From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2004 #11 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, January 9 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 011 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Hitler comparison - njc ["kakki" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["kakki" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["kakki" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC [Dflahm@aol.com] Actor's Studio questions... (njc) [anne@sandstrom.com] Re: NPR-Bush Co. Mislead the people! =?ISO-8859-1?B?oHNqYyBOSkM=?= [SCJon] Re: Joni on CBC in February [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: Both Sides Now [Bobsart48@aol.com] Re: Both Sides Now [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: Both Sides Now ["Norman Pennington" ] Re: politics NJC ["Joseph S.E. Palis" ] Re: Both Sides Now ["Victor Johnson" ] Re: Both Sides Now [AzeemAK@aol.com] Re: Both Sides Now ["Joseph S.E. Palis" ] Re:caricatures NJC [AzeemAK@aol.com] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["Norman Pennington" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["Norman Pennington" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["Lori Fye" ] Fw: calm discourse request NJC ["ron" ] Calm Discourse. NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC now just another borderline, still NJC [ma] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["kakki" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["kakki" ] Re: Frum NJC ["kakki" ] Re: Frum NJC ["Lori Fye" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:44:35 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Hitler comparison - njc Zowee! That there's a bunch of crazy stuff! I really never heard of any Clinton/Hitler comparisons before this. I may not care for old Bill but Hitler is the last person I'd compare him with. He likes to have fun too much LOL Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:54:51 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC Bryan wrote: > But I do think the Bush administration has > used the terrorism issue for political advantage (as it does with nearly > everything) and it totally burns me up when those of us who believe that Bush has > not responded adequately or appropriately are branded as unpatriotic or > foolish. I think therein lies the question. Those who believe terrorism is real but yet oppose everything Bush does to address it without telling us just how he has not responded adequately or appropriately or giving people any real better ideas or plans (that work). Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:10:33 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC Debra wrote: > Clinton knew the terrorist threat was real, and actions he took against > bin Laden were dismissed by his opponents (those Republicans who were > dogging him from the moment he took office) as Clinton trying to > distract people from his domestic problems. I don't ever recall any kind of ongoing thorough briefing from Clinton regarding bin Laden. I recall him launching some cruise missiles at some places without any kind of prior discussion with the public about the threat. He did mention al Quaida from time to time and say they were a threat but he sure didn't seem to make dealing with them a priority or call out to get everyone on board with the fight against them. That's why his actions seemed suspect at the time. Just a few cruise missiles launched from time to time. > Clinton and his administration turned over to the Bushies all the > information they had about bin Laden and al Qaeda, and the Bushies > ignored it all. How do you know that? Clinton didn't even let Bush into the White House until just a few days before the inauguration. Because we had to let Gore have 5 recounts and numerous litigations to try to win, the election wasn't decided until December and Bush lost all that time getting briefings from the outgoing administration. It has been widely reported that much of the intelligence handed over was very defective and that people in the FBI and CIA who had pertinent information had their reports quashed (under the Clinton administration). All this has come out in official investigations. > If Bush was genuinely trying to get rid of terrorists, there would be > more activity in Afghanistan, There's plenty of activity in Afghanistan and because of his actions, the country has a new chance for something other than 9th century talibanism. Al Quaida remnants are in the mountains of Pakistan now, but we and the Pakistani government are still going after them. >and more honesty regarding Saudi Arabia and that government's role in promoting >terrorism. Again there has been plenty of honest reports regarding this. How else would you and I have heard about it to begin with? >Invading the Middle East was planned long ago, and Sept 11 and terrorism are just >the excuse for it. September 11 was the "Pearl Harbor" that Rumsfeld and other > neocons were waiting for. Oh dear. > And, if the Bushies were serious about "Homeland" security, they would > give the cities and states the money needed to put that security into > place. Which cities and which states? We seem to be getting plenty of money out here in L.A. judging from the many ongoing surveillance operations and security drills I often observe right outside my apt. window. As is usual with Bush, it's all talk and photo-ops, and it's > appalling to me the way people fall for it. Really? We get rid of the Taliban, we liberate Iraq and get rid of Saddam, we have captured numerous kingpins in Al Quaida and Iraq, Libya is backing down - yeah I guess I fall for it. > I know too many people who have been out of work for so long they've > dropped out of the statistics for me to consider such "indicators" as > anything but more show with no reality behind it. Do you believe it is the sole responsibility of a president to absolutely insure that everyone has a job absolutely all the time? Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:08:43 EST From: Dflahm@aol.com Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC Kakki, with all respect, I believe your that claim--"we liberate Iraq"--implies a knowledge of the future which none of us possesses. Three or five years hence, we will have a better idea of whether Iraq and the region are liberated, are better off than they were when Hussein was in power. DAVID LAHM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:02:37 -0500 (EST) From: anne@sandstrom.com Subject: Actor's Studio questions... (njc) Ok, I'll play... 1: What is your favorite word? hope 2: What is your least favorite word? no 3: What turns you on? writing a new song 4: What turns you off? my job 5: What sound do you love? a white-throated sparrow singing 6: What sound do you hate? barfing 7: What is your favorite curse word? f*ck 8: What profession other than yours would you like to attempt? conductor of the Boston Pops 9: What profession would you not like to participate in? garbage collector 10: If heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the pearly gates? Your family is waiting for you. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:03:14 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: NPR-Bush Co. Mislead the people! =?ISO-8859-1?B?oHNqYyBOSkM=?= Please don't forget to change "sjc" to "njc" when needed. Thanks, Bob NP: Bob Dylan, "Po' Boy" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:06:36 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni on CBC in February Rick, I hope you or some of the CBC JMDL folks will watch this and report back. I've seen a couple of news blurbs about dance programs being set to Joni's music, so I guess it's yet another branch of the arts that Joni's work has penetrated. Bob NP: Bob Dylan, "Cry A While" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:12:17 EST From: Bobsart48@aol.com Subject: Re: Both Sides Now Bob Muller wrote: "In comparison, the songs she did on BSN (even her own) had been done to death and that's probably the biggest reason why that project did not work at all." I think you may be onto something there, Bob. My introduction to these songs occurred when I saw Joni perform them at the Garden Theatre almost 4 years ago. I was not a list member at the time, so I was lucky to notice that she was playing that very day, and buttonholed a co-worker to see it with me. I had not bought the CD (I knew it was out), and did not know the songs. So, for me, the concert lacked the familiarity I would have hoped for - I did not know the songs (my parents did not play them, and neither did my friends or spouses). My friend really liked the concert (he knew the songs, and had never seen Joni - tho he was a big fan). I then went out and bought the CD, and got familiar with the songs on it. So, for me, they were "Joni's songs", and were fresh, which may be why the record worked better for me than for you. It also inspired me to pick up Billy Holiday's greatest hits and listen to a few other classic CD's, so I have benefited in that was from Joni's decision to do the BSN project. Bob - thanks again for the BSN 'originals' CD that you put together for the fest. I'm gonna go listen to it right now. Do you think that Joni's versions are materially inferior to the versions on that CD ? Bobsart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:11:11 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Both Sides Now I'm glad you are enjoying that, Bob...BUT I had nothing to do with it. Simon Montgomery assembled the compilation and Lamadoo helped with labels, copying, distribution...I think that's correct anyway, Jim help me out if I've strayed from the path. As to your question Bob...what do you mean specifically by "materially inferior"? In my mind, they are materially equivalent because the material, ie the songs themselves are the same. I believe that Joni's versions of these songs are inferior to most of the 'classic' recordings of the same songs, that of course is somewhat a matter of taste. I strongly dislike the schmaltzy overwrought arrangements, and I think the production is also very weak, with Joni's vocals buried under the weight of the bajillion-piece orchestra. And while I'm sure that Joni enjoyed the project, playing the role of a jazz chanteuse is not playing to her strength so in my opinion this collection only serves to weaken her catalogue. To use my tried & true Sartorius analogy, I'm sure that Tiger Woods could buy his way into playing an exhibition NBA game, but it probably wouldn't put him in the best light either. :~) If at some point Joni decides to compose again and is inspired to do so by this study of classic standards, then the project will have had some merit. Bob NP: Dylan, "Buckets Of Rain" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:41:00 -0700 From: "Norman Pennington" Subject: Re: Both Sides Now Bob wrote: > > As to your question Bob...what do you mean specifically by > "materially inferior"? In my mind, they are materially > equivalent because the material, ie the songs themselves are > the same. I believe that Joni's versions of these songs are > inferior to most of the 'classic' recordings of the same songs, > that of course is somewhat a matter of taste. I strongly dislike > the schmaltzy overwrought arrangements, and I think the > production is also very weak, with Joni's vocals buried under > the weight of the bajillion-piece orchestra. And while I'm > sure that Joni enjoyed the project, playing the role of a jazz > chanteuse is not playing to her strength so in my opinion this > collection only serves to weaken her catalogue. > I, for one, agree wholeheartedly. I'm of an age where I remember the original versions of most of the songs on "Both Sides Now" (thanks to my Mom, among others) and have several of the originals in my collection. As noted in previous posts, I'm slowly replacing my vinyl copies of Joni's albums with CDs. I made a TERRIBLE mistake by purchasing "Travelogue," for the very reasons Bob mentions, above. I wish I had taken the $25.00 I spent on "Travelogue" and bought CDs of FTR and LOTC instead. As an aside, I'm introducing my girl friend to Joni's work. While we were listening to Travelogue I found myself telling her over and over again..."Don't judge her by this version...just WAIT until you hear her *original* recording of this song..." Forgive me for what I'm about to say, but visions of those obnoxious TV ads flogging Rod Stewart's "American Standards" or whatever the marketing mavens are calling those two laughable albums kept popping into my head while listening to Travelogue. Does anyone else feel the same? As a newbie, I hesitated in posting my views on this subject because I'm quite sure you guys have been down this road all too often in the past couple of years (or three). Best Regards, bp NP: J.J. Cale: Tears in My Tequila ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:46:54 -0500 From: "Joseph S.E. Palis" Subject: Re: politics NJC Hahahahahaha! I am now in the library and when I clicked the site, I laughed so suddenly and quite loudly that suprised students and most especially me. The Madonna, George Bush and Cheney distortions were really laugh-inducing, but the ones for Amanda Peet and Lisa Kudrow were laugh out loud! Thanks for making my schoolday funny and happy! Joseph (in snowy Chapel Hill) Quoting Catherine McKay : > --- Steve Polifka > wrote: > Here is an addy for everyone who was > dissing > > Bush. I ran across it quite > > accidentally- it is fecking hilarious!! > > This guy is a madman after my own heart. His page is > > called Distortions. My > > favorite is Bush and Cheny, under his RECENT > > category. Check out Madonna > > and Alanis Morissette as well. > > > > http://www.quirked.com/distortions/ > > > > Thanks for making politics fun (again). :-p > > > ===== > Catherine > Toronto > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------- > We all live so close to that line, and so far from satisfaction > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > Joseph S.E. Palis Department of Geography University of North Carolina Saunders Hall, CB 3220 Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-3220 palis@email.unc.edu joepalis@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:50:40 -0800 From: "Victor Johnson" Subject: Re: Both Sides Now I made a TERRIBLE mistake by purchasing "Travelogue," for > the very reasons Bob mentions, above. I wish I had taken the $25.00 I spent > on "Travelogue" and bought CDs of FTR and LOTC instead. > > Does anyone else feel the same. Sure! I used 25 dollars recently and bought remastered HDCD versions of DJRD, MOA, and HoSL. A much better use of $25 IMO. And don't hesitate to post your opinions. They range the spectrum...the more the better. Victor NP: Grateful Dead "Estimated Prophet" Victor Johnson New cd "Parsonage Lane" available now Produced by Chris Rosser at Hollow Reed Studios, Asheville http://www.waytobluemusic.com me? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:07:26 EST From: AzeemAK@aol.com Subject: Re: Both Sides Now In a message dated 09/01/2004 15:42:48 GMT Standard Time, buckpennington@yucca.net writes: << Does anyone else feel the same? As a newbie, I hesitated in posting my views on this subject because I'm quite sure you guys have been down this road all too often in the past couple of years (or three) >> Don't worry Buck, like all eco-friendly groups, we fully support recycling. Some questions come around again and again, and the discussions are never quite the same, as there is new blood on the list, people's views change, and so on. As to Travelogue, views run the entire range from some who consider that it is among her finest works, to yours truly, who considers it unequivocally and by a long distance the worst thing she's ever done. Azeem in London NP: Suzanne Vega - When Heroes Down (two minutes of pithy pop perfection) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:22:04 -0500 From: "Joseph S.E. Palis" Subject: Re: Both Sides Now First of all, how is "Both Sides Now" written? Is that with a comma after "Sides" or no comma at all? I have seen some pressings that have a comma. For me, that single comma changes a lot as regards to how I understand the song. I always gravitate and lean towards the understanding that the song is a world-weary look at failed relationships despite the joyous moments they engender. Listening to Dianne Reeves' 7-minute version of it solidified that observation, but if the song reads "Both Sides, Now" suddenly the song's ambiguity about the narrator's worldview shifts to an active voice where he/she arrived at some closure with a definite finality. And even if she/he has seen what life is, then its about picking the shards of one's brokenness and moving on without still knowing if what will come out of future endeavours/relationships will be better. Something like, even if you became wiser, that doesn't mean you can't commit mistakes. I think the song is lovelier that way or maybe its just me. Second, I like Joni's latter version of BSN more than the first one. I like singers with (pardon the sacrilege) unbeautiful voices because of age because it has so much character in it, a kind of knowing smile, a thoughtful lapse in the beat speaks volumes to me than beutiful singing (which I also like in specific singers). And Joni's heartache, so subtle and quite hidden in the latter version is made even more unspeakably beautiful because of its vocal understatement. Its like seeing/hearing a woman of great fortitude who has seen much but will not overly and dramatically declare -- though certainly valid -- what she has seen. And just to shift to "A Case of You" -- Joni's latter version of is in BSN makes me misty-eyed everytime I hear it. Joseph in Chapel Hill (who should be reading this spring term's quota of readings) Quoting Norman Pennington : > I, for one, agree wholeheartedly. I'm of an age where I remember > the > original versions of most of the songs on "Both Sides Now" (thanks to > my > Mom, among others) and have several of the originals in my > collection. As > noted in previous posts, I'm slowly replacing my vinyl copies of > Joni's > albums with CDs. I made a TERRIBLE mistake by purchasing > "Travelogue," for > the very reasons Bob mentions, above. I wish I had taken the $25.00 > I spent > on "Travelogue" and bought CDs of FTR and LOTC instead. As an aside, > I'm > introducing my girl friend to Joni's work. While we were listening > to > Travelogue I found myself telling her over and over again..."Don't > judge her > by this version...just WAIT until you hear her *original* recording > of this > song..." Forgive me for what I'm about to say, but visions of those > obnoxious TV ads flogging Rod Stewart's "American Standards" or > whatever the > marketing mavens are calling those two laughable albums kept popping > into my > head while listening to Travelogue. > > Does anyone else feel the same? As a newbie, I hesitated in posting > my > views on this subject because I'm quite sure you guys have been down > this > road all too often in the past couple of years (or three). > > Best Regards, > bp > NP: J.J. Cale: Tears in My Tequila > Joseph S.E. Palis Department of Geography University of North Carolina Saunders Hall, CB 3220 Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-3220 palis@email.unc.edu joepalis@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:23:41 EST From: AzeemAK@aol.com Subject: Re:caricatures NJC In a message dated 09/01/2004 15:50:49 GMT Standard Time, palis@email.unc.edu writes: << The Madonna, George Bush and Cheney distortions were really laugh-inducing, but the ones for Amanda Peet and Lisa Kudrow were laugh out loud! >> I find they get a bit samey after you've seen a few - but the ones that really made me laugh were Celine Dion and Meg Ryan. Shirley Manson was pretty funny too, while Winona Ryder was somehow spooky. Azeem in London ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:51:18 -0700 From: "Norman Pennington" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC Wow...I go away for a day, return to find my mailbox with a gazillion unread messages, and find Kakki alone... defending the conservative battlements! I just gotta add my two cents, FWIW. Debra wrote: > >Clinton knew the terrorist threat was real, and actions he took against > > bin Laden were dismissed by his opponents (those Republicans who were > > dogging him from the moment he took office) as Clinton trying to > > distract people from his domestic problems. > And Kakki replied: > I don't ever recall any kind of ongoing thorough briefing from Clinton > regarding bin Laden. I recall him launching some cruise missiles at some > places without any kind of prior discussion with the public about the > threat. He did mention al Quaida from time to time and say they were a > threat but he sure didn't seem to make dealing with them a priority or call > out to get everyone on board with the fight against them. That's why his > actions seemed suspect at the time. Just a few cruise missiles launched > from time to time. Now me: Some pundit described those cruise missle strikes at the time as "drive-by shootings," and I agree. Clinton's actions were a classic example of "Too little, too late"...and with no visible "strategy" on how to handle the terrorist problem. Those individuals who are currently critical of Bush's strategy on the War on Terror should examine the *lack* of same by his predecessor...and the associated lack of success in countering terrorism. The terrorist problem simply wasn't a priority for Clinton; it's my opinion the Clinton administration *seriously* underestimated the problem. Also, let us NOT forget the fact the Somali's had bin Laden in custody and offered him up to us (the US government). Ms. Albright and Mr. Clinton refused to have him extradtied to the US. One can only wonder how history would have been different had the Clinton administration taken bin Laden into custody. Debra wrote: > > If Bush was genuinely trying to get rid of terrorists, there would be > > more activity in Afghanistan, > And Kakki replied: > There's plenty of activity in Afghanistan and because of his actions, the > country has a new chance for something other than 9th century talibanism. > Al Quaida remnants are in the mountains of Pakistan now, but we and the > Pakistani government are still going after them. > Now me: Consider the relative success of our actions in Afghanistan vis-a-vis the Soviet adventure in that country, both from a "results" perspective and the amount of time it's taken us to achieve said success. And while you're at it, consider the magnitude of the current problem. There's geography/topography to consider: the area where al Qaeda is hiding/operating is some of the ruggedest and inaccessible country in the world, bar none. The indigenous population is sympathetic and supportive of bin Laden and his organization. The fact we've had ANY success at all is a credit to the efficiency and dedication of our forces and the administration's strategy. We have NOT left Afghanistan...IMHO it's the lack of coverage in the media that's the issue here, not our lack of effort. Debra said: > >Invading the Middle East was planned long ago, and Sept 11 and terrorism > are just >the excuse for it. September 11 was the "Pearl Harbor" that > Rumsfeld and other > > neocons were waiting for. > And Kakki replied: > Oh dear. > Now me: LOL...'nuff said about THAT Red Herring! Actually, not. Those not familiar with the military may be surprised to find there are "contingency plans" on the shelf for potential conflicts in ALL parts of the world. So, while it IS ludicrous to believe the "invasion" of the Middle East was planned long ago (from a strategic geo-political POV), it isn't surprising Rumsfeld could take an OpsPlan off the shelf, dust it off, and modify it to meet the current situation. Debra wrote: > > And, if the Bushies were serious about "Homeland" security, they would > > give the cities and states the money needed to put that security into > > place. > And Kakki replied: > Which cities and which states? We seem to be getting plenty of money out > here in L.A. judging from the many ongoing surveillance operations and > security drills I often observe right outside my apt. window. Now me: The largest government reorg since 1947 isn't serious? Puh-Leeze!! Considering the magnitude of the problem (to wit: we have THE most open society, with the most liberal foreign visitation and immigration policies in the WORLD...save, perhaps, Canada), I am most pleased with the actions taken so far. And if the ACLU and thier ilk would cease its frivolous, obstructionist lawsuits designed to counter the progress that's being made, we'd all be better off. While increased security isn't visible here in rural eastern New Mexico (Cannon AFB aside), I, like Kakki, damned sure saw increased security in SFO a year ago. > Debra said: > As is usual with Bush, it's all talk and photo-ops, and it's > > appalling to me the way people fall for it. > And Kakki replied: > Really? We get rid of the Taliban, we liberate Iraq and get rid of Saddam, > we have captured numerous kingpins in Al Quaida and Iraq, Libya is backing > down - yeah I guess I fall for it. > Now me: I "fall" for it, too. The "loyal" opposition will believe what it wants to believe. The facts speak for themselves. And while we're on the subject of "loyal" opposition, I simply wish the beloved Ms. Pelosi and Mssr. Daschle would be less obstuctionist and more cooperative where the subject of prosecuting this war is concerned. History is instructive...can you imagine what the outcome of WWII would have been if the current political opposition/attitudes to THAT war been in place from 1941 - 1945? The *majority* of the US were vehemently opposed to "getting involved" in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor. Political differences were set aside AFTER Pearl Harbor. Such is not the case today. While the subject is debatable, I lean to the opinion that Pelosi, Daschle, and MOST of the Democratic candidates (Lieberman being the exception) are more concerned with re-establishing Democratic control of the Body Politic than they are with the war. Just my opinion. And...in closing, if I HAD to vote for one of The Nine...it would be Joe. Best Regards, bp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:22:40 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Both Sides Now It's been recorded as both, as well as "From Both Sides Now" & "Clouds" as well! I enjoyed your take on Joni's BSN version, Joseph and I'm sure that Joni would agree with a world-weary voice giving a better reading of the lyric - she claims she was re-inspired about the song by hearing Mabel Mercer's version, done by someone who is looking back... BUT I don't think that's necessarily a must. Think back to when you were in your twenties; you pretty much think you've got everything figured out and can easily sing a song like BSN from the perspective of someone who has won & lost at love, but the older you get the more wisdom you gain! And yet, even then you have to say "it's love's illusions I recall, I really don't know love at all", which is one of the reasons why the song is SO incredible...simple & complex simultaneously. Bob NP: The Long Winters, "Prom Night at Hater High" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:59:15 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC Norman Pennington wrote: > > Wow...I go away for a day, return to find my mailbox with a gazillion unread > messages, and find Kakki alone... defending the conservative battlements! I > just gotta add my two cents, FWIW. And she's doing a dandy job, as usual. There's much to reply to in both of your responses, with articles and information that probably won't be read by anyone who doesn't already agree, but I'll have to do such collecting and sharing later. It's obvious that you and Kakki and I (and others here, but they'll have to speak for themselves) will disagree on everything political, but I hope the fence between us never gets so high we can't see the other person. This bit I can instantly respond to: > Kakki wrote: > > Which cities and which states? We seem to be getting plenty of money out > > here in L.A. judging from the many ongoing surveillance operations and > > security drills I often observe right outside my apt. window. > and Buck added to it: > > While increased security isn't visible here in > > rural eastern New Mexico (Cannon AFB aside), I, like Kakki, damned sure saw > > increased security in SFO a year ago. Hey, guys, I didn't say there was no added security. I live in New York City where there sometimes are tanks and men with machine guns at Times Square, bomb sniffing dogs in the subways, and a cop with a radiation detector on my corner most days! I said: > And, if the Bushies were serious about "Homeland" security, they would > give the cities and states the money needed to put that security into > place. As is usual with Bush, it's all talk and photo-ops, and it's > appalling to me the way people fall for it. I have a hard time believing you and Kakki have not heard or read about the complaints from every city and state in this country that the federal government has mandated that security be put into place, but has not sent the funds (or enough funds, and maybe there could never be "enough funds") with which to do it. Bush acts like it's his doing that all this security is in place, but truth is New York and other cities are doing it on their own, and the people in those places are paying for it. And that's fine, but Bush acting like he or Homeland Security (whatever that is) are the ones responsible for ALL the protection is just plain false. > Now me: The largest government reorg since 1947 isn't serious? Puh-Leeze!! Was that a sneeze there? Bless you :-) My relatives who work in the government say that the office of Tom Ridge, who's in charge of this supposed Homeland Security department, is in a Navy yard somewhere. When Ridge talks about a new department of 180,000 people, I really don't know what he's talking about since no such place exists with all of those people in it. It may be that there's a new way of sharing information among the different government departments that already existed, and that such new sharing is what is being called the new "Homeland Security" department, but that's very loose, and not the way the administration presents it. I remember when the Energy Office was established. There were offices, there were people in them working together, there were files, there was an actual address where people could send in their resumes looking for work (I worked in that office for a little while). This Homeland Security thing is really fishy to me. Again, (it seems to me) all show, little substance. That's all I have time for today. Take care, my fellow jonifans. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:23:23 -0700 From: "Norman Pennington" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC Debra wrote: > And she's doing a dandy job, as usual. There's much to reply to in both > of your responses, with articles and information that probably won't be > read by anyone who doesn't already agree, but I'll have to do such > collecting and sharing later. It's obvious that you and Kakki and I (and > others here, but they'll have to speak for themselves) will disagree on > everything political, but I hope the fence between us never gets so high > we can't see the other person. I do SO agree, especially with your last phrase, Debra. Kate and I have been having a discussion off-line from the list, and I'd like to repeat what I said to her, here. And I quote: "In closing, I'd like to say that I appreciate your "civil" dialog when discussing our opposing points of view. I am SO discouraged by the tone of our political discourse today...on both sides. "Name-calling" and vitriol does nothing to forge a compromise on issues where we, as a people, differ. In fact the practice of insulting the opposition or ascribing venal motives to the opposition only serves to harden views and encourage emotional, rather than fact-based, discussion. We, as a people, can do MUCH better." Like you, Debra, I've said about as much today as I can. I may post a link to C-SPAN's site later today or tomorrow...I just watched a fascinating segment on C-SPAN with Richard Perle and (Somebody?) Frum, who were flogging their new book about the War on Terror. The Q&A session with reporters and others was especially illuminating concerning the underlying principles of the administration's policies. Good stuff. Best Regards, bp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:16:41 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: Calm Discourse. NJC hi >>>>lucy wrote > nervous about yet more Bush... I cannot vote him out.. but what he decides ... > has our leader slavering to say "count us in" and we have no way of saying "um > excuse me but I dont actually agree with this" funny enough - at lunch today we were discussing (no - i didnt bring the subject up) and trying to figure out *why* bl;air supported bush. no one could come up with any convincing answers. it seems to me blair has pretty much destroyed his career, he stood against most of the european countries, and he has certainly peed off a whole lot of his public. did he really believe he was doing the right thing? or has he lined up a job in a defence company somewhere later? and if he believed he was doing the right thingg - did bush perhaps also believe it ( nahhhhhh) enquiring minds (well - one at least) would love to hear any theories :-) ron np - timbuk3 - national holiday ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:41:57 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC Buck wrote: > I just watched a fascinating segment on C-SPAN with Richard Perle and > (Somebody?) Frum, who were flogging their new book about the War on > Terror. That would be David Frum, who is credited for coining the "Axis of Evil" phrase during the time he wrote speeches for Bush. (Shortly after Bush uttered the phrase, David resigned. David said he was already planning to do so, but there was a lot of speculation that he was asked to leave.) Immediately prior to David's stint in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (the "EOB" that the characters on the TV show "The West Wing" mention casually as if everyone on Earth knows what it is), I was David's administrative assistant when I worked on K Street in DC. (Yeah, there's a story there ...) In addition to his latest book, David is a regular contributor to the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp) and of course he has his own website, http://www.davidfrum.com Our Canadian listers will no doubt fondly remember his mother, broadcast journalist Barbara Frum. (In fact, I remember that Catherine from Toronto and I had an email exchange about Barbara a few years ago.) Lori ~ http://www.aidsmarathon.com/participant.asp?runner=DCNO-3152&year=2003 http://lrfye.lunarpages.com/donorform.pdf ~ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:42:51 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Fw: calm discourse request NJC > hi > > > > Bryan wrote: > > > >>>>But I do think the Bush administration has used the terrorism issue > for political advantage (as it does with nearly everything) and it totally > burns me up when those of us who believe that Bush has not responded > adequately or appropriately are branded as unpatriotic or foolish.<<<<<< > > > well - im not defending bush here at all - but doesnt *every* > administration use issues for advantage. its just the nature of the > political beast? > > (i think this might well be the type of thing that kakki is getting at - > bush getting exceptional flak for doing "normal" political things.) > > > > kkki wrote > >>>>>> I think therein lies the question. Those who believe terrorism is > real but yet oppose everything Bush does to address it without telling us > just how he has not responded adequately or appropriately or giving people > any real better ideas or plans (that work). > > kakki - first off i want to clear up - my last post re george was somewhat > tongue in cheek, and the comment about people "loving" bush was not > addressed at you - i understand where youre coming from in this discussion > (at least i think i do). as usual your points are well made. in some ways i > have to agree that bush is coming in for some hysterical, unfounded, and > maybe even undeserved flak. in fact, i agree with a lot of it, & find > myself caught up in it. > > but while a lot of your points are valid, the one above certainly isnt. why > should anyone be precluded from saying something is wrong, just because they > cant express their opinion as well as you do, or come up with an > alternative. if i tell someone i dont agree with what they are doing, why > must i tell them what they "should" do? (tho i agree it is nice if i can do > so). if bossies (a south african word - literal meaning is bush, > figurative meaning is "mad" - referring to troops who cracked up during > military service in the bush - how appropriate!!!!!) cant come up with a > decent plan - he should get out. it's his responsibility as leader, not his > critics. > > and for once in my life - i agree wholeheartedly with something bob mugabe > said "thank god we dont have oil" !!!! > > regards > > > > ron > np - timbuk3 - mudflap girl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:42:45 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Calm Discourse. NJC Lucy >Iraq is turning into a real mess with all the PNAC stuff coming true... and no one ever mentions it.......< Lucy, I couldn't agree with you more...the fact that PNAC is not common knowledge is botha alarming & frustrating to me...i do not understand after all this time how it is not glaringly part of any conversation concerning this administration's foreign policy... Bryan >I think nearly everyone takes it seriously and anyone who thinks it's all a lie is delusional. But I do think the Bush administration has used the terrorism issue for political advantage (as it does with nearly everything) and it totally burns me up when those of us who believe that Bush has not responded adequately or appropriately are branded as unpatriotic or foolish.< Bryan I agree with you also. Our harbors remain vulnerable & airline security is still a joke. It is my opinion that our administration is not taking terrorisim or security seriously. They have fueled the flames by attacking Iraq. They were ignorant & arrogant about the culture of the middle east to think that we'd be welcomed there. This combination of ignorance & arrogance scares me. The PNAC 'pearl harbor' reference should be enough to warrant a full investigation of who knew what when concerning 9/11. There are far too many questions still unanswered. Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:13:33 -0800 (PST) From: magsnbrei Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC now just another borderline, still NJC With all this talk of ways of perpetuating our paranoia on this continent, I cannot help but be reminded of my own experiences with regard to how "homeland security" measures have changed, even since I became a part of the American Landscape, only a year and a half ago. I remain a Canadian citizen, and that wont be changing any time too soon, if ever. I still go up to Southern Ontario to visit my daughter as well as other family and friends, and two significant and memorable border crossings come to mind. Last August, I returned from Ontario after my brother's funeral. Brei had gone home early, with the car, so that I could have some time to spend dealing with the aftermath. I took a train to NYC and at the US border, once they saw that I am somewhat in the state of in between, a Canadian, living in the US, I was pulled off the train. It scared the bejeebers out of me. The train was virtually pulled off some side track, in what appeared to be the middle of nowhere. The train was crawling with rather large men in uniform, guns on their belts, and other assorted goodies to ward off anything suspicious, and so , as ordered, I went out the back door of the car, and walked about a hundred feet or so to that building 'over there' that the guard told me to go to. ANd before I even got off the train, another massive guard came out of nowhere and wanted to know where I thought I was going. Over there I said. And so. I walked inside the building and there was the waiting room for the trains. but I had no idea where to go. No one in the ticket booth to ask, so I started to sweat...and then I found a long corridor, at the end of which was an unmarked door, so I took my chances and went inside. And lo and behold, high on a chair, behind a desk, was another immigration officer. Hello, I am expecting you, you are on our manifest. Im trying my level best not to break out in hysterics because I dont know what the hell that means...all I want to do is go home after Dave's funeral for chroists sake. So...we had a little chat about who and where and why and when and so on, and I had to show all of my ID..photo ID is essential or you cannot cross the border..no way no how. Good thing I had my parole papers or else I wouldnt have been allowed 'in'. All in all, in hindsite, it was but a blip in the scheme of things, but I can assure you I was damned scared and not impressed. The second security event occurred a couple of months later when I went on my hejira to the North East US and then across the NY state thruway and then back again . I make sure I travel with plenty of paperwork, the required photo ID, passport, original birth certificate, proof of marriage to a US citizen , bla bla bla...and of course the essential....advanced parole. Yep, Im on parole until my green card comes in. Gee wonder why I wont apply for US citizenship...hmmm. Anyway, sure enough, at the border, Mr. Smiley asks to see my ID , which, as I mentioned before, photo ID is required or your butt gets sent back to CAnada and they mean business. In all the years Ive lived near this border, Ive never in my life seen anything so frightening . Cameras everywhere before you even approach the inspection booth. He took one look at my passport and my parole papers and then proceeded to hang on to aforementioned papers.He leaned over and slapped a bright fluorescent sticker on my windshield for all the world to see. Nary an explanation was spoken, he just pointed ... I was to park "over there" and go inside. Once parked, my knees began to feel really weak and legs all jello like. I walked toward "the building" and had no clear indication, once again, where I was supposed to go. I walked inside to find a waiting room of sorts with more guards than Ive seen in one place in a very long time. All carrying, of course. Up to the counter, no one smiles...and the guy tells me to take a seat. Not another word is spoken to me while I wait. And wait. While I am sitting there, a young man is arrested, right in the open, right in front of everyone. There's no stepping aside, nothing. This is all about ten feet away from me. THere were five guards standing around him in a circle, guns at the ready. The chap had to be all of 5'4' and couldnt have weighed much more than 120 lbs. He was handcuffed and talked to in hushed tones and he looked terrified. And so was I. All I could think of was 'what next' Well, the 'next' was another fellow was turned back to CAnada because of some problem . And there I sat, in silence, watching all of this, and still no one saying a thing to me, as to what was giong on in my 'case'. I watched time slow down to a stand still and a number of scenarios raced through my mind. If I had to make a phone call, and had only one to make, who would I call. And would I be next to feel those stainless steel bracelets around my bony wrists. My name was called, I was handed back my passport and my parole papers, and was told to have a good day. My legs were still jello, my knees still wobbly and I somehow managed to get back to my car and make the trip back to South Jersey, virtually unscathed. Suffice to say, a life time or two passed before my eyes. How times have changed and it's really a damned sad thing. And if I drive up to pick up my daughter, I know that I will receive all kinds of looks, questions, and flack just because I want to bring her back here for some R&R .... we've got different last names...and that's only the beginning. How do I proove she's mine...and so on. well, I felt compelled to share this little blip on the horizon of my life south of the border. Mags, who will always be, no matter where I live, a Canadian. ***** your absence has gone through me like thread through a needle everything i do is stitched with its colour. w.s.merwin Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:28:06 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC David wrote: > Kakki, with all respect, I believe your that claim--"we liberate > Iraq"--implies a knowledge of the future which none of us possesses. Agreed - I should have said "liberate from Saddam's tyranny." And none of us do know the future for Iraq. But my bet of probabilities is that is will be better than the dark evil hell of mass murder, genocide and torture it lived in for 30 years. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:43:04 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC Ron wrote: >why should anyone be precluded from saying something is wrong, just because > they cant express their opinion as well as you do, or come up with an > alternative. I don't think people should be precluded from expressing their opinions or opposition. >if i tell someone i dont agree with what they are doing, why > must i tell them what they "should" do? It's not that people can't express themselves or oppose without offering a solution - In my reply to Bryan I was thinking of it more in terms of people who are in government or wanting to run for government positions and their political organizations. I swear I have not heard any of those people or organizations offer up one real (based in reality)analysis or alternative or solution to terrorism since 9/11. All they have done is endlessly oppose, smear, make stuff up, obstruct, rant and mainly foam at the mouth about Bush. It's not much of a stretch to observe these people and question what they really stand for, or think they are foolish, or at worst, wonder just whose side they are on. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:03:28 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Frum NJC Lori wrote: > I was David's administrative assistant when I worked on K Street in DC. Wow! I remember he was profiled a bit on some show about the people who worked for Bush and I thought he seemed like a pretty cool guy (plus, I was very impressed with his speechwriting abilities). That show made a point of how all the people in Bush and Cheney's offices had to work an unconscionable amount of hours. Like leaving the office at midnight and having to be back in at 5 a.m. everyday. I thought maybe he quit because of that and the fact that his writing abilities were being widely noticed and he was offered some better gigs. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:45:24 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: Frum NJC Kakki wrote: > Wow! I remember he was profiled a bit on some show about the people > who worked for Bush and I thought he seemed like a pretty cool guy > (plus, I was very impressed with his speechwriting abilities). That > show made a point of how all the people in Bush and Cheney's offices > had to work an unconscionable amount of hours. Like leaving the > office at midnight and having to be back in at 5 a.m. everyday. I > thought maybe he quit because of that and the fact that his writing > abilities were being widely noticed and he was offered some better > gigs. That the WH staff works a ridiculous number of hours is surely true. As for David, he's been a well-recognized writer for a number of years, having written and published at least 5 books, and countless articles for various magazines and newspapers. (His book about the 70s had just come out when I began working for him, and I think it was my first day on the job that I had to call all kinds of people (Bill Bennett, Mary Matalin, Charles Krauthammer, etc.) to follow up on their invitations to his book release party, and that was fun and a little bit mind- blowing, AND I got to go the party too!) I've seen David at least twice on NBC's "Today Show," most recently just this week. David tends to stop doing just about everything else when he's writing a book, and it's very possible that he did indeed plan to quit writing speeches so he could focus on this latest one. One of the funnier things I ever read or heard about David was in his sister Linda Frum's book about their mother, "Barbara Frum: A Daughter's Memoir." Barbara was and Linda is quite a bit more liberal than David, and Linda wrote that Barbara never did understand where David got his conservatism. I guess he's a bit of the "odd duck" in that family. Lori, a small-town girl from Ohio who realizes she really HAS led an interesting (and lucky!) life so far ~ http://www.aidsmarathon.com/participant.asp?runner=DCNO-3152&year=2003 http://lrfye.lunarpages.com/donorform.pdf ~ ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2004 #11 **************************** ------- 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)