From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #124 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 Tuesday, February 18 2003 Volume 2003 : Number 124 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Senator Byrd's speech njc [FredNow@aol.com] Re: to patrick NJC ["kakki" ] Re: Open email to the peace movement NJC ["ron" ] Today in History: February 18 [ljirvin@jmdl.com] Today's Library Links: February 18 [ljirvin@jmdl.com] Anti war in SF njc [Randy Remote ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:06:37 -0500 From: FredNow@aol.com Subject: Senator Byrd's speech njc Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences by US Senator Robert ByrdSenate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003 To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on. The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:11:31 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: to patrick NJC Patrick wrote > however, she has, very consistently in the last 18 months, brought up the > subject of anti-Americanism whenever anyone has expressed doubts about our > foreign policy. and, i repeat, any criticism of bush almost invariably gets > a vague comment about anti-Americanism on the list from kakki. In my heart and mind I have not done that. I may go back through the archives to audit myself on this. But if everyone who feels offended is honest themselves, they need to consider whether they are projecting something else on me that did not originate with me. > > kakki: I think I have only used that term here twice in the past couple of > years Patrick said: and that's just a lie. kakki lied. My recall is responding to articles sent from certain journalists who I feel have shown a pattern of being against the U.S. every time they write. I am not deliberately lying. This is my recall. It may be faulty and I might go back and see if I contradict myself, but in my heart and mind I would never accuse anyone here of being anti-American for their personal opinions about Bush or war. I think that would be an absolutely ignorant stance to take. > between lister comments and non-lister writing posted here in her comments. > each of us who has posted criticism of bush 43 has felt accused by kakki of anti-Americanism. That's wild to me because I have not done that, even if some think I implied it or wanted to think I implied it. I won't deny that I have questioned some of the views or opinions put forth here, but it's not my style or inclination to just write someone off as being "anti-American." But you know Patrick, I was so shocked by your post the other night that I spent the last few days consumed with trying to determine where this perception may come from. Funny enough, your invocation of McCarthyism led me to wrack my brain trying to come up with an answer. I had an "aha" moment when I recalled (being almost old enough to recall) that the term McCarthy used was "Un-American." THAT term, to me, has a completely different connotation from "anti-American." You can disagree with me here, but I am going from my own definitions of the meanings of both terms. To say someone is "un-American", to me, implies a citizen or perhaps resident of the U.S. who somehow does not fit someone else's proscribed idea of what it is to be a legitimate, genuine "American." McCarthy/McCarthyism is a perfect example of the extremely dark underbelly of political correctness. He stunned and repelled me then and now. To say someone is "un-American" because they dissent in their own damn country is the lowest form of oppression. On the other hand to say an opinion expressed by someone outside the U.S. is "anti-American" is fair game for dispute. We have had a number of people from other countries here who indeed have said that some outside the U.S are, by their words, "anti-American." It is to those sentiments, especially in the time immediately 9/11, that I found issue with. I didn't use the term at all with Chomsky, but rather said I felt he was contemptuous of the "average" American because of the views he puts forth. That is a whole other discussion that, at this point, I'd just as soon let die. > dissent IS patriotism, in a healthy democratic society. I have a friend here on the list for a long time whose politics are completely different than mine. I am so glad that politics never get in the way of our friendship, just like 90% of my friends offlist who may disagree with me on politics. This friend is amazed on some of the attacks on me here and had a theory that perhaps some people are getting some kind of backlash (maybe being accused of being un-American or anti-American) in their other lives outside the list for dissenting and then project on me all their anger, deserved or not. >she responded, "maybe I'm too dense" and "i'm not an intellectual" come on. My perception is that it is some intellectuals who revere Chomsky. What did you want, Patrick? For me to flame you off the face earth instead? I thought my response, while maybe not entirely submissive to your accusations against me, was not extremely offensive in the larger scheme of things. > i don't believe for a second that kakki was unable understand > my viewpoint. she was dishonest, again. You are entitled to your opinion of my reaction. But you may give me too much credit. I'm not some wonder woman who can handle simultaneous attacks which came to me out of left (no pun intended) field when I was focused on specifically discussing Chomsky after a long day. I was honestly perplexed by your accusation. > when are we supposed to think you are stupid, and not responsible for your > views? I am human and indeed sometimes "stupid" as to understanding what someone is accusing me of. I cannot be put into a box, just as I hope I would not put you or anyone into a box, Patrick. > you CAN NOT have it both ways. Never asked for having anything both ways. This is just a discussion list for me. I don't like being flamed, but have become much more numbed to it than I used to. But it is an imperfect medium here. You can't tell when I am smiling or laughing or my tone. We cannot sit on end for hours straight in person and work out just exactly where we all are coming from. I am hopeful that in the end, people do not have to be so polarized and in a war with each other. I am involved in screaming political matches with my friends (not to mention family members) all the time in real life, real time, and at the end we have not demonized each other and love each other very much. My brain or the way it works or perceives things may never be an exact match for some here. That does not make me evil or disingenous or whatever is proscribed in someone else's rule book. Rather than you demonising me or attacking me because I don't match their perceptions, maybe you should just take it as someone else who filters things differently, as I try to do with those here when I don't understand their thought processes. I never deliberately try to attack people here when I don't understand them. I find it curious sometimes, that the people I try the least to offend, feel I am personally offending them. Believe me, I always feel like I'm walking on eggshells with some of them. Some think I am being passive-aggressive which disturbs me, because I abhor passive aggressive people. All I can think is that there is a problem with my writing style which gets misinterpreted perhaps, as cold or too clinical. There are two problems maybe - I try to be polite to people and then it may seem I sound forced or insincere. I also am immersed in legal writing all day and maybe there is some coldness in that style of writing that may carry over here and put people off. See Patrick, I am certainly not all that smart to have it all wired here from the communications end. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 01:10:21 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: Open email to the peace movement NJC hi sarah >>> Ron, you say that anti-war is not pro-Saddam, but without a war, he will stay in power, so anyone demonstrating against the method of removal, when no alternative exists, is de facto demonstrating against the removal itself. uh yeah. kind of. but are we truly sure that no alternative exists?? not that i have one, but surely someone can come up with something. id be only too happy to see him go, but i have 2 problems with war : 1) the very nature of war itself. 2) the possible/probable extended consequences of war in iraq. the problem that i have with the sudden "liberation" theory is how its been neatly dusted out & put on display now that the "weapons of mass destruction" thing seems to have lost popular favor. >>>>>>>>>>The Moslem groups invited to take part in the marches in London were from extremist organizations that are so right wing you normally wouldn't want to associate with them. one of the reasons i didnt march here. i didnt want to be identified as pro saddam. the news coverage of the marches here made the marching in sa look like a major pro saddam gathering. we have a huge muslim community here, with an extremely militant wing called "PAGAD" (people against gangs and drugs). this is basically a vigilante group who go around blowing up gangsters and drug merchants. >>>>>You said Iraqis would probably be worse off if liberated. How could they be worse off? go ask the people of zimbabwe, namibia, zambia, mocambique, nigeria, kenya, zaire, mali, ivory coast, uganda. (and im sure many people could add numerous other examples to this list) they all thought they were getting a bargain when they got "democracy". they all came horribly, horribly short. freedom fighters who had promised all sorts of things to their supporters turned out to be worse, far, far worse, than their predecessors. i really dont have the answer to saddam/iraq. i probably never will have. i just dont think bush has it either. ron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:01:34 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today in History: February 18 1966: Chuck and Joni Mitchell perform at the Chess Mate in Detroit. 1996: Joni received two Grammy Awards for Best Pop Album and Best Artwork & Packaging for Turbulent Indigo. - ---- For a comprehensive reference to Joni's appearances, consult Joni Mitchell ~ A Chronology of Appearances: http://www.jonimitchell.com/appearances.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:01:34 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today's Library Links: February 18 On February 18 the following items were published: 1996: "Singer-songwriter gets no respect in rock history" - Denver Post (Opinion) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=829 1999: "Joni Mitchell" - Rolling Stone (Interview) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=1034 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:51:53 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Anti war in SF njc Well, I got up at 5 am to jump on a bus with about 100 other people who made it down to the anti-war march in SF on Sunday (it was moved from Saturday in deference to the annual Chinese New Years celebration, which is a big event in SF). The crowd was exuberant, even joyful. Up to a quarter of a million people, from old people that could barely walk, to couples pushing strollers, all races, nuns, transexuals, you name it (one favorite sign carried by a sixty-ish couple "Average people against the war"). Street theater. A man standing on a wall, short hair, dressed in a suit covered with blood and a sign saying "Everything is All Right", exhorting people to "go home, everything is all right, you don't need to be here today! Go home and watch your TV!". A small brass band I could hear but not see playing "Give Peace A Chance". A man holding a placard that just said "Imagine". Wonder Woman. Bush and Saddam kicking each other in the butt, then kissing. The slow walk to the city hall. Every five minutes or so you would here this cheer coming towards you from the front, pass through you and keep going onward behind you. We listened to Joan Baez and Bonnie Raitt singing together on KPFA's live broadcast as our bus pulled away early so as to get us home at a reasonable hour. I was thinking of my web friends and the discussions that have been taking place. Some of my favorite signs: War! Good God Y'all! Bush Gives Vegetation a Bad Name Collateral Damage Has a Face (Pic of a Middle Eastern Child) First Strike Makes Us Terrorists Not With My Taxes Got Blood? Stop Mad Cowboy Disease If War is Inevitable, Start Drafting SUV Drivers Save 2 Schools $3.5M....1 F22 Bomber $153M How Did Our Oil Get Under Their Soil? War Kills The Poor Drop Bush Not Bombs Blix Not Bombs Bongs Not Bombs (Flag) These Colors Don't Run Everything George, Why Don't You Send The Twins? (Bush Girls Pic) Who Would Jesus Bomb? Impeach The Son of a Bush God Bless The Rest of the World, Too This is My Patriot Act Resistance is Fertile The King is a Fink Fight Plaque Not Iraq ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #124 ***************************** ------- 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)