From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #128 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 128 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Open email to the peace movement NJC ["kakki" ] Naming names (NJC) [MGVal@aol.com] Skiing NJC [MGVal@aol.com] Re: Open email to the peace movement NJC [sl.m@shaw.ca] Re: rethink? njc ["kakki" ] Re: Naming names (NJC) ["kakki" ] Re: Skiing NJC ["gene mock" ] Today in History: February 20 [ljirvin@jmdl.com] Today's Library Links: February 20 [ljirvin@jmdl.com] Re: To Debra NJC and long ["kakki" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:40:43 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Open email to the peace movement NJC Excellent questions and points, Sarah, many of which I've asked myself as I've followed this. There are many bewildering loose ends. You have some State Dept. reports and Dr. Mylroie among many others who publicly during the 90s made the connection, yet post 9/11 you had the CIA whistleblowers who came forth saying that their reports regarding the connection were suppressed. You now have the current administration back on telling us there is a connection. One can also find many articles and reports which are publically available out there which are very compelling. > 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. I can see that perhaps a lot of people are now trying to cover up for the CIA. I can think of many reasons why they may do so. Of course, the first one that comes to my mind is the lawsuits that would be filed by the victims of 9/11 and the defendants named would likely go all the way to the top going back 10 years. Other reasons could be that the hearings and investigations could bog things down at this point and also would neccessarily have to betray other intelligence data that some would not want disclosed. . Initially I was also wanting the US government to come forth with all the evidence they have of the connection. Then again, we are already in a war situation against al-Qaida and Saddam. If Rumsfeld or Powell got up on TV and said "see here are all the photos and reports and locations and places and times," it could surely not only tip the US hand by worldwide broadcast to Saddam or al-Qaida, it would probably endanger the lives of any agent or insider providing the data. If the US has secret agents placed in Iraq feeding the data of where the weapons are really hidden or reports of cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaida, they are going to know right away where their leak is. Those agents will be eliminated and so will any further reports from them. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:47:33 EST From: MGVal@aol.com Subject: Naming names (NJC) Lori missed all the action and posted: > 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. > > I'd just like to gently protest and say that I'm not so sure if it is way out of line to use a person's given name publicly. The minute you enter the realm of the Internet, you run that risk of having your given name made public. So many list members post from work with their full names or have their home email with their names or use their full names and phone numbers as signature lines. Given names are also thrown around off list and for various fests, so it can be hard to keep in mind which person wants what known. While it can be poor etiquette, I don't see it as falling into the way out of line category. I'm concerned that thinking otherwise lulls people into a false security. Of course, it's always safe to follow the "when in doubt, don't" rule. Just my 0.02 worth. MG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:49:51 EST From: MGVal@aol.com Subject: Skiing NJC Just a stab in the dark but if there are any northern California list members interested in a ski weekend up at Squaw Valley, drop me a line. MG ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:49:54 -0700 From: sl.m@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Open email to the peace movement NJC There's a scary article here about Iraq-al Qaeda links http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ijaz021803.asp The author says: "The real danger Americans face today is not from Iraq's existing biochemical-weapons cache, but from Saddam's transfer of recipe books and formulas to al Qaeda, and access to the scientists who teach from them, for developing weapons of mass murder on site at its terrorist hideouts around the world. And not just now, but for decades to come." This is the kind of deniability Saddam practises - hand over the recipes, let others bake the cake. Kakki, you made a good point about the lawsuits. I hadn't even thought of that. And about the need to protect sources, meaning the administration is fighting the PR war with one hand tied behind its back. Sarah At 9:40 PM -0800 02/19/2003, kakki wrote: >I can see that perhaps a lot of people are now trying to cover up >for the CIA. . . the first one that comes to my mind is the lawsuits >that would be filed by the victims of 9/11 and the defendants named >would likely go all the way to the top going back 10 years . . . If >the US has secret agents placed in Iraq feeding the data of where >the weapons are really hidden or reports of cooperation between >Saddam and al-Qaida, they are going to know right away where their >leak is. Those agents will be eliminated and so will any further >reports from them. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:01:43 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: rethink? njc Here's a techie article on the E-bomb from Popular Mechanics http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:04:58 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Naming names (NJC) When someone has known one's valid reasons for years of not putting their name out on the internet, and then does so deliberately to hurt someone, that's a whole other kettle of fish. I am not posting under a false identity and have always disclosed who I am offlist. I guess it's a moot point now and some of you who have always tried to fight me on this one have finally won. Hope you enjoy your little victory. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:23:40 -0800 From: "gene mock" Subject: Re: Skiing NJC hi mg, i ski anytime during the week at alpine meadows or sugar bowl. i don't do storms or weekends. but you or any other list member are more than welcome to ride up with me anytime (sunshine.) i live near the penryn offramp by i 80. gas is on me. - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:49 PM Subject: Skiing NJC > Just a stab in the dark but if there are any northern California list members > interested in a ski weekend up at Squaw Valley, drop me a line. > > MG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 02:01:53 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today in History: February 20 1966: Chuck and Joni Mitchell perform at the Chess Mate in Detroit. 1976: Joni performed at Nassau Coliseum on Long Island in New York. http://www.jonimitchell.com/Refuge.html http://www.jonimitchell.com/NY22076.html 1983: Joni began rehearsing at A&M Studios in Hollywood for her upcoming tour. - ---- For a comprehensive reference to Joni's appearances, consult Joni Mitchell ~ A Chronology of Appearances: http://www.jonimitchell.com/appearances.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 02:01:53 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today's Library Links: February 20 On February 20 the following items were published: 2000: "'Both Sides Now' and Then" - Washington Post (Review - Album) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=443 2000: "Joni, Joni" - Buffalo News (Review - Album) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=461 2002: "The Art of Joni's Songs" - Victoria Times Colonist (Appreciation) http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=753 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:12:34 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: To Debra NJC and long Debra wrote: > 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. I sometimes wonder if you actually read my posts or just peruse them to see what you can belabor against me, Debra. I don't want to repost everything and the reason why once again here. You can look at the posts in the archives on the subject from around 1/16/03 - 1/20/03. It started off with me mentioning to Sarah about the ANSWER/IAC group which is openly and actively a Communist/Marxist group. Four or five people questioned me extensively at the time as to whether I was calling anti-war protestors Marxist and I repeated that I was not and that I was sure many people who protested the war were not aware of ANSWER's background. I am not just saying ANSWER is of that ideology to slander them. That is what they openly profess. They actively support Marxist groups around the world including support of North Korea. They also happen to be the first and largest organizer of the anti-war protests since 9/11. That is just fact reported in all the mainstream media. I don't think it is some far out there reaction to be curious about ANSWER's intentions and why they were so organized right away but that is about them and NOT the many other groups or individuals who are protesting based on their individual conscience or pacifist beliefs. > Who on the list has labeled themselves a Marxist or a communist? No one, as far as I know. No one as far as I know, either, and I don't care if some are. >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. No, but here is where I get confused sometimes. My example the other day - what if I posted a bunch of articles from for example, KKK website to support tax reform? Would it be extraordinary for someone else here to point out that my sources are racist? No. Then what if I and some of my friends here all protested that someone was calling me a racist. What if I posted articles from Jerry Falwell here in a discussion on Christian scripture. Would it be extraordinary for someone else to point out that the person I quoted does not represent their idea of a good Christian? No. Then I come back and say you are bashing me as a Christian. One does not always follow the other, and I tend to assume most people here can parse it out. > 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. That is really kind of funny to me. I grew up through all those "Red scare" days and used to alternately laugh or be a little scared of the John Birchers. I thought it was all paranoia, too. But when I see this large ANSWER group proudly waving the banner and marching in the street with their Workers World Party placards and pamplets supporting North Korea and Maoist terrorist groups after all these years, I do kind of think "holy shit!" > 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. And this is where I have come to think there is a fundamental difference between some of the left and those on the right. My ideologies do not control my every move every waking minute. They are not set in stone (because life and issues are fluid and ever changing) and it is not the only thing that influences who I am. I get the impression from some on the left that they really do think of those on the right as an enemy, that they must crusade against at all times. I see it differently - that we are all Americans and, in the larger sense, we are all people, not enemies divided by political ideologies. I don't feel I have to fight against people all the time in order to stand by my beliefs and opinions. That's why I probably naively jump into some discussions here thinking people can give and take, or at least be respectful. I have not had a full appreciation that maybe some people think that now it's ideological war time and they start firing off the big guns. That's why sometimes I have felt a bit singed. I have also noticed a big difference in the way people from different political parties interact with each other in Southern California vs. the Northeast. My experience in Cal. is that people (moreso Native Californians) are pretty laid back about it all. They don't get so agitated about the differences and would never say "I will no longer have friends who are not of the same belief as me." But I have to say that the people from the Northeast seem to be much more adamant in their politics. I'm not picking those people out here in particular. I noticed it years ago from my non-Republican relatives who live in the Northeast. They just hammer and hammer away and never give one inch in discussing politics. I am not saying that is wrong. It's just an observation that I have pondered trying to understand the dynamics of the whole thing, > 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. I think the "right-wing" has felt barraged for years at the many lies slammed against them. That is why they have become so defensive and wanting, sometimes compulsively, to go to the facts. If someone says "Bush is a crazy, stupid imperialist oil czar who is bent on taking over the free world for those New World Order boys and look at all these connections that prove it. His father advises the Carlyle Group, and he is the cause of the ENRON scandal, too" is it so wrong for someone on the right to say, "here are facts which refute that?" If someone on the right were saying that about a left-wing representative, don't you think left-wing supporters might do the same thing? You can boil it down to you defending a friend against a false accusation made by another. Perfectly human behavior done everyday in all kinds of situations. > 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. And that is just what you say, a characture painted by the left since, it seems time, immemorial. I remember the comedians way back in Nixon's day playing it up to the hilt. Of course, it was those same right-wingers who came personally to show Nixon the door when his illegal actions were revealed. No excuses for him, no spin or cover-up. He could no longer be trusted and it was time for him to go. True conservatives are all for as little authority from the state as possible and I've also observed them to be much more highly critical of their own than those on the left. Kakki ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #128 ***************************** ------- 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)