intelligence agency whistleblowers, congressional hearings. Maybe no one reads these links or doesn't believe what anyone involved in the issue, like Hans Blix, says. They rather, steadfastly maintain their position and say it's all about oil cartels or enriching the "defense profiteers." That is almost assuming that everyone in congress and in several other countries who want to take action regarding Iraq are either completely stupid or are somehow in on the Bush oil conspiracy. This is all what I find just incredible. Literally millions of people with a different opinion are all either in on the conspiracy or are unable to think for themselves? > I'd argue broadly that "revisionist history" can indeed be practiced as events are actually > unfolding, if people are not told the complete truth by a government about > what is happening for reasons other than those of pressing national security. > And that may have been done during "Iraq I" by the very government you appear > to so revere. But to really believe they could do this, especially when there was and is in both instances a broad international consensus by the decisionmakers who are privy to the classified information and history of events, is hard to conceive. That would mean there is some huge international conspiracy with millions of enablers pulling it all off. And I don't revere my government, but in this instance, what they are telling me conforms with what I've read and personally known as true for many years. That's why I find them credible. >"The other side" sees nothing but nefarious motives in their country and some of its leaders, > while the writer, by contrast, is able to look at the "facts" and correctly > discern that there is "no connection." I'll address this partial quote of mine. I only care that fellow people in my country are being led by nihilists with an agenda. I am a bit of a Pollyanna in that I don't want others to feel that everything and everyone in their government is so evil. I don't want them consumed with such negativity every day. Yes, there are bad people everywhere, but to say it is all corrupt and evil and bad is not true and it is extremely unfair and contemptuous of millions of honorable Americans who work hard and dilligently for their country and its defense. > But do me a favor (and Kakki, know that this is not so much directed at you as > to others on the list who have posted on this topic recently). Be honest > about the motivation. If it's about the U.S. throwing its might around (or, > alternately, "wielding its moral authority") to bring stability to the region, > then say so. I think I have been honest with my opinion on this subject all along. Wary of involvement in Iraq, wondering why Iraq is an issue connected with the terrorists attacks against the U.S. wanting to see more evidence, following the news, searching out information. I have never formed a complete stance right off the bat on this. But as I have watched and listened and learned I have seen the bigger picture unfold. You have to remember that this all started when Bush was only in office about 8 months and still transitioning in. I sometimes wonder at my lib friends who seem to go from ranting about Nixon to Reagan to Bush as if there were no other people in the presidential office or controlling the congress during that time span. To me it is all a continuum, and you can't stop and start up pointing the finger (if that is what one is inclined to do) selectively blaming all the ills of the world on the opposing political party. On a broader scale, the U.S. is not all omniscient and powerful and able to always control every micro event that happens in the world. A lot of events have been out of its power and it has had to be reactive the best it can. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:17:44 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Protests Around the World NJC a list, there's even one in antarctica! Protests Around the World Globally, February 15 promises to be the largest day of coordinated protest ever. http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=725 Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:24:43 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: RE: Travel in spite of uncertainity (NJC) i'd love to get together in april, mg. it'd be great to see you on MY turf. patrick np - silence >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]On Behalf Of >MGVal@aol.com >Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 8:13 AM >To: joni@smoe.org; wallykai@fibertel.com.ar >Subject: Travel in spite of uncertainity (NJC) > > >WallyK getting a jumpstart on his 10 year visa writes: > >> 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. >> > > >Wally and all, > >I'm firming up plans for a trip back home to the NYC area the week >of April >12th for a visit to the fam and shopping for my wedding dress. (:-D > >Anyone out there interested in getting together? We can have a bachorlette >party for me, I'm getting married in June! > >MG - who is nervous as heck about flying but I promised my mom and her >disappointment makes me more nervous. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:26:46 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Oil guys (njc) Randy wrote: > Doesn't it seem to you to be, at the very least, a conflict of interest > that Bush Sr. is running around the middle east negotiating weapons > and oil contracts while his son is president? Bush Sr. only gave a few speeches (PR stuff) and was an advisor on an Asian fund on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He did not negotiate weapons and oil contracts. Here from the NY Times (not exactly a Bush friendly newspaper) and the WSJ: "Mr. Bush makes speeches on behalf of Carlyle Group and is senior adviser to its Asian Partners fund, " from The Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01 "Carlyle officials contend that the firm's activities do not present any potential conflicts since Mr. Bush, Mr. Baker and other former Republican officials now at Carlyle - including Mr. Carlucci, who is Carlyle's chairman, and Richard G. Darman, Mr. Bush's former budget director - do not lobby the federal government. Carlyle executives point out that many corporations have former government officials as board members." "Mr. Bush gives us no advice on what do with with the federal government," said David Rubenstein, the firm's founder and a former aide in the Carter White House. "We've gone over backwards to make sure that we do no lobbying." "Mr. Baker is a Carlyle partner, and Mr. Bush has the title senior adviser to its Asian activities." "Carlyle's Asia advisory board, which helps raise money and finds and reviews deals, includes former President Fidel V. Ramos of the Philippines, the former prime minister of Thailand and the executive director of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. The former South Korean prime minister Park Tae Joon was also an adviser to Carlyle". New York Times, 3/5/01 Even so I would agree it would be best for him to disengage from involvement unless a court decided there was no conflict. I wonder if he did? Many others around Bush II had to cut ties to certain companies when he became Pres. >The US taxpayers and soldiers came to the rescue of Kuwait, which was > drilling diagonal oil wells under Iraqi soil (where all the oil was, and which > was Hussein's cheif complaint). I've read different accounts. They were accused of slant-drilling but the larger conflict went back many years over disputed borders and Saddam's wish for a seaport and a couple of islands. Saddam was also extorting money out of Kuwait and it was thought Kuwait could pay him off and avoid further conflict, but then Saddam invaded anyway. > Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, I've heard and read for years that this number is very false. I watched nearly every hour of that war (even at work). Most of the Iraqi army surrendered right away. Smart bombs targeted military and support installations, not masses of civilians. >hundreds of US vererans are suffering from a mysterious disease, Which they now say is from the chemically-tipped scuds Saddam had fired on them. > and the Persian Gulf has been ravaged by the largest oil spill in history. Oil "spill?" I clearly recall watching hundreds of oil wells on fire as the Saddam's army retreated. It took months of American experts to put out the fires. >The question naturally arises, could any of this have been avoided? Everyone thought that Kuwait could solve the problem by paying off Saddam. Then he suddenly invaded. Saddam was a wild card way back then. No one in the Arab world or beyond quite knew how to deal with him. > Even so, this despute could have been negotiated. But it's hard to > avoid a war when what you're actually doing is trying to provoke > a war. No one was trying to provoke a war except Saddam Hussein. Who was supposed to negotiate with him? The Kuwaiti's were trying but he bulldozed in anyway. >The most famous example of that is the meeting between Saddam > and the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, five days before > Iraq invaded Kuwait. As CIA satellite photos showed an Iraqi > invasion force massing on the Kuwaiti border, Glaspie told Hussein > that "the US takes no position" on Iraq's dispute with Kuwait. OK Again, I have always wanted the US out of there. I'm not for us getting involved with the problems in that part of the world. But we got in and too deep, I suppose. >A month earlier, the Bush administration issued a secret directive > that called for greater economic cooperation with Iraq. This ultimately > resulted in billions of dollars of illegal arms to Saddam. Not true according to my previous link of excerpt of the CR and to the IEAE reports of the UN inspectors' inventory of weapons immedately after that war. > Yes, it costs us, in so many ways. But defense profiteers do not > make any money from peace. Think about it. The largest industry > there is. Do they profit from war? You bet they do. And the > taxpayers pick up the tab, that's true. Here's another way to look at it. The main charge of the Federal government under the constitution is to protect the country. That means to have armies and a defense systems. The defense industry is one huge government jobs program. It is probably one of the most regulated of any government funded program. The taxpayers pick up the tab but they also have thousands of jobs from it from which they pay taxes right back into the system. Many good products and research that benefit everyone in other ways have come out of the defense industry. They don't have to start wars to keep it going. There are plenty of wars going on all the time outside of the US control to warrant their existence. And there are thousands of products other than bombs made (satellites, software, radar, etc.) by defense contractors. > (Harper's index says the US spends 50 billion/year to guard > 19 billion worth of oil. So the military is the bigger business > here, at least until we can seize Iraqi oil). Again the idea that our main motive is to seize Iraqi oil makes no sense to me when the US has only gottens around 10%-20% from the entire mid-east for almost 30 years and the main oil companies are European, and not US, owned. > What were people to think when it wasn't even reported in the > US media? ?!! It was all over the news at the time and reported every day for several weeks while it lasted. Many people were freaking out that he just sprung it out of nowhere. Then many started accusing him of wagging the dog to get Monica off the front page. > History supports the notion that US intervention in foreign countries > has been about $$ interests. The book that spelled this out so > clearly for me was Chomsky's "What Uncle Sam Really Wants" > I recommend it. I cannot think of any enlightenment I would personally get from reading him. I've checked out some of his writings and to me, he is someone who has nothing but contempt for most Americans and their country. Kakki ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #113 ***************************** ------- 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)