From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #127 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 20 2003 Volume 2003 : Number 127 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: change of mind NJC ["mike pritchard" ] Re: change of mind NJC [colin ] Re: NJC Good Lord! [colin ] Re: On War - NJC [colin ] Re: change of mind NJC [sl.m@shaw.ca] Re: "There you go again ... " njc [FredNow@aol.com] rethink? njc [colin ] [none] [anne@sandstrom.com] Re: NJC Good Lord! [anne@sandstrom.com] NJC BOB RULES! ["Gillian Apter" ] Re: Today in History: February 19 [FMYFL@aol.com] Re: Ben Taylor Band njc [Gerald Notaro ] RE: Kakki/Sarah (NJC) [] Joni's guitars ["Laurent Olszer" ] Re: Kakki/Sarah (NJC) ["kasey simpson" ] Re: Kakki/Sarah NJC ["kasey simpson" ] News with Your Breakfast ["Suzanne MarcAurele" ] Re: NJC Good Lord! [Susan Guzzi ] Re: criticism - NJC ["Lori Fye" ] Re: Today in History: February 19 [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] To Patrick and Kakki [was to patrick] NJC and long [dsk ] Mary in California [mpredmore@att.net] Re: change of mind NJC ["Lori Fye" ] Re: change of mind NJC [sl.m@shaw.ca] njc: voted for Bush [cul heath ] Tlog mix ["michael o'malley" ] Re: change of mind NJC ["Lori Fye" ] Re: njc: voted for Bush [Randy Remote ] Re: onlyJMDL Digest V2003 #54 Donald Trump and Wolman Rink [Aerchak@aol.] re: Patti witten NJC [Alison E ] Re: rethink? njc [Randy Remote ] Re: JMDL Digest V2003 NJC [Alison E ] re: Patti witten NJC [Catherine McKay ] Re: rethink? njc [Catherine McKay ] re: Patti witten NJC [Alison E ] Freedom to Read Week njc [Catherine McKay ] re: Patti witten NJC [Catherine McKay ] RE: Today in History: February 19 ["Heather" ] NJC Good Lord! ["kerry" ] Re: rethink? njc [sl.m@shaw.ca] Re: Open email to the peace movement NJC ["Jim L'Hommedieu \(Lama\)" Subject: Re: change of mind NJC >>Mike, it was French, Dutch and American oil companies that owned the Iraq Petroleum Company when Saddam nationalized it in 1972, so it (the oil) could be said to belong to those companies.<< I would say that the reserves of oil under Iraqi territory (and very close to the surface, as you mentioned) belong not to the IPQ but to the state. Hey, I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that a company that extracts/exploits the mineral wealth does not necessarily own the untapped reserves. >>Just before Saddam nationalized it, the Western oil companies had discovered new fields which Saddam hasn't developed. The oil companies believe these fields could yield even more oil than Saudi Arabia, and it apparently has low lifting costs because it's near the surface. They believe Iraq could be producing 8 million barrels a day within 4 years, which will pay for the country to be rebuilt.<< I would say *could* pay for the country to be rebuilt, rather than *will*. >>So long as Iraq benefits, does it matter who owns the country's oil company?<< I would say, YES, it is important. The history of the 'pillage of a continent' (Galeano's words describing the west's exploitation of Latin America's wealth) shows that ownership, or rather lack of ownership, is a crucial element in the success or failure of a country's economy. Countries that own their own resources can reinvest them in education, health, transport, etc, while colonial (and neo-colonial) ownership was/is concerned only about taking the profits and using them in the homeland, not the imperial outposts. Look at Spain and Portugal's 'rape' of Peru, Argentina, Cuba, Bolivia Brazil etc. In all cases the enormous profits (truly enormous) were sent to Europe. In contrast, the USA's wealth was continually reinvested in the USA and the difference is obvious. A colonial mentality and a settler mentality are totally different. I think it is very important for the Iraqi people to control their oil, politically and economically. >>Perhaps you're arguing that privatization is always a bad thing, but I would say experience doesn't bear that out, and that privatized companies tend to perform better than nationalized ones.<< I didn't say anything about privatisation, although I agree with your statement. But private ownership need not mean Western companies dividing up the spoils. >>I don't agree that there's real poverty in the UK - there's social alienation in the sense that many people don't have access to things that other people take for granted, but it's relative, whereas the poverty in Iraq is absolute. << I assume that your reference to the UK means that you accept my other three examples? >>...where children die for the want of clean water while Saddam Hussein builds dozens of new palaces, one of them the size of central London.<< The size of central London? How many square miles are we talking here? Cheers, mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:42:30 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: change of mind NJC There are people, many of them,who do not eat regulalry and what they do it is cheap processed crap. here in the uk. there are people who cannot afford heat, here in the UK. there are many people on the streets, here in the UK. Ther are p[eople who die because they cannot afford medical treatment, here in the UK. Many people who go wihtout denatl care and eye care due to lack of funds, here in the uk. Many old people are elft defencless and care -less, here in the UK. (I maine you could say the same about the USA) Pirvatisation: our railways are a good example of how that doesn't work. bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:46:29 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: NJC Good Lord! Thank you Bob. I alsothink you are right. I don;t think many people change their minds due to discussion, although it can happen. am thinking of this situations when one thinks soemthing based on a false premise. But generally, i think olur belief systems stay intact. bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:49:19 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: On War - NJC you are correct. the only person responsible for Saddam's behaviour is Saddam. howwver, I htink people are talking about the West's responsibilty in puttign him in power and propping him up till they changed their minds.... Suzanne MarcAurele wrote: >I would like to take to task the people who persist in framing America as >responsible for Sadaam and other pigs of the planet - we cannot live two >lives, that is, we cannot pursue our lives here and live theirs there - get >it? At some point I pray responsibility begins to be an understood word! >S. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 03:53:43 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: change of mind NJC Mike, the poverty issue first - Spain and Argentina, I don't know anything about them. America - yes, I'd say there's more poverty there than in the UK. The palace (or "presidential site") the size of central London is in Baghdad and is called Radwaniyah. It's about 25 square kms in size. There's a good Guardian interactive guide at http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,803769,00.html. The Guardian says it would cover the area from Hyde Park to Bermondsey and from King's Cross to Elephant & Castle. I agree with the points you made about colonial ownership. I'd say that America will want to make this a "model" invasion and post-invasion government, and for that reason will want to rebuild not channel profits elsewhere - but that's just my guesswork. This is why it's important that the democratic opposition in Iraq are given proper positions. Ahmed Chalabi of the INC wrote an article recently in the Wall Street Journal, which I think is subscription only, but I have a copy and I'll send it off-list if you'd like it. Sarah At 10:31 AM +0100 02/19/2003, mike pritchard wrote: >Countries that own their own resources can reinvest them in >education, health, transport, etc, while colonial (and neo-colonial) >ownership was/is concerned only about taking the profits and using >them in the homeland, not the imperial outposts. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:22:37 -0500 From: FredNow@aol.com Subject: Re: "There you go again ... " njc In a message dated 2/19/2003 1:05:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, sl.m@shaw.ca writes: >Fred, I didn't know a lot of this - thanks for sending it. I didn't >know that former felons weren't allowed to vote in some states (seems >very undemocratic), nor about the 80 per cent match in the search for >suspected former felons. I also didn't know the woman in charge of >the election in Florida was co-chair of Bush's campaign team. Seem a >clear conflict of interest regardless of any other suspicions. What >was the reasoning of the Supreme Court when they upheld the results? >(if you have time to explain) > >Sarah > >At 11:42 PM -0500 02/18/2003, frednow@aol.com wrote: >>No, no, no ... Bush was not elected ... not by popular vote, not by >>electoral college, and it's got nothing to do with chads, hanging, >>pregnant, or otherwise. Sarah, here are two links to help explain. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com/bush-supreme-court.htm The first is the actual Supreme Court decision. I can't claim to understand it all in their native tongue. The second explains it for the layman. It's admittedly partisan, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true. The point you make about the US being a representative democracy, not a direct one, is correct. And the validity of the electoral college has been debated since its inception. But here's the problem: Gore won the popular vote not only in the US overall (by several hundred thousand votes -- three times Kennedy's margin over Nixon), but in Florida, too, which, if properly recognized, would have given him the electoral vote as well, and the presidency. The Supreme Court mishegas is all about chads and vote counts, etc., but, as I tried to illustrate earlier, that was all smoke and mirrors anyway. The actual theft of the election was planned and instigated a year before the election, in the state in which Bush's brother was governor, and in which the Secretary of State was his state campaign manager ... they weren't gonna leave anything to chance. And, in my view, the world is much the worse for it. - -Fred ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:32:48 +0000 From: colin Subject: rethink? njc the idea of 'saving' the Iraqi people is a good one. however, I would think that the means used should be the means that result in less deaths. I think that invading Iraq qill not only result in more deaths quickly, but in millions more deaths in the long term. The invasion, if it goes ahead, will result in more terrorism, more hatred towards us in the west, and probably to ww3. And possibly, a very real one, the end of us all. Perhaps, then the least deaths option is the best one. Don't invade. The whole thing is such a hard situation to to be able to think about and come to a conclcusion. Impossibe I think.. I am going into my large garden and start digging a large hole...... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:09:43 -0800 (PST) From: anne@sandstrom.com Subject: [none] Sarah wrote: You voted for Bush, albeit by the slimmest of margins. That means he gets to decide. That's what your democracy is. I apologize for repeating what others have said, but sometimes hearing something several times drives the point home. The election results were questionable at best. So, it's definitely not clear that Bush won, even by the slimmest of margins. (I'm being overly generous to Bush here...) The president isn't supposed to decide if we go to war. That's the job of the U.S. Congress. In doing this, Bush is breaking both U.S. and International law. lots of love Anne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:15:04 -0800 (PST) From: anne@sandstrom.com Subject: Re: NJC Good Lord! Bob Murphy for President!!!! Wow, Smurph. You're not just one of the wittiest guys around, you're also one of the most intelligent and insightful. Your post is one of the best and most heartfelt I've ever read. lots of love Anne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:11:06 +0100 From: "Gillian Apter" Subject: NJC BOB RULES! Dear Bob, You wrote: "And as America's heart has grown cold, its brain has gone stupid, stupid, stupid. We have squandered the good will the world had for us after 9/11. " No you haven't . I am Scottish, I live in Madrid, and have many friends from the U.S living here and many friends in the U.S too. NOT ONE of them seems to have a heart that has grown cold, or seems more stupid. Totally the contrary: they are becoming so much more politicised, smarter, more caring and outraged and disgusted by that idiot of an illegal representative you have for a leader. I am more fond of all my American friends than ever, and a great deal of the anti-war stuff posted on this list reflects their views too. I've been readign it all with great interest. Also the pro-war posts. I am glad you finally chipped in, Bob. It was right on. I only hope that ordinary citizens in the US will start to wake up after this dark period and try to do something to shakeup the political sytem ("corporateship" someone said on one post) of yours for the better. Peace Gill NP Beck "Sea Change" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:45:57 EST From: FMYFL@aol.com Subject: Re: Today in History: February 19 1965: Joni gave birth to a daughter, naming her Kelly. HAPPY BIRTHDAY KILAUREN !!!! "Folk singer Joni Mitchell is probably thinking of altering her famous song to "You don't know what you've got till it's back." LOL I don't remember reading this article. http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=618 Jimmy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:57:29 -0500 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: Ben Taylor Band njc I bought the Bye Bye Love soundtrack 8 years ago just for Ben's I Will. He's a real thoroughbred, and his new cd has gotten raves. Jerry Richard Goldman wrote: > Another folk-musical progeny emerges.... > The 25 year old son of James Taylor and Carly Simon, Ben Taylor, whom > some of you may have seen at The Bottom Line in Hollywood last night.... > He's on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno TONIGHT/Tuesday February 18. > His CD is quite good, you can actually listen to the whole thing on his > website: > http://www.bentaylorband.com > Richard ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:17:01 -0600 From: Subject: RE: Kakki/Sarah (NJC) At the risk of drawing this out even further, I will respond to Kasey, who wrote: "Kakki/Sarah, I think the reason you are being accused of saying people are anti-American is because of the information you post. Both of you give specific links to and on information you present here. It's to hard to argue against the information so instead people choose to argue against you. It takes the focus off the links, and information you provide." Kasey, I must respectfully disagree with you. I see quite a lot of people engaging with both the information and the arguments that Kakki, Sarah, and others have been providing with it. I don't see those who disagree running from information that is "too hard" to argue against, but in fact, doing precisely the opposite. Perhaps some members, including myself, stated that they believed Kakki had said or implied they were anti-American because--rightly or wrongly--they actually believed that she had. Sometimes a cigar is really only a cigar. Kakki has since clarified her position on this fully and thoughtfully: a clarification for which I am most grateful. Have these discussions at times turned personal? Yes, some more than others. However, when flawed and imperfect *people* are making arguments and advancing interpretations (and that includes all of us), it may be difficult if not impossible to separate them from the thought processes they engage in to do so. Frankly, I think criticism of those thought processes, in a public forum in which these individuals and others have freely chosen to participate, is fair game. However, I also think that certain basic rules of civility should apply in all our discussions. If those basic rules have at times been broken, then we can and should do better. The JMDL is, I'm absolutely convinced, one of the most informed, articulate, and stimulating discussion lists on the entire Internet. What I have learned in my 6-plus years of membership could fill a small library. And, while my mind has seldom been changed in the areas of my most basic core beliefs, I have always been educated and enlightened, even in these areas. Suffice it to say that my views *have* been changed on other subjects, based on what I've discovered here. In all, I hope very much that our discussions of all things pertaining to the life and times of Joni Mitchell will continue, bringing richness and bold new ways of viewing our world to all of our lives. With respect, Mary P. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:44:25 -0000 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Joni's guitars All Ibanez George Benson have the G.B. name inlaid on the frets. So is the sunburst one sold on ebay. It's a standard feature. Laurent ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:40:22 -0600 From: "kasey simpson" Subject: Re: Kakki/Sarah (NJC) Mary, You are right. Thank you for the post, and the refocus. KaseyGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:44:04 -0600 From: "kasey simpson" Subject: Re: Kakki/Sarah NJC Jenny, I was agreeing with your post until this last line. Of course I read it right after I shoveled the driveway:) Thanks for the post. Kasey Jenny (Enjoying the first "snow day" she's had in years) Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:57:56 -0500 From: "Suzanne MarcAurele" Subject: News with Your Breakfast Safe, warm....for now....I hate war... I hate rape...I hate crime...I hate all things anti-peace but yet all exist because some where some one says hey it ain't Christian to oppose the maniacs that do these things... turn the other cheek and what? God will become Santa Claus because you were so good? As smart as foxes in lambs clothing works two ways - any one for a discourse on how to appear the underdog? Any one read the list on Iraq weapons - how about hoof in mouth disease? Any relationship to Britain's dead cattle? How about th ose bottles of Tylenol in the 80's how about Sirhan Sirhan on Bobby Kennedy and then hey lets turn the cheek on the world trade towers too - HOW LONG HOW LONG SHORT SIGHTED HOW LONG? S. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:19:01 -0700 From: Dan Olson Subject: Re: Joni's guitars Not to belabor the point, but the blond one at http://www.anglesnet.com/jonimitchell02/JM04-7.JPG appears to say "JONI MITCHELL" instead (it's difficult to read - I missed it at first). At 05:44 PM 2/19/2003 +0000, you wrote: >All Ibanez George Benson have the G.B. name inlaid on the frets. So is the >sunburst one sold on ebay. >It's a standard feature. > >Laurent ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:24:19 -0800 (PST) From: Susan Guzzi Subject: Re: NJC Good Lord! Cynthia - you hussy! Smurph's my man and I love him soooooooo! BTW - we've got the Golden Eggs simmerin already. Come see our new family at fest! (OMG!just got an image of myself in that condition - I'm feeling faint!):-O Peace, Susan NPIMH: Ethel/Everythings Coming Up Roses! - --- Cynthia Vickery wrote: > > < futility, stupidity and insanity of war will finally hit home. > > Peace, > > --Bob>> > > bob - i love you. who knew there was such heart under that witty > exterior? i suspected as much when we caught you reading > virginia woolf and listening to lou reed, but now there's no > doubt. marry me? > > susan - sorry about those wasted golden eggs! > > cindy Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:03:25 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: criticism - NJC Patrick, my darling (you know I love you), you wrote: > each of us who has posted criticism of bush 43 has felt accused by > kakki of anti-americanism. Although Kakki and I have disagreed about a lot of things over the last 5 1/2 years, I don't think she's ever caused me to feel accused of anti- Americanism. I just wanted to set the record straight as it pertains to me. And as Jim pointed out, posting (or attempting to post) Kakki's (or anyone's) given name publicly and without her consent is way out of line. Geez, the stuff you miss when you're out of town for 6 days!! Lori ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:44:59 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Today in History: February 19 In a message dated 2/19/2003 9:45:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, FMYFL writes: > LOL I don't remember > reading this article. > > Subject: To Patrick and Kakki [was to patrick] NJC and long patrick leader wrote: > > my post may have seemed harsh, but i did start out by describing one of the > things i value about you. you've given it again: the urge to reread and > rethink, if needed. Hi Patrick and Kakki, Yes, Patrick, your post did come across as unusually harsh. I sensed a lot of frustration in it, the kind of frustration that takes a long time to build up. Whether it ever needed to be expressed the way you did (or if, indeed, that's truly what you felt) are things you and Kakki need to sort out. I don't know for sure about the anti-American charge. I do know and have come to expect that Kakki is usually the first (and sometimes only) person to use the word Marxist or communist when making observations, sometimes with the implication that people on this list are one of those trouble-causing, anti-American communists. Whether that's your intent, Kakki, I don't know. From what you say, it never has been, but I remember being struck by things like your prim "my apologies to all the Marxists and communists on the list if I've said anything to offend you." On the surface, ok, that's an apology, but to who? I got the feeling you had particular people in mind. Who on the list has labeled themselves a Marxist or a communist? No one, as far as I know. To be a liberal or left-wing or look critically at or make negative comments about the way the US government does things is NOT necessarily to be a Marxist or communist. Something you'd probably say you agree with, Kakki, and yet you imply differently. I always see that "Marxist around every corner" paranoia as basic right-wing thinking, which is where you start from, Kakki, even if you don't think so. You'll probably see my observation as me "putting you in a box", which you so argue against. Strange, if someone calls me left-wing I don't start arguing about being put in a box. I say, yes, enough of my core political beliefs do fit into that category and I'm glad they show. I'm glad my actions and words fit my core beliefs enough for someone to "label" me. It doesn't mean that on some issues my beliefs might not fit that label, just that many of them do. So what is it about right-wingers that when the heat's on all of sudden there's an "I'm not really conservative" cry and a claim of being picked on, so that people guiltily back off, even if what they've been saying is accurate? (That's "accurate" from that person's point of view, of course, and the accuracy of anyone's observations can always be disagreed with.) As I see it, that pattern has happened over and over here, for years. And it's something that gets in the way of understanding and accepting each other. I mean, if we don't understand and accept our own beliefs for what they are, how is anyone else going to understand and accept what we're expressing? Conversation then starts feeling very slippery and frustrating as a result. So, whenever I see anyone use the word Marxist to explain "problems" (for example, in answering the "how did the anti-war people get so organized so quickly?" question) rather than as an attempt to actually understand Marxist theory, that to me is a sign of where that person's coming from, and right away I know it doesn't match my starting point so I try not to take their comments too seriously or personally. A glance at right-wing websites shows how often right-wingers rely on the "Marxist" word as a way of quickly dismissing whatever anyone who doesn't agree with them is saying. It's like a code word that also implies the need to fear people who think differently, and generally it seems like a way for the right-wing to control their troops. And a very effective one, from what I can tell, because they then stop thinking about issues or listening to other views. Again, I'm thinking of what I've seen on right-wing websites and heard on right-wing talk radio. The second characteristic of right-wing thinking is to rely on FACTS, as though objective, beyond-human viewpoint, absolute right/wrong information exists. Belief in that usually comes across as "I have the FACTS, and you don't", which is something we've seen on the list also. The more right-wing the person, the fiercer they are about that assumption. And the third characteristic of right-wing thinking is to basically believe what the US government says. I don't know if that's a belief in all authority or if it's specifically trust in the US government (at least when the conservatives are in charge) because to not trust the government is to be unpatriotic. And no right-winger wants to think of himself or herself as unpatriotic. That equals un-American, which may equal Marxist, and that's very very bad. Those last three paragraphs are extremely simplified and general views and, of course, there will be exceptions. Most importantly, I'm not specifically talking about Kakki in those descriptions. To your credit, Kakki, even when you start from one of those "characteristics" (something with which you may disagree), you often veer from them eventually and end up questioning yourself what I call your "starting point", albeit that's not the vocabulary you'd use. While I may see that as you contradicting or denying what you've said (and I find that frustrating), it can also be seen as being flexible enough to try seeing things another way, and viewed in that light, is an admirable characteristic. So, basically, for me it comes down to recognizing and trying to appreciate any person's starting point (which can only be known over time; no one issue or one post can fully convey that; and EVERY discussion shows a person's "politics"), and keeping that starting point in mind when reacting to someone. That usually (although not always) helps me keep the emotional reaction to a minimum. Whether I've confused or illuminated the issues with these thoughts... well, I can't tell. I'm aiming for the second, with a lot of musing along the way. As with every post sent to the list, it's all fair game for any comments or disagreements or anger or whatever reaction may come, from anyone. I feel like doing a summary now: Yes to harsh. Yes to Marxists, facts and trust, with implied anti-Americanism of list members. No to EXTREME right-wing. Yes to everyone questioning themselves and others (and IMO, that's a very good thing). Debra Shea NPIMH: RT's "Hard on Me". Think I'll give it a listen. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:25:18 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: "There you go again ... " njc Fred, great explanation of the correctly termed coup that resulted in Bush getting the White House. I would only add that last fall, even with the knowledge you outlined being quite public, the Florida officials vowed to fix it.....AFTER the governor election, which Jeb Bush won. And this is two years later. Can you say 'dynasty' ? RR ps DBT says that if these "errors" were fixed, 91,000 of the 94,000 voters scrubbed from the voter rolls would have their voting rights restored. http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/11/01/lists/index_np.html FredNow@aol.com wrote: > No, no, no ... Bush was not elected ... not by popular vote, not by electoral college, and it's got nothing to do with chads, hanging, pregnant, or otherwise. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:45:01 +0000 From: mpredmore@att.net Subject: Mary in California Hi everybody, I'm back! It's been a long time since I've been on the list. Have been lurking for about 2 weeks now and can't believe the lack of joni content. :( I miss you guys and the joni discussions. (I've switched to joni only now) Now for JONI CONTENT! I went to the BSN concert at the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles. I took a friend who is now a big joni convert. We loved the concert. I thought many of the performances were better than the CD (I believe because they had a chance to evolve on the tour). It was WONDERFUL! The person on my other side didn't think so tho. They sat through most of the concert with their arms folded, complaining about the lack of her "hits" and the old joni.... Well joni grew up and is singing grown-up stuff now. The most excitement I had was hearing the new arrangement of Judgment of the Moon and Stars--couldn't WAIT for the new CD to come out! (my friend too) Someone on the list recently mentioned that people are discovering joni through BSN and Travelogue. What's wrong with that? I share with my friend the original versions of Case of You and Amelia. (My friend prefers BSN version--I prefer MI) *However* you discover her, it becomes an addiction and hopefully something you will investigate. She never ceases to amaze with the many different flavors she has on her music. And that voice... All for now. "If you want me I'll be in the bar, Mary in Calif" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:53:25 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: change of mind NJC Sarah wrote: > the Iraqi people have a right to some benefit -- they're living in > what could be a wealthy country, yet there's a huge amount of > poverty, and always has been United States citizens live in what IS a wealthy country, yet there's a huge amount of poverty, and always has been ... If the U.S. controlled all the oil in the world, do you think it would change poor people's lives? Lori, who spent last Friday driving through all of the poverty behind the casinos of Biloxi, Mississippi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:29:27 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: change of mind NJC I don't accept that the poverty you find in the developed world is the same in kind as the developing world. I know there's poverty in America, less so in the UK, more so in Canada in some communities. But I don't believe that in any of those countries, children routinely die because of lack of clean water, or spend long periods in orphanages tied to beds because no-one is employed to look after them. The situation in Iraq is grotesque and has been since sanctions began in 1991. We can differ as to whether the people would be helped by an invasion, or whether that would make things worse. But I can't believe anyone on this list truly believes the poverty there is comparable with what you find in America or Britain. Sarah At 1:53 PM -0800 02/19/2003, Lori Fye wrote: >United States citizens live in what IS a wealthy country, yet there's a >huge amount of poverty, and always has been ... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:29:55 -0800 From: cul heath Subject: njc: voted for Bush Sarah wrote: > You live in a representative democracy, not a direct one. You voted > for Bush, albeit by the slimmest of margins. That means he gets to > decide. That's what your democracy is. No. Bush was NOT representatively elected by popular vote, in fact, he lost the popular vote and was elected instead by the electoral vote, which is a whole other ball of wax; especially considring that the conservative Supreme Court of the day, voted against allowing a full recount of the Floriduh votes, which showed after the election, that Bush would have lost if the recount had taken place. Add that info to the fact that the eligible voter turnout was likely in the 30 percent range and the reality is that Bush in no way has a mandate from the American people to be asserting such a broad change of American foreign policy as exampled by his his push for military pre-emption. One can readily see the folly of such a policy by simply taking each reason given by the BushCo adminstration for legitimizing the pre-emption on Saddam by applying them to the US itself. In each case, the US is far more of a threat by those exact criteria than Iraq could ever hope to be...including the idea that Iraq has a leader who refuses to listen to his own people. Shall we discuss which nation on the planet has the greatest number and variety of weapons of mass destruction? Shall we discuss which nation is the only one to have ever used nuclear weapons against a civilian population? Shall we discuss whether the US indeed has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons? This planned assault on Iraq is nothing more than a strategic manouver that has been in the works for a decade or more and is being implemented by a salivating group of hawks whom themselves have never seen combat. You would be hard pressed to find military people who have been in combat to express that this impending war is either necessary or a good idea. The worst aspect of what is likely at this junction to occur is the fact that there is no aftermath planning and no real knowledge of what will happen in terms of terrorist acts on the US directly or what sort of destablization will occur in the Mideast itself. This is an incredibly misguided action that will result in hundreds of thousands of human lives being destroyed for no good purpose. cul ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:55:03 -0500 From: "michael o'malley" Subject: Tlog mix I must be the last person on this list to get Tlog. Like many others , I feel that Tlog is very uneven and way too long. But since it does have its moments, I decided it would be fun to make my own cut. I made a little 60-minute tape of may favorites, that I call Tlog plus. The songs work well together and fit nicely into the thirty-minute format of each side of the tape. Try this for a Joni fix: Side A Amelia Refuge You Dream Borderline Both Sides Now Side B Dawntreader Last Time A Case Of You Hejira Love I must say Refuge has taken on new life for me in this latest incarnation. Michael in Quebec NP : Peggy Lee - You're my Thrill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:51:28 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: change of mind NJC > I don't accept that the poverty you find in the developed world is > the same in kind as the developing world. This naturally leads to a discussion of whether certain parts of the Southern United States and Appalachia are really part of the developed world ... Lori, meaning no offense to anyone who hails from those regions ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:05:50 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: njc: voted for Bush > Sarah wrote: > > > You live in a representative democracy, not a direct one. You voted > > for Bush, albeit by the slimmest of margins. That means he gets to > > decide. That's what your democracy is. Another important point is that, although the President is Commander In Chief of the armed forces, the United States Constitution says that only Congress has the ability to declare war. Pressure from the Bush admin. following the 9/11 attack resulted in Congress signing away their authority in this regard. The reason for such a constitutional tenet is the founding fathers realized, rightly so, that no one person should have that kind of power. Even back before modern warfare technology. RR ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:44:34 EST From: Aerchak@aol.com Subject: Re: onlyJMDL Digest V2003 #54 Donald Trump and Wolman Rink I just spent 2 days snowed in with my mentally ill mother and "oh so fabulous" sister in northern New Jersey. I hadn't felt so strange (listening to Joni,of course) driving north on the NYS Thruway since returning home from my father's funeral in January1990. One thing has definitely changed. I have to stop to pee more and in a desperate way. Anyway I am so happy to be home and see my dogs, Henry McPug and Ana and Sam, the greyhounds. Anyway, I digress... I read the post about Donald Trump putting up the $$ to restore Wolman Rink, which is something I did not know. Donald Trump is someone I always sort of snicker at. I don't know why but I do. So I just want to say "Good for Donald Trump". Thank you. You may have the worst come-over on earth, but maybe, just maybe, you cannot judge a book by it's cover. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:42:51 -0800 (PST) From: Alison E Subject: re: Patti witten NJC hello everybody! i am back on the air as a DJ on KRCL 90.9 FM in salt lake city...wednesday's from 6 am to 9 am (wednesday breakfast jam). if you are a musician and you'd like me to give you some airplay (format appropriate, of course, folky, bluesy, acoustic, AAA type stuff, no War Pigs, Victor!) please feel free to email me. this morning, i had the distinct pleasure of pulling ms. Patti Witten's new CD off the shelf, and playing a track! AND IT WAS GREAT! i got a few calls, and got to spread the word a bit. i will play more tracks, it's a great album! so, keep me in mind with your new releases! i'm happy to introduce good stuff to the decent folk loving population of SLC. love and kisses, and much peace. alison e. np: npr Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:46:14 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: rethink? njc colin wrote: > the idea of 'saving' the Iraqi people is a good one. > > however, I would think that the means used should be the means that > result in less deaths. One frightening aspect is that Rumsfeld has openly said he has not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons (even first strike) in the invasion. Somebody get a straightjacket and get these maniacs safely tucked away! Also, Sarah mentioned a bomb that would wipe out all electronic devices. The only way to do this that I am aware of is to explode a nuclear bomb 250 miles above the surface of the target country, and the huge electromagnetic shock wave will render all electronics useless, not to mention poisoning the global atmosphere. This is a standard feature of plans to 'win' a nuclear war. Is there some other type of weapon that accomplishes this? RR ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:51:47 -0800 (PST) From: Alison E Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2003 NJC From: FMYFL@aol.com \Sarah, as one lister posted a couple of years ago (who was it?) FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS POST DRUNK ! LOL Jimmy IT WAS ME! IT WAS ME! my five seconds of fame have finally arrived. thanks alot for remembering, JIMMY! i guess i still love smurphy more! smurphy remembers everything! ;-) i love you too, smurph! alison e. in slc np: npr Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:11:05 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: re: Patti witten NJC --- Alison E wrote: >> i am back on the air as a DJ on KRCL 90.9 FM in salt > lake city...wednesday's from 6 am to 9 am (wednesday > breakfast jam). if you are a musician and you'd like > me to give you some airplay (format appropriate, of > course, folky, bluesy, acoustic, AAA type stuff, no > War Pigs, Victor!) please feel free to email me. > > this morning, i had the distinct pleasure of pulling > ms. Patti Witten's new CD off the shelf, and playing > a > track! AND IT WAS GREAT! i got a few calls, and got > to > spread the word a bit. i will play more tracks, it's > a > great album! > so, keep me in mind with your new releases! i'm > happy > to introduce good stuff to the decent folk loving > population of SLC. Play something from PAZFEST!!! ===== Catherine Toronto ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:12:47 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: rethink? njc --- Randy Remote wrote: > > Also, Sarah mentioned a bomb that would wipe out all > electronic devices. The only way to do this that > I am aware of is to explode a nuclear bomb 250 miles > above the > surface of the target country, and the huge > electromagnetic shock > wave will render all electronics useless, not to > mention poisoning the > global atmosphere. > This is a standard feature of plans to 'win' a > nuclear war. I wonder what fun-loving party animal thought this one up? Jeeezz! ===== Catherine Toronto ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:17:11 -0800 (PST) From: Alison E Subject: re: Patti witten NJC honestly, i would! but i don't have it yet! paz won't honor my requests! he keeps saying "your money's no good here!", and i'm like, well, sure it is! and he says, "no, seriously, i can tell you made that money on your home computer!", and i'm like, shit! i just haven't sent the check yet. i'll do it this week. i can't ignore all the raves. love, love and kisses. alison e. in slc - --- Catherine McKay wrote: > --- Alison E wrote: >> i am >> > Play something from PAZFEST!!! > > ===== > Catherine > Toronto Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:19:06 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Freedom to Read Week njc On a completely unrelated-to-much note, I received a post from the Editors' Association of Canada today regarding Freedom to Read Week. I'm sure this happens in other countries as well. I thought this might be of interest to jmdlers. "Freedom to Read Week is a national volunteer event that celebrates Canadians' open literary culture and raises awareness of censorship in Canada. This year, Freedom to Read Week begins on Sunday, February 23. "We, the organizers, ask all members of EAC/ACR to visit the Freedom to Read Web site at . "The free exchange of ideas and information is vital to democracy, but this freedom must be defended against pressures from government officials and special interest groups who seek to ban books and magazines from public schools, public libraries, newsstands, and bookstores." ===== Catherine Toronto ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:20:58 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: re: Patti witten NJC --- Alison E wrote: > honestly, i would! but i don't have it yet! paz > won't > honor my requests! he keeps saying "your money's no > good here!", and i'm like, well, sure it is! and he > says, "no, seriously, i can tell you made that money > on your home computer!", and i'm like, shit! > i just haven't sent the check yet. i'll do it this > week. i can't ignore all the raves. I've got all of Patti Witten's stuff too - she's great! ===== Catherine Toronto ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:09:44 -0500 From: "Heather" Subject: RE: Today in History: February 19 Attention Wally! Kilauren is then an Aquarius, no? How is the compatibility between a Scorpio and an Aquarius? Just finished watching Bread and Tulips (It.) and enjoyed it immensely. Heather - -----Original Message----- From: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]On Behalf Of FMYFL@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:46 AM To: joni@smoe.org Subject: Re: Today in History: February 19 1965: Joni gave birth to a daughter, naming her Kelly. HAPPY BIRTHDAY KILAUREN !!!! "Folk singer Joni Mitchell is probably thinking of altering her famous song to "You don't know what you've got till it's back." LOL I don't remember reading this article. http://www.jmdl.com/arti cles/view.cfm?id=618 Jimmy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:17:18 -0600 From: "kerry" Subject: NJC Good Lord! Bob M. wrote: >The fact is, I have learned in my dotage that I prefer to think that my >friends believe as I do about the political issues that I care most about. >Naive, yes, but I don't see that political debate between friends -- even >discussion list friends -- does much to change anyone's mind. >So -- now that you all know where I stand politically, I really feel that I >need never participate in political discussions here again. I am not going to >tell anyone what he or she can or cannot post, but I choose not to talk about >politics or defend my views, so carry on! I haven't been reading any of the political/war messages, but I read yours because it's the most I've seen you write in quite a while! (And your posts always give me a laugh.) Anyway, I want to say a big AMEN to everything you said. The Joni list has always been something positive for me; a diversion from day to day life. The last thing I want to do when I come home from a long day at work is read things that make me more stressed out. I agree though, that I would never want to censor what people choose to write about on the list. I wouldn't have wanted to miss out on last year's stimulating "dryer lint" thread! >And as America's heart has grown cold, its brain has gone stupid, stupid, >stupid. We have squandered the good will the world had for us after 9/11. Do >you think the victims of slaughter on the planes and in the towers and in the >Pentagon would want revenge or World War III to be their legacy? Or do you >think they would want a peaceful world for the precious loved ones they left >behind? - -snip- >But next time someone asks you to participate in this demonization of "the >enemy," please recognize that this trick has been played on good people since >war was invented. Resist! Imagine the face of a loved one on "the enemy" and >maybe the futility, stupidity and insanity of war will finally hit home. Beautifully said, Bob..... (I'd let you marry Hell any day ;>) Kerry NP - Aaron Neville - Crazy Love ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:59:26 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: rethink? njc Hi Randy, Yes there is. The Americans are planning to use so-called E-bombs. They emit a high energy pulse that destroys electronic equipment. They're going to be used to isolate Saddam's command and control centres from his army, and also to destroy the electronics he will need to launch his weapons of mass destruction. Newsweek article about them at http://ww2.freeflo.org:81/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4 Sarah At 4:46 PM -0800 02/19/2003, Randy Remote wrote: >Sarah mentioned a bomb that would wipe out all electronic devices. >The only way to do this that >I am aware of is to explode a nuclear bomb 250 miles above the >surface of the target country, and the huge electromagnetic shock >wave will render all electronics useless, not to mention poisoning >the >global atmosphere . . Is there some other type of weapon that >accomplishes this? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:01:15 -0500 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu \(Lama\)" Subject: Re: Open email to the peace movement NJC Maybe keeping Osama bin Lauden down was part of Saddam's job. Maybe Saddam's being replaced as "America's bully" in the Islamic world. Lama ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:00:57 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Open email to the peace movement NJC Jim, it wouldn't surprise me if we find this out in 20 years time. It's hard to believe that American intelligence would have forged links with Iraqi intelligence to keep tabs on Osama, but they've done stranger things in the past. What's bewildering people who work on mid-east issues is why certain individuals within the CIA (and some within the Pentagon, but mostly CIA) deny there's a link between Saddam and September 11. Al-Qaeda isn't a terrorist group as such - it's an umbrella term for a number of groups with a convergence of interests - like the Animal Liberation Front - it's a name activists might use when they carry out an action - they "claim" the action under the name ALF. To imagine that Saddam Hussein, who funds almost all mid-east terrorist groups, just happened not to fund any of the groups associated with al-Qaeda, is to misunderstand the nature of terrorist funding - which involves money being sent by a donor who doesn't want to know details, which is sent to bank account X, from which a letter of credit is established for bank Y to buy something that will be sold elsewhere for deposit in bank account Z, and so on and so forth, until you've no idea where the money ends up - and the donor wants it that way for the sake of "plausible deniability". Some parts of the CIA seem to be saying there's no proof of a link between Saddam and September 11 until someone can show that Osama bin Laden met with Saddam Hussein, and they sat down and discussed the plans. But this isn't how things work. A message would go out to good donors that a major attack was in the works against America. The donors would pay up via whatever circuitous routes they had established and the action would be carried out by others at some unspecified time in the future. The argument that the secular Saddam wouldn't associate with Islamic fundamentalists doesn't stand up to scrutiny. To give just one example: when Saddam was talking to the American Ambassador April Glaspie before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, he warned her that America shouldn't suppose, just because Saddam had just fought a war against Iran (which is strongly Islamic), that America could pursue a policy of "divide and rule". He reminded her of certain historical precedents where Iran and Iraq had made peace to fight a common enemy and told her this would certainly happen again if either country felt threatened by America. The suspicion is that the CIA has its own reasons to deny there's a link and they must be good reasons because otherwise Bush would give details showing the Saddam-Osama link to get more of the American public behind the invasion. It could be the CIA don't want to be held responsible for not knowing about September 11 in advance, and given they're monitoring Iraqi intelligence all the time, if Iraqi intelligence knew, the CIA should have known. Or - it could be, as you suggest, that they had a relationship with Iraqi intelligence in regard to Osama bin Laden, and now don't want to admit someone played a double game with them, and/or don't want the American public to find out about that relationship. Who knows? I'm no conspiracy theorist, but there's something fishy afoot IMO. Sarah At 11:01 PM -0500 02/19/2003, Jim L'Hommedieu (Lama) wrote: >Maybe keeping Osama bin Lauden down was part of Saddam's job. Maybe >Saddam's being replaced as "America's bully" in the Islamic world. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #127 ***************************** ------- 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)