From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2004 #12 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 Saturday, January 10 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 012 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: calm discourse request NJC/ the economy ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: Forgive Me Joniphiles [Jenny Goodspeed ] RE: calm discourse request NJC ["patrick leader" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: politics NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: Both Sides Now [Michael Paz ] RE: calm discourse request NJC now offering solutions to terrorism ["pat] RE: JMDL Digest V2004 #11 ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["kakki" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC now offering solutions to terrorism ["kak] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: PNAC NJC ["kakki" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC ["kakki" ] RE: PNAC NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: Both Sides Now [Musicloverrick@aol.com] Re: JMDL Digest V2004 #11 [Musicloverrick@aol.com] RE: calm discourse request NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: calm discourse request NJC [BRYAN8847@aol.com] Re: Both Sides Now [Bobsart48@aol.com] Re: Judy sings Dylan NJC [BRYAN8847@aol.com] Re: Both Sides Now [Bobsart48@aol.com] Re: JMDL Digest V2004 #11 [Catherine McKay ] Re: Both Sides Now [Bobsart48@aol.com] Re: Wes Clark and Joni [Bobsart48@aol.com] Re: PNAC NJC ["kakki" ] Re: Both Sides Now [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] NJC Re: Both Sides Now NJC [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: PNAC NJC [Dflahm@aol.com] RE: calm discourse request NJC now offering solutions to terrorism ["Lo] Is Joni a prophet? ["Lori Fye" ] RE: calm discourse -plus, persons of the year, 2002- njc ["patrick leader] NJC/ the economy [vince ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:24:05 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC/ the economy >The economy is the best, as far as indicators, it has been in decades. The tax cuts worked and I've made up all the losses in my retirement account from the past three years in the past six months.< That is great, I am glad to hear you're retirement account has made up its losses. You work hard & deserve to be able to count on this. I wish I could say the same for mine. It has been less spectacular & is still much lower from where it was a few years ago but it is creeping up rather than down which is a good thing. According to Job Watch (http://www.jobwatch.org/) the increase in the number of jobs is less than one third of the number promised (by bush as a result of the tax cuts) by the end of 2003. This report says "Although the overall economy expanded at a promising clip over the past two quarters, these advances have not shown up in the two areas that mean the most to working families: jobs and wages...GDP growth is strong. But the fruits of that growth have yet to flow to working families in the form of rising real wages and faster job growth. The economic recovery will not be on firm ground until consumption and growth are able to rest on broad-based gains in labor income." "Since the recession began 33 months ago in March 2001, 2.4 million jobs have disappeared, a 1.8% contraction. The Bureau of Labor Statistics began its series on monthly jobs numbers in 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression). In every previous episode of recession and job decline since 1939, the number of jobs had fully recovered to above the pre-recession peak within 31 months of the start of the recession. The picture is bleaker for private-sector jobs, which have dropped by 2.9 million since March 2001, a 2.6% contraction." Time will tell but according to these stats the promise of job recovery has not come true. Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:31:35 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: Hitler comparison - njc Speaking of Hitler, did you know it is said that "From 1942, the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler received daily injections of methamphetamine from his personal physician, Dr Theodor Morell. Hitler's ailments have been attributed to everything from tertiary syphilis to Parkinson's disease. But many of The F|hrer's clinical signs and symptoms may have been caused by his exotic drug regimen." http://amphetamines.com/adolf-hitler.html. This explains a lot. Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:41:13 -0800 (PST) From: Jenny Goodspeed Subject: Re: Forgive Me Joniphiles you are absolved kevin, now go say three circle games and a help me. jenny - -trying harder to have a nice day Cactustree78@aol.com wrote: Forgive me Joniphiles for I have sinned it has been months and months sincemy last (confession)post....Sometimes life just takes you where it wants to but alas here I am and hoping that you all are doing well!! What leads me to this post is reading a post by my old buddy Ken and I believe Anne about Judgement of the Moon and Stars...Ken stated "Think how most other writers might take an entire song to tell that Beethoven deathbed story. And Joni tosses it off in a line in a verse in a song about something so much more encompassing!" Then Ken goes on to say how some may say our Joni is verbous...Well so what if she is...I get off on the words..I'm sure that I am not the only one...So anyway...Its been a while im a lil long winded...("excuse my appearance im windblown") sorry... My ALL TIME FAVORITE Joni description is actually in the prementioned song (Ludwigs Tune) The line is "Condemned to wires and hammers Strike every chord that you feel That broken trees And elephant ivories conceal" Now shes talking about a piano obviously but it's the way she goes about it..Sometimes I feel like I am the piano sometimes its me playing the piano..I have always been affected by these lines...Maybe because I came onto this album at a very craazy time in my life..who knows..I just wanted to take this opportunity to jump back into the river o' Joni...Ive missed your company...Hope you all are having a nice day...If not then try a lil harder..****Kev**** Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:47:48 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: RE: calm discourse request NJC hi folks: i'm going to chip in with one slightly uncalm thought, and then hopefully some calm contributions, for buck and lori as well as kakki, deb, kate and anyone who's interested. first: >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. kakki never seems to recall anything that devalues her argument. the fact that she didn't know about all the clinton/hitler comparisons proves my point. for someone who prides herself on being knowledgeable, that should be embarrassing. kakki, you have much to contribute here, but that you seem to be unaware of the miserable vitriol thrown by the right wing, it really devalues your viewpoint. and you seem to avoid real hard news that you'd rather not hear, (like the clinton admin's anti-terrorism efforts) the january 2001 clinton team briefing of bush's team was extensive, at least a full day. clinton's team knew that al qaeda was behind the cole bombing, the african embassy attacks, and the aborted plan to explode 10 jetliners over the middle of the atlantic. all of this was passed on to bush's security team, with high importance. noone on the bush team denies this. the next time the bush security team met on al qaeda was mid-august 2001. that seems like a bit of a lapse. >> 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? see above. the bushies don't deny the chronology. >>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. well, the election was settled around 12/11 and the inauguration wasn't until the third week of january so that's five weeks. yes they could have had more time, but as a voter, i'm glad gore pursued a very close election through the courts. kakki, sometimes, i think your sour grapes suggest you don't much like democracy. lots of repubs seem to think "why don't those dems just realize we SHOULD win these elections and stop arguing with us." i'm glad the gore team looked at a huge numerical majority and took more responsibility. do you think he shouldn't have? 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. > WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? you're suggesting that the clinton admin purposely handed bush bad intelligence. that would be treason! you better back that up. i've heard no reports of good intelligence being quashed under the clinton admin. the worst case of intel agencies fucking up is agent rowley, summer 2001, on bush's watch. and i don't blame bush for that, either. some intel is good, some isn't. the iraq wmd intel (under bush sr., clinton, and bush jr.) has turned out to be bad, but only bush jr. went to war over it. >> 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. well yes, but there have been over 40 civilian deaths caused by the taliban in the last 10 days or so. the country outside of kabul is in chaos. i've read many reports, both by military folk (u.s.) and observers, deeply upset about the removal of people from the afghan front to iraq. buck comments on how mountainous and difficult the terrain around tora bora is, but our forces were cut drastically once the bush admin fixated on iraq. i believe we could have caught osama and decapitated al qaeda to a much larger extent than we have (and i'm certainly not alone in this, it's a major part of dean's and clark's beliefs) this is a trajedy, and an avoidable one. it's bush's biggest crime, as far as i'm concerned. just need to add, buck compared the soviet success in afghanistan to ours. that really misses the point, that the soviets failed partly because we supported the mujahadeen, but we (under bush pere) backed out and allowed afghanistan to fall into poverty stricken, well-armed chaos, fertile ground for al qaeda. if that's a comparative success, i'd rather have failure, including my two towers back, that horrible morning erased, 3000 souls still alive. please, buck! even bush sr. has had some dark nights of the soul over that misstep. >>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. > please stop with this belittling, kakki, and also you, buck. do some research on the PNAC. these are people who created a report in 1998 advising invasion of iraq, and other middle east nations, (and strongly and publicly advised the Clinton Administration so) this is all documented. these folks are completely involved in the current admin as well. this has all been reported, as are the mentions of iraq by administration officials within, literally, hours of the 9/11 attacks. i don't even disagree with all of the PNAC's aims, but i'm really unimpressed with people who don't know they exist and that they've been urging middle east reshaping for a long time. that's you, kakki, and you buck. do your homework, please. and don't give me any more "oh dear"s. >> 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. kakki, i do hope you were aware of the original funding for homeland security, which allocated more than 9 dollars per south dakota citizen, and less than 3 per new york state citizen. is that a realistic review of the risk? no, but it's a realistic view of the electoral college. the funding was adjusted slightly with targeted grants, but it's still not a decent appropriation based on genuine risk, the genuine risk i face as a new york city resident. furthermore, when you see all those security drills outside your window, how do you know the feds have funded them? in new york, we know better: the fed funding has been much less than our need, and our state and city deficits are directly impacted. tom ridge said that people shouldn't go to times square for new years, but our police department knew they would, so they had to put officers on, pay shitloads of overtime, etc. etc. i'm sorry, but bush doesn't make me feel safer, for the very real reason that he could lose new york to a terrorist attack and it would help him easily win in 2004. and if bush hasn't thought that through, you can bet that karl rove has. this is patrick, who has really tried to remake himself as a non-ranter. but i really hope, kakki and buck and anyone else, that you'll do the research and deepen your opinions. np - silence, of course ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:58:50 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC >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).< A real investigation of 9/11 is something that would give us all an idea of whether bush responded adequately or not. There are too many questions still unanswered. If anyone is interested in objectively addressing this issue, the place to start is the PNAC website & the document called "Rebuilding America's Defences", written in September 2000. Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:06:05 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: politics NJC I thought ahnold & downey jr were great... > > > > http://www.quirked.com/distortions/ Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:16:17 -0800 From: Michael Paz Subject: Re: Both Sides Now NOW Bob we don't say anything about your schmaltzy overwrought arrangements at Jonifests. As a matter of fact many of us enjoy your work tremendously. I just can't wait till 10 years from now when you change your story and recognize it for what it really is -just our Joni being Joni- and damn she does just fine by me. Of course if you keep this rant up maybe she will be inclined to record original stuff again. Just please oh God if your up there don't let her fall into the rap thing PLEASE! I will never hear the end of it from my kids. Love Paz NP-Woodstock-Danielle Howle Bob the cover monster wrote: > 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. > > NP: Dylan, "Buckets Of Rain" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:07:44 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: RE: calm discourse request NJC now offering solutions to terrorism kakki wrote: - - 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. well, i'd say you haven't been listening, but i have talked about that already. a common point that has been expressed, among most of the presidential candidates and other commentators has been, "multilateral alliances". these are not buzzwords, these are critical to preventing terrorism. and the bush administration has been quite gladly trashing them. some of our supposed allies have been really awful. for example i don't think france will ever be able to come to grips with its complicity in saddam's regime. but still, france and germany have good security services, and would be able to provide us with good intelligence. but why should they, with the way this admin treats them? anything that any other country values (oh, like the environmental benefits that would have obtained through the kyoto accord) has just been spat upon by the bushies. the administration has expressed noble multilateral goals and then acted in the most blatantly self-serving, protectionist, political manner (the steel tariffs) further, we've had possible suspects that our allies won't extradite, because of our death penalty (and the perception, valid, i believe, that our administration will impose it irresponsibly). so we've had genuine episodes of both france and germany not being as helpful as they might be, because of the bush admin's contempt. and u.s. lives are at risk. that (the unilateraly vs. bilateral approach) is a clear separation between the bush approach to terrorism and the center/left's approach. and i didn't make it up, it's out there. so please don't pretend you haven't heard it any longer. patrick i quoted kakki above because it was intelligent and worthy of reply. i quote her below because it's psycho. i'll bet you know which one i'd prefer to see more of... >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 16:16:54 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: JMDL Digest V2004 #11 >So, while it IS ludicrous to believe the "invasion" of the Middle East was planned long ago< Believing has nothing to do with it...it is fact. It is lucicrous to ignore this. Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:37:29 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC Patrick wrote: > kakki never seems to recall anything that devalues her argument. Do you recall Clinton giving *thorough*, *ongoing* briefings about bin Laden during his tenure? If he did, I missed them. If he thought bin Laden was such a threat then, why didn't he accept the Somali's offer. > the fact that she didn't know about all the clinton/hitler comparisons > proves my point. That's complete bull. I didn't have a computer or internet access when most of the quotes were made during Clinton's time and would have had no way to have seen them. searched for them, been sent them, etc. Most all I read back then was legal briefs and cases. > that you seem to be unaware of the miserable vitriol thrown by the right > wing, it really devalues your viewpoint. I have NEVER said I was unaware of right wing vitriol in general - just not the Clinton/Hitler comparison. Geez. > and you seem to avoid real hard news that you'd rather not hear, (like the clinton >admin's anti-terrorism efforts) Huh? What hard news was presented in this thread previously?? > the january 2001 clinton team briefing of bush's team was extensive, at > least a full day. clinton's team knew that al qaeda was behind the cole > bombing, the african embassy attacks, and the aborted plan to explode 10 > jetliners over the middle of the atlantic. all of this was passed on to > bush's security team, with high importance. noone on the bush team denies > this. Of course they don't deny it and neither would I. >the next time the bush security team met on al qaeda was mid-august 2001. > that seems like a bit of a lapse. Well what about the whistleblowers from the FBI and CIA who said that the real intelligence on the hijackers plans were quashed during Clinton's years? Remember? A few of them were on the front of Time for Persons of the Year. > >How do you know that? > > see above. the bushies don't deny the chronology. I meant how did Debra know they ignored it. Just asking a question. > kakki, sometimes, i think your sour grapes suggest you don't much like > democracy. Oh Geeeez. lots of repubs seem to think "why don't those dems just realize > we SHOULD win these elections and stop arguing with us." i'm glad the gore > team looked at a huge numerical majority and took more responsibility. do > you think he shouldn't have? > > WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? you're suggesting that the clinton admin > purposely handed bush bad intelligence. that would be treason! you better > back that up. No they didn't purposely hand them bad intelligence as far as I'm aware. There were deficiencies in the intelligence agencies. Have you never heard about this? There have been a number of congressional and other investigations regarding this (problems in the FBI, CIA, INS, etc.). If you have never heard of this I'll send you news articles or something. Passing over the Afghan portion. > >Oh dear. > please stop with this belittling, kakki, I didn't mean to belittle - I was just kind of speechless on that one. I've read that kind of stuff coming from far right extremists for years - it's all part of the New World Order, Illuminati, Trilateral Commission conspiracy world view. Sorry I just don't buy it and part of me feels belittled that someone would expect me to buy it. > kakki, i do hope you were aware of the original funding for homeland > security, which allocated more than 9 dollars per south dakota citizen, and > less than 3 per new york state citizen. is that a realistic review of the > risk? no, but it's a realistic view of the electoral college. the funding > was adjusted slightly with targeted grants, but it's still not a decent > appropriation based on genuine risk, the genuine risk i face as a new york > city resident. I would have to read more up on it to see how they apportioned it. Maybe they need a million dollar radioactivity detector for Fargo even though it has a tiny population, but it would cover enough area. The same detector for NY would cover the same area but possibly a million more people. So if you divide the numbers that way, it could make more sense. > furthermore, when you see all those security drills outside your window, how > do you know the feds have funded them? What I have seen most of all are U.S. mililtary helicopters patrolling and doing exercises over the buildings. As for the local police and fire dept., those people are probably on duty anyway so there is not that much more being paid to be doing drills during work hours. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:39:24 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC now offering solutions to terrorism > i quote her below because it's psycho. i'll bet you know which one i'd > prefer to see more of... I know - I just better shut up and go back in my place, right? Ha! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:03:45 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC >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...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.< Dang that pesky democracy that gets in the way of building an empire doesn't 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.< I don't think that what any of us "see" is any real indication of how secure we actually are...for instance it is known that our ports are at high risk for terrorism: "Before the attacks, the Coast Guard devoted not more than 2 percent of its operations to port security. In the months immediately following September 11, it spent 50 percent to 60 percent of its time and effort defending U.S. ports. Since then, that figure has fallen to between 20 percent to 30 percent because of other commitments and mounting costs." http://www.terrorismanswers.com/security/ports_print.html This website is actually a pretty interesting site that appears to be simple & factual & nonpartisan....an interesting page is one that addresses the question of what was known prior to 9/11 (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/responses/intelligence.html) "The CIA learned in May 2001 that Osama bin Laden and his associates were planning to infiltrate the United States and attack the country with explosives...CIA briefers warned President Bush in August 2001 that bin Laden might hijack U.S. airplanes." Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:22:27 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: PNAC NJC > A real investigation of 9/11 is something that would give us all an idea > of whether bush responded adequately or not. There are too many > questions still unanswered. There are but why do I always feel that what you really are wishing and hoping for is to find something to take down Bush in the process? >If anyone is interested in objectively > addressing this issue, the place to start is the PNAC website & the > document called "Rebuilding America's Defences", written in September > 2000. I recall you put this up before and my reaction to it was that it was nothing more than a kind of "white paper" of ideas on addressing America's defenses and not a blueprint for future plans to deliberately invade the middle east on false pretenses. Like Buck said, there are always contigency plans for anything. It's like the Patriot Act - how many know that nearly all of it was written and in place during Clinton's administration? Ready to go as a contingency plan. (And widely protested at the time from the libertarian side of the Republicans in Congress). That's why it got implemented within days after 9/11. Speaking of those libertarians, it appears the PNAC site is sponsored or affiliated with their think tank, the Cato Institute. I like that they offer a sort of "third view" in the U.S. It's always good to warn and monitor. But I don't think the "neo-cons" were really looking for an excuse to have a war and invade the middle east just for some kind of imperialistic power. I think whatever motivations or concerns they have are based in preserving liberty and defending the country. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:31:03 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC Kate wrote: >...CIA briefers warned President Bush in August 2001 that bin > Laden might hijack U.S. airplanes." A little late, right, a few weeks before 9/11? What do you think Bush should have done with that information? Shut down the airlines? Our intelligence agencies were not equipped at the time to figure exactly who, how, when, where the attacks were going to occur. I don't have time to get into more detail but Congress passed laws back in the 70s that greatly tied the hands of the FBI and other security agencies' ability and freedom to spy on people in various ways. Those laws were passed as a reaction to tales of abuses from J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. It's worth reading more about this, Kate, to understand the intelligence handicaps we were operating under pre 9/11. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:10:09 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: PNAC NJC >There are but why do I always feel that what you really are wishing and hoping for is to find something to take down Bush in the process?< I don't know why you feel this way, but I would prefer you don't tell me what I am wishing or hoping for...it only gets us into some kind of personal motivation guessing game that is not productive or healthy in a debate which I think this is... >I recall you put this up before and my reaction to it was that it was nothing more than a kind of "white paper" of ideas on addressing America's defenses and not a blueprint for future plans to deliberately invade the middle east on false pretenses.< I did not say the plan contained invading on false pretenses... & if you want to read the document you can see what the plan is & who supports it... the false pretenses came later & it has always baffled me why the administration chose to go that route...because in the end it came back to bite them... >But I don't think the "neo-cons" were really looking for an excuse to have a war and invade the middle east just for some kind of imperialistic power. I think whatever motivations or concerns they have are based in preserving liberty and defending the country.< I think these folks are very clear about wanting the usa to be the only power & an economic one at that: "We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power...Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" They define these interests as "political and economic freedom abroad" and "extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:15:22 EST From: Musicloverrick@aol.com Subject: Re: Both Sides Now Well personally i am very glad I bought travelogue....I mean the versions of her songs are CERTAINLY different, but that is one of the things I LOVE about Joni...that she experiments and tries new things....I think it's a great album....Rick [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of Shania Twain 1 .gif] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:23:12 EST From: Musicloverrick@aol.com Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2004 #11 OH MY you know what I found to be very weird???? Does everyone remember the song "Otis and Marlena" from Joni's album "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter?" Well I have only been a Joni fan for about three years now, so when I first bought that CD it was around the time when the two guys were shooting people around the DC area, and then they were caught and found to be Muslims.....EVEN THOUGH "Don Juan's..." came out in '77, what I found wild about that song was that it seemed to be talking about that incident, since the whole DC area was literally "Held Up," due to the fear everyone had of being shot and killed by these mysterious snipers....ANyone else notice this or find that to be interesting? I know it's hard to understand it from the perspective of a fan who has had that album since it actually came out, but for me, just hearing that song for the first time when all of that was going on, it was VERY prophetic almost! Know this may sound silly, but thought I would share......RIck [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of Shania Twain 1 .gif] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:43:42 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: calm discourse request NJC Actually, what I wrote was this: "The CIA learned in May 2001 that Osama bin Laden and his associates were planning to infiltrate the United States and attack the country with explosives...CIA briefers warned President Bush in August 2001 that bin Laden might hijack U.S. airplanes." Recent British Labour Party Minister Michael Meacher wrote that "Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested." It is not up to me to decide what Bush should have done before I have the chance of hearing all of the details. I am interested in seeing what an investigation turns up before I form an opinion on what could or should have been done. I am aware of the handicaps we were under. Kakki wrote: >>>>Kate wrote: >...CIA briefers warned President Bush in August 2001 that bin Laden >might hijack U.S. airplanes." A little late, right, a few weeks before 9/11? What do you think Bush should have done with that information? Shut down the airlines? Our intelligence agencies were not equipped at the time to figure exactly who, how, when, where the attacks were going to occur. I don't have time to get into more detail but Congress passed laws back in the 70s that greatly tied the hands of the FBI and other security agencies' ability and freedom to spy on people in various ways. Those laws were passed as a reaction to tales of abuses from J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. It's worth reading more about this, Kate, to understand the intelligence handicaps we were operating under pre 9/11. <<<< ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:57:45 EST From: BRYAN8847@aol.com Subject: Re: calm discourse request NJC 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.) Yes, that's correct, no doubt. In fact, in my own modest way, I spin for a living. That's why I can smell spin and manipulation pretty easily. But there's something particularly insidious about much of the Bush administration's spin ... and Karl Rove is behind it all, it's got his trademark. Anyway, I'm not sure how this discussion even started, so I'll close my end of it. I'll never be a Bush fan. I don't disrespect those who are, though. Bryan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:00:47 EST From: Bobsart48@aol.com Subject: Re: Both Sides Now Bob Muller wrote: "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." Geesh !!!! I believe this is the second time I have committed the exact same misattribution. For some reason, this time I thought it was that other CD that Simon put together for us, with the joni oldies on it. So, double thanks and double sorry Simon (and thanks to you, too, Jim, if you did the part Bob Muller attributed to you). I'm gonna go see my Alzheimer's doctor now (he's my cousin in law - a world renowned expert in that area, but he can't help me, apparently - we're still rooting for my mother-in-law, though) :-) Bobsart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:04:52 EST From: BRYAN8847@aol.com Subject: Re: Judy sings Dylan NJC Jerry, I have heard "Judy sings Dylan". Sad to say, I don't care for it (except maybe for one song or two.) I run hot and cold on Judy Collins (like Baez, I guess - - - I love some of her stuff, can't stand some others.) Jennifer Warnes though - that chick rocks, baby! ===== Catherine Toronto I respect your statement, we all can't like everything. But, honestly, with all sincerity, the Judy Sings Dylan album is sooooo fine, one of the best of the 90s. Bryan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:19:18 EST From: Bobsart48@aol.com Subject: Re: Both Sides Now Bob Muller wrote: "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. :~)" Thanks for your thoughts and opinion, Bob. I will say that I rather like the takes that Joni brought to the melodic lines of these songs, even if they are rather straightforward compared to the original classics. I find them rather on the sincere side, and I am biased in favor of sincere. That said, I tend to agree that Joni's phrasing is rather uninspired (as pointed out by someone else earlier - was it Richard ?). In terms of the Tiger analogy, if one were to look at Joni's skill set among the various aspects of the art: Singing Melody writing Chordal and harmonic composition Lryic writing Guitar, dulcimer and piano playing Guitar arrangements (oh, those tunings) Piano playing Piano composition Dulicmer playing Recording production Live performing I would be inclined to think that instrument playing is her weakest area and singing her second weakest area. I use the term 'weak" loosely - that is the tribute, really, that even her weakest areas are so very strong. Sort of like Tiger Woods (his bunker play is not that good, either, but he could compete in it in a skills contest if he felt like it, and nobody would laugh). I expect to get criticism of my evaluation in this commentary - so it is really quite a close affair, no ? Bobsart (unfavorably comparing his current productive output at age 55 with Joni's BSN) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:25:56 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2004 #11 --- Musicloverrick@aol.com wrote: > OH MY you know what I found to be very weird???? > Does everyone remember the > song "Otis and Marlena" from Joni's album "Don > Juan's Reckless Daughter?" > Well I have only been a Joni fan for about three > years now, so when I first > bought that CD it was around the time when the two > guys were shooting people around > the DC area, and then they were caught and found to > be Muslims.....EVEN > THOUGH "Don Juan's..." came out in '77, what I found > wild about that song was that > it seemed to be talking about that incident, since > the whole DC area was > literally "Held Up," due to the fear everyone had of > being shot and killed by these > mysterious snipers....ANyone else notice this or > find that to be interesting? I never noticed that but can see how you did, esp. since you just discovered this stuff at around that time. When "Turbulent Indigo" came out, I thought "Not to blame" was about OJ Simpson - but of course, it was recorded a year or so before the murders. ===== Catherine Toronto - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We all live so close to that line, and so far from satisfaction ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:30:55 EST From: Bobsart48@aol.com Subject: Re: Both Sides Now Paz digs at the terribly sincere and sensitive Bob Muller - "NOW Bob we don't say anything about your schmaltzy overwrought arrangements at Jonifests. " Since I have not yet seen Bob M's reply, may I say on his behalf "Touche'" ! Bobsart Michael -remember the line "I can be cruel, but let me be gentle with you" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:38:03 EST From: Bobsart48@aol.com Subject: Re: Wes Clark and Joni vince wrote: "Clark: "I loved hearing Joan Baez and Joni Mitchell..." that is enough - first candidate to make a Joni mention." Well, if he had added "Joni for president, Joan for vice president", I might have felt conflicted for a moment. Then, I thought of another thing - he named them in the wrong order ;-) Bobsart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:41:28 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: PNAC NJC > I don't know why you feel this way, but I would prefer you don't tell me > what I am wishing or hoping for...it only gets us into some kind of > personal motivation guessing game that is not productive or healthy in a > debate which I think this is... Sorry, but to be honest you have in the past put up a petition here from moveon to impeach him, right? And I recall other remarks that led me to perceive you'd like him removed from office and or prosecuted. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize in advance. > I think these folks are very clear about wanting the usa to be the only > power & an economic one at that: I don't interpret the remarks as them wanting the usa to be the only power, economically and otherwise. That's a delusional idea. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:06:11 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Both Sides Now **I would be inclined to think that instrument playing is her weakest area and singing her second weakest area.** Wow, that IS pretty ballsy criticism, Bob...I think that instrument playing is one of her strongest strengths, I'm in awe when I watch her play the guitar, piano or dulcimer for that matter, she appears to have a unique mastery of it all and always seems to be paving new ground. But then again, you're a guitarist (a damn good one at that) and all I play is the stereo. As for her singing, I would say that she's a marvelous vocalist but moreso when it pertains to her own songs. I think when she changes hats and becomes an interpretive vocalist of others' work, she pales a bit. That may be because as a writer she is so superior to so many others. Add "actress" to her skill sets and it might shake up your list a bit.Watch her act in the film "Love" and you may change your mind about her weaknesses. ;~) Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:09:31 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: NJC Re: Both Sides Now NJC **NOW Bob we don't say anything about your schmaltzy overwrought arrangements at Jonifests.** Well, as my arranger Michael you'd be a fool to do so! Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:17:11 EST From: Dflahm@aol.com Subject: Re: PNAC NJC I guess we could go 'round and 'round on the meaning of the word power. The little I know of PNAC (I've tuned in to some speeches on C-SPAN) leads me to believe that what they urge is something like this: America leads and the other "powers" follow; there is an American outlook, an American way which is responsible for the remarkable success our country has achieved. This should be sufficient argument for any rational person or government to sign on and endorse America's ideals and the policies which put those ideals into action. America has defeated and dismantled two great totalitarian threats to civilization in our lifetime and thereby earned the role of leader. Other nations may attain the appearance or status of "power" but in the crunch, they need to defer to American wisdom and if they do not, America has the responsibility to its own citizens and to humanity to confront alone if necessary further threats to freedom and security. How was that, Mister Gingrich? DAVID LAHM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:19:27 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: RE: calm discourse request NJC now offering solutions to terrorism Patrick darling, you know I love you. But ... > i quote her below because it's psycho. THAT was inflamatory and unnecessary. Peace (and calm), Lori ~ http://www.aidsmarathon.com/participant.asp?runner=DCNO-3152&year=2003 http://lrfye.lunarpages.com/donorform.pdf ~ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:40:44 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Is Joni a prophet? Of "Otis and Marlena," Rick wrote: > EVEN THOUGH "Don Juan's..." came out in '77, what I found wild about > that song was that it seemed to be talking about that incident, since > the whole DC area was literally "Held Up," due to the fear everyone > had of being shot and killed by these mysterious snipers....ANyone > else notice this or find that to be interesting? I believe Lama mentioned this at the very time it was happening, but I don't recall anyone responding. Maybe it seemed too un-PC or something. Since I live smack in the middle of where the first 5 shots were fired, I was quite startled (perhaps "unnerved" is more accurate) when Lama pointed it out. Catherine added: > When "Turbulent Indigo" came out, I thought "Not to blame" was about > OJ Simpson - but of course, it was recorded a year or so before the > murders. I thought the same thing too and in fact I still think of OJ, rather than Jackson Browne, whenever I hear the song. I've long wondered if Joni doesn't know a whole lot more than she lets on ... perhaps she's really a modern-day prophet? Wouldn't surprise me. Anyone else have an opinion? (LOL ...) Lori ~ http://www.aidsmarathon.com/participant.asp?runner=DCNO-3152&year=2003 http://lrfye.lunarpages.com/donorform.pdf ~ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:05:09 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: RE: calm discourse -plus, persons of the year, 2002- njc hi kakki: thanks for your response. i'm just going to give a few thoughts, a little heated, but please read the coda. we wrote: > >> the fact that she didn't know about all the clinton/hitler comparisons >> proves my point. > >That's complete bull. I didn't have a computer or internet access >when most >of the quotes were made during Clinton's time and would have had no way to >have seen them. searched for them, been sent them, etc. Most all I read >back then was legal briefs and cases. okay... fine. i'll accept that. now, don't you EVER EVER EVER FRECKING TALK ABOUT HOW PEOPLE TREAT BUSH because if you don't know how clinton was treated, you have no context to complain about bush-bashing. it's unbelievably dishonest for you to complain about it if you were in a cocoon during the clinton years. you have a huge gap in your political knowledge. >Well what about the whistleblowers from the FBI and CIA who said that the >real intelligence on the hijackers plans were quashed during Clinton's >years? Remember? A few of them were on the front of Time for Persons of >the Year. umm, oops. the three women you're talking about were the 2002 time magazine persons of the year, see this. http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/ two of them were corporate whistle-blowers, and one of them was Coleen Rowley, FBI agent whose warnings were denied on BUSH'S WATCH!! i'm doing the all-caps and exclamation points because you said "during Clinton" twice, and i already corrected you once. please don't get it wrong in front of me again. that would be called lying. kakki, i just want to quote again the part of your earlier post i found most admirable. you wrote: 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. and i gave a careful answer. a dialog is always best. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:38:39 -0500 From: vince Subject: NJC/ the economy >>The economy is the best, as far as indicators, it has been in decades. >> Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. >> >> >The tax cuts worked and I've made up all the losses in my retirement >account from the past three >years in the past six months.< > >That is great, I am glad to hear you're retirement account has made up >its losses. You work hard & deserve to be able to count on this. I wish >I could say the same for mine. It has been less spectacular & is still >much lower from where it was a few years ago but it is creeping up >rather than down which is a good thing. > It will take a long time to make up the losses on my pension account and my 3 other funds, one of them being Gage's college fund. I lost many thousands. Agreed with Kate that it has made up some ground the past few months but only a fraction of what was lost. As jobs are moving overseas to where people get paid pennies per hour, it is time to consider something a friend of mine pointed out yesterday: slavery still exists in the world. And all of us (and us includes me very much) with mutual funds or other Wall Street investments are supporting it and seeking to profit from it. It is a hard truth, but truth it is. Vince ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2004 #12 **************************** ------- 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)