From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2004 #18 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 Monday, January 12 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 018 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: kakki's honesty - njc ["kakki" ] Re: PNAC NJC ["mike pritchard" ] Re: NJC/ the economy ["kakki" ] Re: PNAC NJC ["kakki" ] Re: kakki's honesty - njc [JRMCo1@aol.com] Re: NJC ["kakki" ] RE: PNAC NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] John Guerin [frasere@intergate.ca] Welcome back (or should I say, "howdy"? ;-) ) (NJC) [] Ad Hominem ("personal attack") njc [JRMCo1@aol.com] Re: kakki's honesty - njc [notaro@stpt.usf.edu] Re: Ad Hominem ("personal attack") njc ["Lori Fye" ] Finding the '1' (was: John Guerin) [chuck eisenhardt ] Re: 60 Minutes njc [notaro@stpt.usf.edu] RE: 60 Minutes njc ["Kate Bennett" ] RE: 60 Minutes njc ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: kakki's honesty - njc ["Martin Giles" ] RE: Ad Hominem ("personal attack") njc ["Wally Kairuz" ] Re: Ad Hominem ("personal attack") njc [JRMCo1@aol.com] Re: NJC/ labels ["Lori Fye" ] Re: Finding the '1' (was: John Guerin) [Catherine McKay ] Re: Finding the '1' (was: John Guerin) [Randy Remote ] RE: 60 Minutes njc ["patrick leader" ] Re: On Inventing chords NJC [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:32:53 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: kakki's honesty - njc Well Patrick - this is going to be the last post from me to you. You have thrown up to me things I have written that I've gone back and explained from my understanding two or three times now. You have accused me constantly of thinking a certain way that I did not intend and I have politely tried to clarify how I think. I feel you are being extremely abusive and you have been abusive in the past. And now once and finally again I have to clarify and re-clarify once again (although I shouldn't bother at this point but YOUR lies about me have to be addressed): . Patrick wrote: > 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 stated before that I didn't mean to suggest Clinton handed Bush bad info on purpose. How in the hell would I know WHAT intel he handed Bush or be in a position to say whether it is good or bad? I assume it was what it was. I have actually quoted Clinton here a number of times to show that Bush got his Iraq info from the Clinton admin. and I have done so only to try to add credence to the reasons why Bush acted as he has going forward. > As I posted, FBI agent Coleen Rowley in December was one of the people of > the year 2002 for her defiance of the security administration. the incident > in question happened in july or august 2001, during the bush administration. > Who lied here? Kakki did, and she has lied again to pretend that this > incident happened during the clinton admin. and she's lied once more when > she says: I said what my recall was. I have tried to find more information regarding Rowley's reports and have not found anything with enough detail yet. There was another whistleblower who I recall gave reports of incidents during the Clinton time. I was going to pay to do a NEXIS search to find that information for you to "back myself up" but have been away all weekend on a family emergency. I'm not going to bother now. > bullshit kakki... you are always trying to make bush not be at fault. for > anything. That's how you read it because I try to defend him. I only bring up Clinton because so many people write things that try to lay all the blame on Bush, as if there were no terror incidents before him, as if he was not relying on prior intel and information. It is just defensive for Bush but NOT to say Bush has no fault and the fault is Clinton's. I've always tried to direct the root of some of the problems to defective intel. But the reasons for the defects could have NOTHING to do with Clinton. Intel could have not had enough resources, might have been precluded from certain kinds of intel gathering because of certain laws, there have been reports of inter-agency rivalries between the CIA and the FBI, which may have led to info being held back or quashed simply because of someone's ego, there could have been a Robert Hansen type mole in the works getting paid off by someone, there could have been plain old sloppy incompetence. There could be any number of reasons why the intel was weak or defective. It would be insane to think any president could have micro-managed the intel agencies - but it could be some of the people reporting to them were incompetent or whatever. If you have read this far Patrick, I really hope you can calmly read what I have said and understood me. But I'm done with you - you've gone way too far. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:22:21 +0100 From: "mike pritchard" Subject: Re: PNAC NJC >>"Preeminent" doesn't mean "only," it means the first among a group...the leader, if you will.<< I'm with you so far. >>No one can deny that the USA IS the preeminent power in the world today...it is what it is.<< I don't deny this, did any (other) 'liberal' do so? >>And just what is wrong with shaping the new century so that it is FAVORABLE to our principles and interests?<< Because the new century does not belong to you, and 'shaping' it involves acting in other areas of the world which do not belong to you either. And performing actions which may be FAVORABLE to your principles and interests (sic) may be DETRIMENTAL (to say the least) to the LEGITIMATE interests of other countries, the Kyoto agreement, for example. That is what is wrong. >>No one is throwing words like "hegemony" or "control" around...the writers would like to the US government to exercise leadership to create an environment favorable to our interests.<< How exactly do you propose to exercise 'leadership' without the aid of military 'control' or intellectual and economic 'hegemony'? >>Think back to the Cold War. Would we be better off if the USSR had become the preeminent power in the 21st century?<< Did anyone here say 'we' would be (whoever 'we' are here)? >>Would a 21st century favorable to SOVIET principles and interests be more desirable than American interests?<< Did anyone here (on 'our' (liberal) side of the argument) say so? >>Maybe you liberals will find Perle and Frum's new book equally alarming...<< Thanks for not referring to the 'liberals' as Marxists, yet. mike in barcelona np - Robert Wyatt - Soupsongs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:25:01 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: NJC/ the economy Vince wrote: > kakki, to claim the economy is the best in decades is incredible over > the top Rove-ian statement perhaps too outlandish even for him. Maybe we listen to, read or watch different news, Vince. I did not hear these statements from Rove, but rather from economists and Wall Street analysts. I read the Dow rate everyday on my MSN home page. The Dow is pushing back up toward 11,000, a place it has not been in many years. And I recall saying "economic indicators" not the total economy. I think "indicators" means something else. If the "indicators" keep going positively, it will most likely affect the overall economy, including job growth, favorably. > What is happening now can't touch the Clinton years or other periods in the past > 30-40 years.. Most of the Clinton years were very good but I think most people agree it was because of the surges in the high tech industries. Clinton did not create those industries, but what I will give him credit for is not doing anything to mess with the economy and muck up the growth. The downturn started while he was still in office in early 2000, as the high tech bubble began to burst (a natural cyclic consequence of any bubble situation). The 9/11 attacks dealt an incredibly severe blow to an already weakening economy. We are in recovery now, which I think people should be happy about. In recovery, according to the "indicators," recovering but not back up at 100% yet. It may be that the "indicators" are the highest in decades because we are recovering from such low lows. Force of the pendulum swing and all. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:50:43 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: PNAC NJC Kate wrote: > I am interested in how differently these documents are interpreted by > some... I am not troubled by the documents because they are only one point of view. There are many other points of view in the world and I'd like to think that in the end, most points of view get somewhat incorporated into the spinning around of the world. I think maybe the tipping point is that many are distrustful of the "neocons" to begin with and maybe ascribe more dubious motives and power to them than they deserve. While I may not be as alarmed by their discussion of potential policy as others, I, like most Americans, do have those isolationist tendencies and reluctance to get too spread out around the world. Most would not be fully behind exercising too much power and influence except under certain circumstances where we could be fairly assured we were doing the right and good thing. > It never mentions the UN... Here is where I do get troubled. I am very much against essentially giving up U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. I certainly am opposed to "one world government" and would rather try to deal with the devils I do know in my own country than be at the mercy of God knows who in the U.N. including representatives of many countries who are dictatorships or who have never much liked us to begin with. The U.N. is a nice idea when it works, but it is no sure bet and collectively have made some very bad or weak decisions in recent years. > Like Jenny mentioned, the PNAC documents are very upfront about their goals. > Unfortunately the Bush administration is not. I'm not so sure about that. I mean the PNAC papers are out there for all to read. We've heard the adminstration lay out their "Bush Doctrine" and all. You and many others are discussing the neocon policy ideas and trying to connect dots to Bush, so it does seem that it is all fairly upfront. Maybe the question is - what else do they have up their sleeve that they are not telling us? And that's a legitimate question. Eisenhower's warning is a wise one. But I also see it in the context of being stated a few short years after a horrible world war. I think there was a brief time in the 50s where people just never wanted to experience that again and were hoping for a lasting peace. But then wars and threats flared up again and the U.S. got involved and then unintended consequences begin to happen. Bottom line is that I don't think there is any group in the U.S. who would or could ever "take over the world" so to speak. They wouldn't succeed one minute. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:57:27 EST From: JRMCo1@aol.com Subject: Re: kakki's honesty - njc Thank you for such a calm, reasoned and intelligent response, Kakki. God, I love this list. - -Julius ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:05:35 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: NJC Vince wrote regarding laws passed in the 70s limiting intel and security agencies information gathering: > That is to keep us from living in a fascist state. You advocating the > free right of the government to spy on citizens? This from a > libertarian? I may lean libertarian but I would not stand stubbornly on ideology in a potential case of defending the country and saving peoples' lives. What is so ironic is that several other types of government agencies (SEC, DOJ and others) have the legal ability to spy on citizens in various ways, yet the agenices charged with our basic security do not or did not, or maybe still do not because of ACLU lawsuits blocking them. I don't think the idea is to want to go back to the abuses of J. Edgar Hoover and spying on people for personal motivations, blackmail and politics. I think the idea is to modify the law just a bit to give a little leeway when reasonable threats have been established. >How did these laws prevent the administration from sending > out a warning alert in August 2001? What kind of warning alert? A general warning that "be on the lookout for suspicious people who may hijack a plane?" People could have then been generally on the lookout but boxcutters and trained suicide pilots could still have gotten through fairly easily. We didn't have a Homeland Security Dept. or any kind of warning system in place prior to 9/11 but they were immediately installed afterward. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:30:32 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: PNAC NJC Me > Like Jenny mentioned, the PNAC documents are very upfront about their goals. Unfortunately the Bush administration is not. Kakki >I'm not so sure about that. I mean the PNAC papers are out there for all to read. We've heard the adminstration lay out their "Bush Doctrine" and all. You and many others are discussing the neocon policy ideas and trying to connect dots to Bush, so it does seem that it is all fairly upfront.< PNAC is upfront about iraq but the bush administration has not been...they gave several different rationale's for going to war in iraq...i think more people think saddam had something to do with 9/11 than there are people who know about the PNAC group's influence on the administration... The rhetoric used to promote the war was very deceitful... It is interesting to watch (I finally have dsl) the frontline program that jenny mentioned...the rivalry between wolfowitz who is the main archetect of the original document & powell goes back a long way... > Maybe the question is - what else do they have up their sleeve that they are not telling us? And that's a legitimate question.< I know they mentioned several other countries & china was one of them...china is going to be a major economic power eventually... >Eisenhower's warning is a wise one. But I also see it in the context of being stated a few short years after a horrible world war. I think there was a brief time in the 50s where people just never wanted to experience that again and were hoping for a lasting peace. But then wars and threats flared up again and the U.S. got involved and then unintended consequences begin to happen.< I only posted excerpts & left out the part where he is a bit pessimistic about lasting peace...still he warns us about the militaryindustrial complex which applies in any time...that is what I dislike about the PNAC documents...they have so little humanity in them (as opposed to Eisenhower's speech)... It is all so very cold blooded... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:54:43 -0800 From: frasere@intergate.ca Subject: John Guerin From today's Vancouver Sun: Drummer was a founding member of the L.A. Express As a musician, producer and arranger, he worked with a number of leading figures in jazz and pop music. John Guerin, a drummer who was best known as a founding member of the L.A. Express and for his contributions to an innovative Joni Mitchell recording, has died. He was 64. Guerin, with a broad resume in jazz and pop, died Monday of heart failure at West Hills Hospital in West Hills, Calif. He had been battling a cold that became pneumonia but continued to perform as late as Dec. 30, when he accompanied singer Steve Tyrell at the new Catalina Bar and Grill in Hollywood. He entered the hospital the next day. As a musician, producer and arranger, Guerin played with a number of the leading figures in jazz and pop music in his four-decade career. In the world of jazz that list included Thelonious Monk, George Shearing, Ella Fitzgerald and Roger Kellaway. Among pop or rock figures, besides Mitchell, Guerin played with Frank Sinatra, Frank Zappa, The Byrds, Lou Rawls and Linda Ronstadt. In 1975, Guerin was a founding member of the L.A. Express, a jazz fusion band composed of four studio musicians. Led by saxophonist Tom Scott, the top- flight roster also included guitarist Robben Ford and bassist Max Bennett. After hearing them play at a small jazz club in North Hollywood, Mitchell invited them into the studio when she was recording her Court and Spark album. They later went on tour with her as the opening act. Guerin went on to collaborate with Mitchell on the title track of The Hissing of Summer Lawns. "I'm very proud of that album," Guerin told Down Beat magazine. "It's a portrait in sound of the American dream, marriage and suburbia, in a myriad of shapes and forms. The album has touched a lot of people where the didn't want to be touched. Joni has a way of articulating self-exploration in a very heartfelt way." Guerin was born in Hawaii but grew up in the San Diego area. He was self- taught on the drums, learning by playing along with Count Basie recordings. By his early 20's, he was playing professionally with major names including clarinetist Buddy De Franco. He played with pianist Shearing in the mid-60's and was off and running in an eclectic career that included work on film scores, notably Clint Eastwood's biography of Charlie Parker, Bird, and the recent Diane Keaton/Jack Nicholson film, Something's Gotta Give. Guerin is survived by his wife, Michelle Palombi Guerin, of Chatsworth Calif; a son, Scott, of Los Angeles; a sister, Victoria Shoemaker, of Oakland, Calif., and two grandchildren. Another son, Shaun, died last summer. Best regards, Stephen in Vancouver ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:32:43 -0600 From: Subject: Welcome back (or should I say, "howdy"? ;-) ) (NJC) Neil, Neil, NEIL!!! So glad to see your name on my screen again! Those of you who were also part of the JMDL way back in the Paleolithic Age will remember that Neil was one of our very first members, chatting away when there were something like 40 members worldwide. In fact, for a moment there, I thought that Neil's membership preceded my own, until I remembered: I recall his first post. ;-) Seriously: welcome back. I'm glad things seem to be going well for you. Don't be a stranger! Mary, who can never talk about the Matrix movies without thinking that she knew another NEO first. ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:50:25 EST From: JRMCo1@aol.com Subject: Ad Hominem - it's a Fallacy njc Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Example of Ad Hominem Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say." - -Julius ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:00:19 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: kakki's honesty - njc > Well Patrick - this is going to be the last post from me to you. I so hate seeing it come down to this. What happened to Vince's original "request for calm discourse?" (No one needs to explain; I know what happened.) Here's the thing (which has been said before and will no doubt be said again): we can't change each other's minds. We can share our sources of information and opinions and discuss them, and try to keep our minds OPEN. Perhaps set aside our suspicions and *listen* to each other. But there's no need for all the anger and flame throwing. Patrick, you did step over the line. There was a reasonable discussion taking place and a couple of days ago you joined and just BLEW. Why? Politics is just one conversation among many on this list. (It seems to be the predominant one again, but that's another matter.) That Kakki's (or anyone's) opinions differ from yours (or mine or anyone's) doesn't make her (or anyone) a monster. Remember that this particular medium is subject to interpretation. There's no eye contact, no voice inflection, no hand gestures. Be graceful and give everyone the benefit of doubt. Be sure you KNOW that you've correctly understood what someone has posted BEFORE you make accusations and trash them. That's all. You may return to your regularly-scheduled programming. : ) Lori P.S. - There's always http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jmdlpc/ ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:01:52 EST From: JRMCo1@aol.com Subject: Ad Hominem ("personal attack") njc Description of Personal Attack A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims. Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion. In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim. Examples of Personal Attack: In a school debate, Bill claims that the President's economic plan is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying "the freshman has his facts wrong." "This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don't see why we should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World Conference on Cancer." "Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that." "That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he is." "Bill claims that Jane would be a good treasurer. However I find Bill's behavior offensive, so I'm not going to vote for Jill." "Jane says that drug use is morally wrong, but she is just a goody-two shoes Christian, so we don't have to listen to her." Bill: "I don't think it is a good idea to cut social programs." Jill: "Why not?" Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and..." Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head." - -Julius ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:16:26 -0500 (EST) From: notaro@stpt.usf.edu Subject: Re: kakki's honesty - njc Quoting Lori Fye : > > Well Patrick - this is going to be the last post from me to you. > > I so hate seeing it come down to this. What happened to Vince's > original "request for calm discourse?" It made me very sad. Both Patrick and Kakki are 2 of my favorite JMDLers and I have been in both of their presence and know they personally like one another and get along (unless they are Golden Globe nominees.) I may have contributed to the misunderstanding. Patrick, my original post was not directed to Kakki, but to those, in general, who reacted so quickly to the Hitler/Bush comparison, but failed over all the years to condemn the Hitler/Clinton comparison. My criticism and dismay were not not directed at Kakki, but mostly at the press and the Jewish community which so quickly condemned MoveOn.com, specifically. I believe Kakki when she says she had never seen them. I have never, ever questioned Kakki's integrity, only her beliefs. Jerry :-( ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:39:53 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: Ad Hominem ("personal attack") njc Bravo, Julius! Thank you for that. Lori ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:49:34 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: John Guerin, 100% JC "Lama, Jim L'Hommedieu" wrote: > I think "1" was deliberate too. (Extra points for using the word > "deliberate".) > > If I remember my JMDL history, "the one of the chord" is the same thing as > saying "the root of the chord". (Mister Lahm?) Yes, they are the same thing, that's why I think she was talking about the "one" in terms of tempo-she is too concise to say the same thing twice in the same sentence-plus Guerin was a drummer. > I think it implies you're > looking at the intervals within a chord. You can identify the root of the chord without neccesarily being aware of the intervals. The root of a Cmaj9b5 would be C. Considering the complexity of some of Joni's chords, finding the root might be difficult, even debatable! Again, she may have been talking in metaphor. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:59:24 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: chuck eisenhardt Subject: Finding the '1' (was: John Guerin) Lama is correct to tie the phrase 'finding the 1' to music theory, at least in the popular lexicon. And it's true that musicians will refer to the tones and intervals in the diatonic (whole tone, or do-re-mi) scale by their numbers. Classical types will refer to the '1' as the 'tonic', and pop or jazz musicians will refer to a chord based on the tonic as the '1' chord in a given song. However, there's another very important '1' to consider in a musical sense, and that's the first beat in a measure. Sufficently complex time signatures found in jazz and even 'serious' music can leave the 1 less than obvious. Try finding the '1' in John Mclaughlin's 11/4 'Follow Your Heart . Even in simple time signatures a jazz drummer may leave the '1' unaccented or even unplayed entirely. Sometimes the '1' is intentionally ambigous; the most brilliant example I can think of here is 'I'm Free' from Tommy. I invariably lock into the offbeat (the 'and') as the downbeat, and then when the verse resolves out of the drum roll there appears to be an extra beat in the measure. This was entirely intended from the get-go. Since the tonic '1' is usually patently obvious, and since it's Guerin, I believe Joni is refering to the metrical '1' or the downbeat. Chucke Chucke ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:25:38 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: 60 Minutes njc timely! last night 60 minutes interviewed paul o'neil bush's ex secretary of the treasury... "Now, O'Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:32:41 -0500 (EST) From: notaro@stpt.usf.edu Subject: Re: 60 Minutes njc Quoting Kate Bennett : > timely! > last night 60 minutes interviewed paul o'neil bush's ex secretary of > the > treasury... Kate, I watched it but was taken aback when he said he had no ides his book or interview would upset the White House. HELLO!!?? Sounds unreal to me. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:40:56 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: 60 Minutes njc Fyi, it is not his book...btw, he is not making any $$ on it... Yes, it surprises me that he is so sure that truth will not be Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide - -----Original Message----- From: notaro@stpt.usf.edu [mailto:notaro@stpt.usf.edu] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 1:33 PM To: Kate Bennett Cc: Joni@Smoe. Org Subject: Re: 60 Minutes njc Quoting Kate Bennett : > timely! > last night 60 minutes interviewed paul o'neil bush's ex secretary of > the treasury... Kate, I watched it but was taken aback when he said he had no ides his book or interview would upset the White House. HELLO!!?? Sounds unreal to me. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:46:28 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: 60 Minutes njc >I watched it but was taken aback when he said he had no ides his book or interview would upset the White House. HELLO!!?? Sounds unreal to me. Jerry< Fyi it is not his book, he was interviewed for it- "O'Neill readily agreed to tell his story to the book's author Ron Suskind  and he adds that he's taking no money for his part in the book." But I agree with you that he is either naove or just doesn't care...he was originally an old friend/colleague of cheney who brought him into the administration from what I understand... Well, I don't think I need to be because I can't imagine that I'm going to be attacked for telling the truth, says ONeill. Why would I be attacked for telling the truth? Kate www.katebennett.com "bringing the melancholy world of twilight to life almost like magic" The All Music Guide ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:02:49 -0000 From: "Martin Giles" Subject: Re: kakki's honesty - njc Look guys. If I were a teacher and you two were kids in the playground, I'd bang your heads together. Both of you. CUT IT OUT. We all have political differences, and yes, how the world is run IS important. But here we are again watching two of our number come to blows, when neither of you is going to persuade the other of anything. Neither of you is going to win. Both of you are going to get increasingly upset, and YOU WILL NOT BE ALONE. If the JMDL was a party, would you two be slogging it out like this in front of the assembled partygoers? You are pissing the rest of us off. (OK you are pissing ME off. I can't speak for anyone else.) I'm not going to say "Give peace a chance". I'm just going to say, "Shut the F@"* up, or take it off list." DAMN! Martin. In London. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:17:00 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: RE: Ad Hominem ("personal attack") njc julius, thanks for the examples. i always find it hard to think of arguments off the top of my head when i teach the classical fallacies. wally, writing down julius' examples for my GRE students > -----Mensaje original----- > De: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]En nombre de > JRMCo1@aol.com > Enviado el: Lunes, 12 de Enero de 2004 05:02 p.m. > Para: joni@smoe.org > Asunto: Ad Hominem ("personal attack") njc > > > Description of Personal Attack ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:13:23 -0000 From: "Martin Giles" Subject: Re: NJC/ labels AND RE: kakki's honesty - njc Oh, and that goes for Vince and Norm etc. too. My Mum used to say to me and my sister when we were warring kiddies, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." I wonder why that comes to mind now? JEEZ. Martin. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:38:06 +0200 From: "ron" Subject: Re: woo - hoo - what a bargain njc !!!!!!!!! hi >>>>norman wrote >>>>>>>I'm envious! Now...as to "where to start?"...I'd begin with The Silver Train...Johnny Winter!! well - i started with la express - but i was listening to johnny this morning on the way to work - which was a great way to start the day!!!!!! believe it or not - i forgot to mention one of the best parts - the shop hadnt finished cataloging the collection - theres another 75 or so cds due to hit the shelves on wednesday - guess where im headed come wednesday????? :-) ron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:29:51 -0800 From: Scott Price Subject: Re: Finding the '1' (was: John Guerin) At 03:59 PM 1/12/2004 -0500, chuck eisenhardt wrote: >there's another very important '1' to consider in a musical sense, >and that's the first beat in a measure. Sufficently complex time >signatures found in jazz and even 'serious' music can leave the 1 >less than obvious. >Since the tonic '1' is usually patently obvious, and since it's Guerin, >I believe Joni is refering to the metrical '1' or the downbeat. Agreed...the "one" she refers to is the first beat of the measure, but seeing as how Joni is no stranger to metaphor I'll also toss in that I believe she was thanking him not only for his musical guidance, but personal contentment as well. For years she had been told her chords were weird and her music didn't fit accepted structures. She would go in the studio and tell session people to play the lines she hummed and sang for them and they would scratch their heads, asking what the chord was, what the root was, and (likely) where the "one" was. When Joni hooked up with Tom Scott, John Guerin, et. al., it opened up a new world for her as she now had musicians who weren't so deeply rooted in tradition, musicians who were open and adventurous and who could understand what she was trying to accomplish. Once the gate opened, she found Jaco, Wayne, Herbie, and many other "jazz" musicians who were and still are wonderful collaborators. Proceeding the times she had suffered tremendous emotional blows during the "Blue" and "For The Roses" periods, she found the love and support she needed coming from John Guerin. Consider too that this is about the time she began getting into "alternate" and eastern theories of spirituality as she tried to find the right path. Her affair with Guerin doesn't seem to be very thoroughly chronicled but I'm guessing she really craved a steady and nurturing monogamous relationship in which her partner deeply understood her musical and her personal aspirations. The fact that to date there have been few if any "bad blood" or "sour grapes" references between the two of them implies that the relationship was mutually rewarding. The liner notes crediting Guerin with helping her find the root and the one, while referring to musical terms, are like so much Joni prose open to various interpretations. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:00:49 EST From: JRMCo1@aol.com Subject: Re: Ad Hominem ("personal attack") njc Hi, Wally! You're ever so welcome, my friend. You might be interested in a fallacy tutorial I try to take from time to time...especially when I'm active on the JMDL. I pulled the text for the ad hominem posts from it (I didn't write them myself). Perhaps it would be a helpful resource for your students, and jmdlers of conscience :). I get a kick out of it. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index - -Julius wally writes: > julius, > thanks for the examples. i always find it hard to think of arguments off the > top of my head when i teach the classical fallacies. > wally, writing down julius' examples for my GRE students > > >-----Mensaje original----- > >De: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]En nombre de > >JRMCo1@aol.com > >Enviado el: Lunes, 12 de Enero de 2004 05:02 p.m. > >Para: joni@smoe.org > >Asunto: Ad Hominem ("personal attack") njc > > > > > >Description of Personal Attack ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:01:18 -0800 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: NJC/ labels Vince wrote, among other things: > So thus we close our eyes to Putin's human rights abuses and commit > them ourselves in locking people in camps for indefinite time periods > now exceeded two years with no charges, no access to attorneys, no > contact with anyone... which is a new American horror that astounds. I'm just catching up, going backwards, and ... phew! Relax, everyone. I do want to comment on what Vince wrote above, though. It's a bummer and it's a fact that every country I can think of -- including the U.S. -- makes and changes policy to suit its interests and convenience. This is not to say I condone that kind of behavior just because "everyone else does it." I wish the U.S. were above that sort of thing, and speaking as an American I think it should be. I am appalled at the continued imprisonment, without charges and access to counsel, of people who are supposedly connected to 9/11. Now our government wants to build a huge "travel" database to track our every more, under the guise of protection against terrorism. I have big, big reservations (no pun intended) about that. Who's going to prison next? Me? YOU? Lori, remembering "A Handmaid's Tale" ~ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:13:56 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Finding the '1' (was: John Guerin) --- chuck eisenhardt wrote: > Lama is correct to tie the phrase 'finding the 1' to > music theory, at > least in the popular lexicon. And it's true that > musicians will refer to > the tones and intervals in the diatonic (whole tone, > or do-re-mi) > scale by their numbers. Classical types will refer > to the '1' as the 'tonic', > and pop or jazz musicians will refer to a chord > based on the tonic as the '1' > chord in a given song. If you're numbering chords by whether they're tonic or dominant or whatever, don't you normally use roman numerals... which would make it "I" after all. I always see chords referred to as I, IV, V and so on when people are using that system. Maybe it's different between classical and jazz? Catherine, who never even noticed this stuff until it was mentioned here, but then again, my eyesight never was all that good. ===== 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: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:17:36 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: NJC/ labels AND RE: kakki's honesty - njc --- Martin Giles wrote: > Oh, and that goes for Vince and Norm etc. too. My > Mum used to say to me and > my sister when we were warring kiddies, "If you > don't have anything nice to > say, don't say anything at all." I wonder why that > comes to mind now? > > JEEZ. > My Mum used that too. The other one was "I don't care WHO started it!" C., who has been deleting anything with a header that looks even remotely political and therefore can only guess (sigh) at who said what to whom, but who always reads anything that Martin posts. ===== 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: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:09:15 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: joni and guerin at home 'Halfway through the tape a phone rings. It is a friend with an invitation to a party. "Yes, we'd love to," says Joni. "But why don't you ask John," she says after a pause. "If I suggest it, he'll think I want to see my old boy friends." ' when i heard about guerin's death, i immediately thought of this bit from an article i read when i was 13!!!! knowing that guerin was a scorpio like joni, i always tried to imagine how um... *jealous* they must have been of each other. well, i've just found the article at jmdl.com. (where else?) the article has some nice references to guerin and joni's domestic life. check it out at http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=6 wally (thank you, les!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:22:01 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: Finding the '1' (was: John Guerin) Catherine McKay wrote: > --- chuck eisenhardt > wrote: > Lama is correct to tie the phrase 'finding > the 1' to > > music theory, at > > least in the popular lexicon. And it's true that > > musicians will refer to > > the tones and intervals in the diatonic (whole tone, > > or do-re-mi) > > scale by their numbers. Classical types will refer > > to the '1' as the 'tonic', > > and pop or jazz musicians will refer to a chord > > based on the tonic as the '1' > > chord in a given song. > > If you're numbering chords by whether they're tonic or > dominant or whatever, don't you normally use roman > numerals... which would make it "I" after all. I > always see chords referred to as I, IV, V and so on > when people are using that system. Yes, you are right-if you are using the "Nashville system" for numbering chords in a progression, you would use the roman numeral. On the other hand, if you were talking about constructing individual chords (like a major is 1-3-5) you would use the numbers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:31:32 -0800 From: "Russell Bowden" Subject: Re: 1 and the root of the chord Drove to the North Shore today listening to Hejira with new ears, re: John Guerin. Hi, Russ in Honolulu, here. If you're playing a C major chord, then the C note is 1. The 3 and the 5 would be the E and the G. C scale C-1, D-2, E-3, F-4, G-5, A-6, B-7, the next C would be 8 AND 1 because it's the end and the beginning of a new scale. If you're playing in G-Flat major, then G-Flat would be 1, etc. If you've heard of the 1-4-5 pattern of most basic songs, 1 is the key the song is in. For example: C major. C is one The 4 and 5 are the dominant and sub-dominant chords associated with that key, inthis case 4=F and 5=G. Is this at all clear? Aloha, Coco Nutz (Russ) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software  optimizes dial-up to the max! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:32:19 EST From: PassScribe@aol.com Subject: Re: On Inventing chords << From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: In Search Of The Lost Chord **Joni Mitchell has guitar chords that she actually INVENTED** I have to admit that I didn't know this, Rick...exactly which chords did she invent? Or did you mean that she devised new tunings for already existing chords? Not being a musician I don't know if there's a difference. Bob >> Hummmm... Being the "new" musician that I am, but being a beginner on piano and not guitar, and knowing something about chords in general... I would say: no one can claim that they INVENTED any particular chord as all chords are just any number of notes played together and the numerous possibilities would seem endless, (whether the chords sound good or not is another issue). However, it can be said that someone could PLAY a chord that not many other people could play because it is very complex or hard to accomplish; for example, if you had huge hands and long fingers, you could play a chord with notes spaced far apart on the keyboard that someone else with smaller hands/shorter fingers could NOT play. Perhaps Rick means that Joni "invented" numerous guitar TUNINGS, which is an art in itself as you're not playing notes where they would normally be played in conventional tunings... is this correct, all you guitarists out there? Or, I suppose you could say that Joni "invented" certain chord ARRANGEMENTS or PROGRESSIONS, which is most certainly a part of writing a song that sounds different from so many others. In any event, Joni is a master songwriter, musician and a chord "craftsman" (or "craftswoman", if you prefer.) Kenny B ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:35:59 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: RE: kakki's honesty - njc lori, kakki and all: i too appreciated kakki's response, especially the long paragraph on defective intel. we agree that there are lots of reasons for it, and that it is very difficult to trace causes and reasons, and perhaps unfair to blame it directly on one administration or another. i also like kakki a lot personally, and value my experiences of having met her, spent time with her, especially at jonifests and around the '98 l.a. appearances. and it's worth adding that there is a painted martini glass on my windowsill that has pride of place, and i think happily of kakki (who painted it) every morning. and as i've said, i value her input on political issues, though we're so far apart in so many ways. i also appreciate what lori wrote about opinions. but opinions are one thing, facts are another. even if kakki never addresses me again, i intend to point out (hopefully in more temperate language) when she throws a bald lie into the discourse. and i hate to say this, but kakki does throw lies into the mix. not just differences of opinion, but lies. kakki mentioned, not once, but twice, intelligence that was supposedly "quashed" (that is a very strong word) under the clinton administration and she was referring (both times) to something that happened well into bush, and may well have happened only because of the bush admin's policies. what kakki did is called 'lying' and i don't think it's acceptable. and i don't think it's 'going too far' to point that out. just to prove i'm not imagining this pattern of lying, here's an egregious previous lie. in december, kakki wrote a post to this list comparing wesley clark's (and bill clinton's) balkan war campaign with the iraq war. she claimed that there were more than 400 american deaths in the balkan war, drawing a comparison with the iraq statistics. (as we all know, there are more than 400 american deaths so far in the iraq war; the number was particularly in the new in early december) guess how many americans died in the balkan campaign... 0 (zero) 0 (zero) was kakki's generation of 400 plus american deaths that didn't really happen in the balkan war just a matter of opinion? no, it was a lie. a complete lie. 400 bodies is not an opinion. i really don't know if she intended to lie, i'm just pointing out how far kakki is willing to improvise away from truth to defend her viewpoints. god, i hate to say that. but how can you feel about someone who invents 400 american bodies to argue a point and bash politics and politicians she doesn't agree with? patrick ps. this was an incredibly painful post to write. i made a vow, a couple of years back, to post more about music, less about politics. i did pretty well, for a long time. i will again. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:42:17 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: RE: 60 Minutes njc dear jerry: you wrote: >I watched it but was taken aback when he said he had no idea his book or >interview would upset the White House. HELLO!!?? Sounds unreal to me. > >Jerry see this: Famous Last Words Paul O'Neill: I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And there's nothing they can do to hurt me. Today: WASHINGTON, Jan 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury has asked the U.S. inspector general's office to investigate how a possibly classified document appeared on Sunday in a televised interview of ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, a department spokesman said on Monday. "It's based on the (CBS program) '60 Minutes' segment, and I'll be even more clear -- the document as shown on '60 Minutes' that said 'secret,"' Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols told reporters at a weekly briefing. Well, that was fast. How long did it take before an investigation into the "bogus" Plame incident began? patrick np - open door, breathe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:48:00 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: On Inventing chords NJC **if you had huge hands and long fingers, you could play a chord with notes spaced far apart on the keyboard that someone else with smaller hands/shorter fingers could NOT play.** I think it was Rachmaninoff that had such long fingers that enabled him to span the keys the way he did. Not totally sure, I think I remember reading that somewhere. Then again, there's something to be said for pure determination. After all, 3-finger Brown is in the Baseball Hall of Fame - for his pitching. Bob NP: Al Green, "Rainin' On My Heart" ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2004 #18 **************************** ------- 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)