From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2004 #90 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Friday, February 27 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 090 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Joni songs for funerals. ["Russell Bowden" ] re: john edwards ["Paul Mepschen" ] Re: eating animals njc [colin ] land mines njc ["Marianne Rizzo" ] Re: john edwards [cul ] Re: Songs for a funeral! [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] re: john edwards NJC [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] if that don't beat all [Kate ] Re: raving raveen raven curls ["Cynthia Vickery" ] Re: john edwards njc ["Lavieri, Vince [185776]" ] colin, eating animals, njc [Jennifer Faulkner ] Nader njc ["Marianne Rizzo" ] eating animals njc ["Marianne Rizzo" ] Re: john edwards njc [Randy Remote ] Re: land mines njc [Randy Remote ] Re: raving raveen raven curls [cul ] Re: swans on grass [Warrenkeith91354@aol.com] Re: john edwards ["Paul Mepschen" ] Re: john edwards ["anon anon" ] Re: john edwards njc ["Paul Mepschen" ] RE: Songs for a funeral! ["Richard Flynn" ] Re: john edwards njc [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] puppy update njc [colin ] in november njc [vince ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:49:49 -0800 From: "Russell Bowden" Subject: Joni songs for funerals. Aloha Gang, This is an easy one as I chose them a long time ago. HEJIRA (the song) REFUGE OF THE ROADS JOBS SAD SONG A BIRD THAT WHISTLES SWEET BIRD THE LAST TIME I SAW RICHARD TIN ANGEL THE SILKY VEILS OF ARDOR Plus a veritable host of non-joni tunes, but that's for another cyber-planet. Love from Honolulu, Russ (Passion Fruit) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Say good-bye to spam, viruses and pop-ups with MSN Premium -- free trial offer! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:20:56 +0100 From: "Paul Mepschen" Subject: re: john edwards Edwards, Kerry and so on. On example of why I disagree with you. I just want to point out that neither Edwards or Kerry support gay marriage. Which is only one example of why I fail to understand why so many of you go out and vote for a candidate far to the right of your own politics. I agree that Kerry and Edwards are culturally more sophisticated and defitely more men of these times compared to Bush, but I fail to see big differences when it comes to policy. The American political landscape has seriously moved to the right the last decades. When it comes to socio-economic policies, Clinton was more right wing than Nixon. And while people tend to put the blame on Bush, and the Bush presidency surely repelled many liberals so much that they took to the streets again for the first time in 10 years, Clinton's foreign policy wasn't much different than Bush's. As Bush, Clinton relied on Great Britain as its main partner, as as Bush, Clinton's foreign policy was directed towards (Anglo-)American military hegemony. Don't forget that many Democrats, including Kerry, supported the war and only turned against the war when the mood in the country changed. Nader's vanity is clear and the fact that he broke with the Green party says enough. But to think that Kerry is a real alternative to Bush is something I fail to see. If I had the chance I'd rather vote for the vain Nader than another establishment candidate. Maybe the Greens will come with their own candidate. Even better! I think real change will not come from the Democratic establishment. Now, if you all would vote for Kucinich (who got 26 % in Hawaii, which I thought was great) or even would have for Dean (whom I didn't thrust, but ok) that would have posed a very serious problem to the Democratic establishment. I would still have advocated a progressive third candidate, but hey. Now, Kerry, is an establishment candidate and I just don't think he will make you see that little progression. When you look back, what progression, after twelve years of republican rule, did Clinton make?? I wrote this before: 40 years ago the anti-war candidate, the peace candidate supported by progressive people, who was gonna change America, was Johnson in his race against Goldwater! Look at the sh*t you got into back then. And for forty years the American Left has voted for candidates like him and you're gonna do it again. Paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:41:32 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: eating animals njc Catgirl wrote: > I never heard of a Native American that factory farmed. this is a separate issue to eating meat. Objection to such methods does not mean objection to eating any meat. > The Native Americans got burnt real bad by the white man and look > what the white man did to their land. this is another issue entirely and nothing to do with eating meat. > > > - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:03:20 -0500 From: "Marianne Rizzo" Subject: land mines njc I heard on National Public Radio (NPR) this morning as I was driving into work that the US will NOT join 150 other nations in prohibiting the use of land mines. Instead, US land minds will have detecting devices on them so that American soldiers will know where they are. So we will take care of our soldiers, but we often leave out of the equation the innocent civilians who are injured and killed by land mines. Just like in the Iraq war, countless times I have heard about American casulties. . For me, I do not hear enough mention of civilian casualties. Diane Ream (I like her) said last week (on NPR) that civilian deaths in Iraq number between 7 and 9,000. Then, I also heard that the website "Iraq body count" (I think it is) mentions the number upwards of 10,000 civilian deaths. How many injuries do you estimate there are per death? Anyway, in terms of the land mines. . . this is a basic one. . . L a n d m i n e s s h o u l d n o t b e p e r m i t t e d under any circumstance. They kill innocent people (also animals, not many take this into consideration). People say they're "proud to be an American." I don't say that. I am not proud. Why do other nations dislike us? How many more reasons can we give them? Marianne _________________________________________________________________ Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200365ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:26:08 -0500 From: cul Subject: Re: john edwards In short, dead on! Kucinich is the best of the bunch to be sure. The rest are all corporate/media slaves. Except Sharpton who is untenable for other reasons. My main concern is finding a candidate who means to create a solid resistance to the Dominionists who, by hijacking the Republic party over the last 20 years guised as the religious right, have managed to be right on schedule for their ultimate long term plan of taking over and remaking the world ready for the second coming. I know that sounds relatively conspiratist, but very few Americans are aware of the true agenda of these pychopaths. Anyone interested can see what i mean by a visit to http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5160.shtml Paul Mepschen wrote: >Edwards, Kerry and so on. >On example of why I disagree with you. I just want to point out that neither >Edwards or Kerry support gay marriage. Which is only one example of why I fail >to understand why so many of you go out and vote for a candidate far to the >right of your own politics. I agree that Kerry and Edwards are culturally more >sophisticated and defitely more men of these times compared to Bush, but I >fail to see big differences when it comes to policy. >The American political landscape has seriously moved to the right the last >decades. When it comes to socio-economic policies, Clinton was more right wing >than Nixon. And while people tend to put the blame on Bush, and the Bush >presidency surely repelled many liberals so much that they took to the streets >again for the first time in 10 years, Clinton's foreign policy wasn't much >different than Bush's. As Bush, Clinton relied on Great Britain as its main >partner, as as Bush, Clinton's foreign policy was directed towards >(Anglo-)American military hegemony. Don't forget that many Democrats, >including Kerry, supported the war and only turned against the war when the >mood in the country changed. > >Nader's vanity is clear and the fact that he broke with the Green party says >enough. But to think that Kerry is a real alternative to Bush is something I >fail to see. If I had the chance I'd rather vote for the vain Nader than >another establishment candidate. Maybe the Greens will come with their own >candidate. Even better! > >I think real change will not come from the Democratic establishment. Now, if >you all would vote for Kucinich (who got 26 % in Hawaii, which I thought was >great) or even would have for Dean (whom I didn't thrust, but ok) that would >have posed a very serious problem to the Democratic establishment. I would >still have advocated a progressive third candidate, but hey. Now, Kerry, is an >establishment candidate and I just don't think he will make you see that >little progression. When you look back, what progression, after twelve years >of republican rule, did Clinton make?? > >I wrote this before: 40 years ago the anti-war candidate, the peace candidate >supported by progressive people, who was gonna change America, was Johnson in >his race against Goldwater! Look at the sh*t you got into back then. And for >forty years the American Left has voted for candidates like him and you're >gonna do it again. > >Paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:37:10 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Songs for a funeral! I really just want one song at my funeral, and it's not even a Joni - imagine that! Laura Nyro's "And When I Die", which I always loved (like most of you I guess, I was intro'd to it by Blood Sweat & Tears), But now that I have that "one child born to carry on" it really means a lot to me. Since I intend to be cremated, I guess you could play Joni's "Smokin'"! :~) Bob NP: Shelby Lynne, "All Of A Sudden You Disappeared" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:10:15 -0500 From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: re: john edwards NJC And no serious candidate ever will...not in our lifetimes at least. It would be political suicide. BUT there is a big difference between candidates who are looking to add to our Constitution an amendment which prohibits those civil rights. There is a difference between not moving forward and moving backward. OK, let me help you see it: - -Supreme Court appointees - -The environment (we really have gone backwards here) - -The budget (record surplus becomes record deficit in ONE term) - -Legislation that directly affects the middle class & the poor among other things. Clinton had his faults to be sure, but he was incredibly well- informed about world affairs, history and politics. His ability to speak on his feet about these kinds of issues was astounding. He would never have engaged us in the Middle East the way Bush has done...Bush, who admits to not reading or knowing the issues, rather trusting on his "trusted" staff like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, all of whom have private agendas a mile long and are more than happy to "advise" our placebo president. I don't think the parents of the children that have come back in pieces or in bodybags would agree that there is no difference. There's a reason that Bush has had the fewest press conferences of any president, and the most vacation. He basically can't think for himself. Now I'll be the first to admit that EVERY candidate, or the ones that do what they have to do to appeal to a majority of the US, will have their agenda and their corporations to repay. But this fact does not mean that there aren't MAJOR differences between the 2 parties, because I can assure you that there are. Bob NP: Shelby Lynne, "I Will Stay" PS: Don't forget to add the "NJC" to your posts when they have 'No Joni content" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:28:32 -0600 From: Kate Subject: if that don't beat all So I turn on the tv at about 7:20 CST last night, and hear a song from Travelogue. When the picture comes in (antique tv, practically), I see two couples dancing in a bar to Joni singing Flat Tires. And on it goes till 8:00 ... through A Case of You, Sex Kills, etc ... I watched the rest, but it was pretty goofy I thought, however fine the choreography might have been ... at any rate, it was a piece called From Time to Time by (spelled phonetically) Mose Mosamas. Perhaps this is old news to some of you but I'd never heard of it before. Kate du Nord - -- http://xoetc.antville.org Who does she think she is Anaos Nin? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:34:15 -0600 From: "Cynthia Vickery" Subject: Re: raving raveen raven curls ok, so why (assuming here that Joni meant (at least primarily) the hair product) Raveen *curls*? isn't the purpose of that product to be a straightener/relaxer? is this reference to another "vain promise on beauty jars," or is it that the product would relax the hair and then the skinny black models perhaps rolled their hair on curlers (as opposed to leaving it "natural")? either way, i guess - another example of the artifice that Joni points out throughout HOSL...... does anyone else write like that? amazing! cindy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:32:20 -0500 From: cul Subject: re funeral tunes for me it would be : 1) Impossble Dreamer 2) Amelia 3) Man From Mars 4) Sweet Bird ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:49:12 -0500 From: "Lavieri, Vince [185776]" Subject: Re: john edwards njc You want ideological purity, it will never happen. You want to one issue vote, or be morally superior to the rest of us who do vote by your not voting, that is your option. You want to liuve in the past and make analogies that do not work to the present day, go right ahead. I really differ with you however. The "no difference" between the parties is bullshit. And there is fault to be found in both. But who gets apopointed to the federal judiciary and Suprmee Court, who sets energy policy, who is the commander in chief, who appoints the head of the FCC, what happwens to the PATRIOT act, who appoints the next attorney general, who makes up the budget and chooses tax cuts for the wealthy and sugegsts paying for them by reducing social security benefits from people who have worked all theiur life - I am sorry that I do not have your moral superioritty to consider those meaningless issues. There is a hell of a lot of difference between Kerry/Edwards and Bush and it makes a huge difference in November who wins. So la di da. You are above it all. Every non vote, every third party vote, is an assist for Bush in the real world where I live. My sister was choking to death on a piece of hamburger and I just had to be morally above that because she was so ethically wrong in eating meat that I could not see the difference between her and a slaughter house and I had told her that back in 1964 and ever since so I could not help her. She died of course but I had kept my ethical purity. If I had done the Heimlich manuever, I would just eb encouraging her to eat meat again so to show her I would not support her future meat eating, I just stayed home and didn't take part. At her funeral, I was very superior to everyone else. I told her children that, and they were blessed and agreed, that my decikson to not take part in something that I was so above, assisiting a meat eater, left them better off (even with a dead mother) with the results of my non action tahn if I had sullied myself taking part in an action that could be considered encouraging meat eating. That is my analogy Vince "Edwards, Kerry and so on. On example of why I disagree with you. I just want to point out that neither Edwards or Kerry support gay marriage. Which is only one example of why I fail to understand why so many of you go out and vote for a candidate far to the right of your own politics." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:47:49 -0800 (PST) From: Jennifer Faulkner Subject: colin, eating animals, njc Colin, ya sound angry. Humans had to eat meat before, but it's no longer necessary. Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:48:15 -0800 (PST) From: Jennifer Faulkner Subject: colin, eating animals, njc Colin, ya sound angry. Humans had to eat meat before, but it's no longer necessary to survive. Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:02:14 +0000 From: colin Subject: Re: colin, eating animals, njc Jennifer Faulkner wrote: >Colin, ya sound angry. > you must be very talented to get that from an email. > Humans had to eat meat before, but it's no longer necessary to survive. > > that is your opinion, not a fact. People have to make up their own mind what to eat and not eat without others making moral judgements about it. - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:26:36 -0500 From: "Marianne Rizzo" Subject: Nader njc >I'm OK with either guy, actually...what concerns me now is >dickhead Ralph Nader announcing his candidacy last Sunday, >merely to stroke his own ego. Hopefully the folks that voted >for him in 2000 (and in so doing gave us the mega-dickhead >Dubya) will pull a Pete Townsend and say "We won't get fooled >again", because their 'new boss' was DEFINITELY not the same >as the 'old boss'!! >Bob I like your enthusiasm here Bob, And I agree that we don't want to sacrifice this election with Nader taking votes away from the democratic candidate. I like Nader. Perhaps he has joined the race to give a voice to his ideologies (which are very good, I feel). Perhaps he is taking this opportunity to be heard and to bring the democrats a bit more to the left and to focus more on the environment and real people's public interests, etc. I am thinking that he could stay in the limelight, bring up a heap of important issues and then toward the end he can bow out and endorse the democratic candidate. . . . Maybe he has this in mind. Wouldn't that be good? I want to trust his intentions and hope for the best with his strategies. . . but then again I could be pollyanna here. (I voted for Nader in 2000, because I liked his beliefs and only because I knew Gore would take NY with out my vote.) (as far as "president" Bush goes, there has never been a worse president in my life time. I never even *imagined such a bad leader. . . . . serious here. ) I think we have to try to contribute to the front runner this year. The corporate world will be handing over millions to Bush, so it is time to reach into our pockets. Pay now or later.. . . Marianne _________________________________________________________________ Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S. locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:07:33 -0500 From: "Marianne Rizzo" Subject: eating animals njc Yes Debi, Seems like there's no comparison between the native americans and the "white man." The Native Americans had great reverence toward the earth and toward animals. . .never wasting, appreciating the sacredness . . etc. . . You should see the way I have seen people throw away meat in our country. . . and to think a creature died for you. . I don't much get into talking about sins and stuff. . but I think that is a sin. The white man decimated millions of Buffalo just to gain control of the indians. . . . needless slaughter. No reverence. I have this thing for Buffalo. (in my heart) Also, I think soy products are good. Someone said something about the philosophy of Yoga. That was a good point. The yoga instructor at my school (it's an after school club) said that the one major tenet of yoga is: D O N O H A R M. Now wouldn't this be good to aim for? And so once again, I am still on the road.. . (most of us are, I guess) .. ie. I still buy leather shoes (and feel not great about it). But I just found a website with leather alternatives, so I am going to look into it and see if I can find shoes as good as the leather ones. And I like suede. . .and I would like to have a suede coat, but I won't do that because I don't need a suede coat the way I need good sturdy shoes. . but have you seen that material . . hmmm . . .. what is it called ? It is soft like suede. . it is pretty nice. . . I can't remember right now. Marianne >Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:02:05 -0800 (PST) >From: Catgirl >Subject: Re: eating animals njc >I never heard of a Native American that factory farmed. I never knew a >Native >American that brutalized animals either. The Native Americans got burnt >real >bad by the white man and look what the white man did to their land. We all >should take the time out and listen to Lakota again.... and again, I say >we all >need to live by our own life choice. >Debi >colin wrote: >I respect people's choice not to eat animals. >What I object to is them putting their moral spin on it. They don't know >the Truth of it, it is just their idea. >If it was wrong for us humans to eat animal meat, we wouldn't be made the >way we are. Humans evolved to eat meat-that is how we survived. >Funny how it gets tied with spirituality. Many people believe the native >americans are highly spiritual yet they have always and still do eat meat. >Probably why they don;t get mentioned. >colin _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:38:59 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: john edwards njc I agree with much of what you say, as well as the excellent points brought up by SCBob and Vince. I did not know much about Kerry, and I had not even heard of Edwards until his candidacy. To listen to them, you would think they are progressive guys, but I have learned that their voting records have been pretty much in line with Bush. In other words, they have been right-of-center Democrats until they saw that populism (for lack of a better word) was, uh....popular. This is Clinton all over again. A Republican in Dem's clothing. It's a lose-lose situation. Do we want someone who will pacify the middle and left, while he takes us down that same old road, or someone who is such an unapoligetic poster boy for the billionaire military supremist rape-the-earth mentality that it actually mobilizes the left more than anything since Vietnam? The reasons Kucinich does not stand a chance: the corporate media will not stand for someone who will not lick their boots. Plus, real world, he looks kind of funny. I truly believe that Bush got elected more for his down-home public persona versus Gore's nervous-nelly vibe than anything else. I don't think Americans even have access to reality when it comes to politics. They get it all from the TV, most do anyway, and that is just soundbites and spin. Fear rules. I don't know what to make of Nader. Glad someone is out there speaking the truth-but he needs to get it::::::ANYBODY BUT BUSH. If the left can oust Bush and still keep the momentum going that has spawned movements like MoveOn, maybe there is still hope for actual democracy in this country. Amy Goodman's excellent Democracy Now news program is available daily at noon on http://kmud.org/ and at 4PM on http://kzyx.org/ Times are PST. Speaking of Americans getting their politics from TV, I never miss Bill Maher's show (Fridays and repeated throughout the week on HBO). Not to be outdone, the establishment media has installed corporate poolboy Dennis Miller nightly on MSNBC. Miller has an absolute hatred for Kucinich which is pathetically funny, unlike most of his material which is generally just pathetic, and lacking in that essential comedic element, humor. However, he's had Greg Palast ("The Best Democracy Money Can Buy") on his show for a couple of days-so at least, like Maher, he is giving the other side a chance to speak. Even if Miller is openly a Bush enthusiast, Randy says check it out. You may be laughing, but not for the intended reasons. RR > I wrote this before: 40 years ago the anti-war candidate, the peace candidate > supported by progressive people, who was gonna change America, was Johnson in > his race against Goldwater! Look at the sh*t you got into back then. And for > forty years the American Left has voted for candidates like him and you're > gonna do it again. > > Paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:52:31 -0800 From: Randy Remote Subject: Re: land mines njc My friend who fought in 'Nam said that the intention was to seriously injure the enemy, rather than kill, because it tied up their resources, besides terrorizing them psychologically. This is part of the sick mentality of warmakers, who only see things stategically. Like you, I marvel at the total lack of mention of Iraq or Afghanistan's (remember them?) civilian casualties by the media, or by politicians. You often hear of our brave American soldiers who have fallen. It's hard not to conclude that some lives are more valuble than others. Racism, I think they call it. Land mines suck. They are still blowing people's limbs off in Vietnam and Cambodia, some 30+ years later. RR Marianne Rizzo wrote: > I heard on National Public Radio (NPR) this morning as I was driving > into work that the US will NOT join 150 other nations > in prohibiting the use of land mines. > > Instead, US land minds will have detecting devices on them so that American > soldiers will know where they are. > > So we will take care of our soldiers, but we often leave out of the equation > the innocent civilians who are injured and killed by land mines. > > Just like in the Iraq war, countless times I have heard about American > casulties. . For me, I do not hear enough mention of civilian casualties. > Diane Ream (I like her) said last week (on NPR) that civilian deaths in Iraq > number between 7 and 9,000. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:26:59 -0500 From: cul Subject: Re: raving raveen raven curls swoooosh...right over the bean Joni Mondegreen club? whazzat? AsharaJM@aol.com wrote: >Cul, now in FL, wrote: > ><exactly what she meant >...and damn it, in my universe it will forever remain raving...just like >this train...er, of thought . :) >> > >Dearest Cul, you may now officially join the Joni Mondegreen club. Who's >next? ;-) > >Hugs, >Ashara ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:43:39 EST From: Warrenkeith91354@aol.com Subject: Re: swans on grass Greetings all ! I'm going to chime in again just long enough to say that swans are notorious for being extremely territorial birds. ( It's not just with humans but other birds as well.) I have witnessed the behavior with other swans as well as geese, and have heard many stories of assholes, of the human variety, taunting them and provoking the behavior. In my estimation that is one sad human who get a thrill from such behavior. Later... Jonily yours, Warren Keith ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:14:30 +0100 From: "Paul Mepschen" Subject: Re: john edwards Melani McAlister wrote a great piece on the religious right: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030922&s=mcalister Paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:14:33 -0500 From: "anon anon" Subject: Re: john edwards The thing is,Bush is so horrendous and dispicable that unless we vote for a moderate like Kerry or Edwards we are stuck with the lunatic we have now...at least Kerry and Edwards are by far the "lesser of 2 evils"...Even on abortion rights alone,having a democrat in office will be a big plus... >From: cul >Reply-To: cul >To: Paul Mepschen , joni@smoe.org >Subject: Re: john edwards >Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:26:08 -0500 > >In short, dead on! > >Kucinich is the best of the bunch to be sure. The rest are all >corporate/media slaves. Except Sharpton who >is untenable for other reasons. > >My main concern is finding a candidate who means to create a solid >resistance to the Dominionists who, by hijacking the >Republic party over the last 20 years guised as the religious right, have >managed to be right on schedule for their >ultimate long term plan of taking over and remaking the world ready for the >second coming. > >I know that sounds relatively conspiratist, but very few Americans are >aware of the true agenda of these pychopaths. >Anyone interested can see what i mean by a visit to >http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5160.shtml > > >Paul Mepschen wrote: > >>Edwards, Kerry and so on. >>On example of why I disagree with you. I just want to point out that >>neither >>Edwards or Kerry support gay marriage. Which is only one example of why I >>fail >>to understand why so many of you go out and vote for a candidate far to >>the >>right of your own politics. I agree that Kerry and Edwards are culturally >>more >>sophisticated and defitely more men of these times compared to Bush, but I >>fail to see big differences when it comes to policy. >>The American political landscape has seriously moved to the right the last >>decades. When it comes to socio-economic policies, Clinton was more right >>wing >>than Nixon. And while people tend to put the blame on Bush, and the Bush >>presidency surely repelled many liberals so much that they took to the >>streets >>again for the first time in 10 years, Clinton's foreign policy wasn't much >>different than Bush's. As Bush, Clinton relied on Great Britain as its >>main >>partner, as as Bush, Clinton's foreign policy was directed towards >>(Anglo-)American military hegemony. Don't forget that many Democrats, >>including Kerry, supported the war and only turned against the war when >>the >>mood in the country changed. >> >>Nader's vanity is clear and the fact that he broke with the Green party >>says >>enough. But to think that Kerry is a real alternative to Bush is something >>I >>fail to see. If I had the chance I'd rather vote for the vain Nader than >>another establishment candidate. Maybe the Greens will come with their own >>candidate. Even better! >> >>I think real change will not come from the Democratic establishment. Now, >>if >>you all would vote for Kucinich (who got 26 % in Hawaii, which I thought >>was >>great) or even would have for Dean (whom I didn't thrust, but ok) that >>would >>have posed a very serious problem to the Democratic establishment. I would >>still have advocated a progressive third candidate, but hey. Now, Kerry, >>is an >>establishment candidate and I just don't think he will make you see that >>little progression. When you look back, what progression, after twelve >>years >>of republican rule, did Clinton make?? >> >>I wrote this before: 40 years ago the anti-war candidate, the peace >>candidate >>supported by progressive people, who was gonna change America, was Johnson >>in >>his race against Goldwater! Look at the sh*t you got into back then. And >>for >>forty years the American Left has voted for candidates like him and you're >>gonna do it again. >> >>Paul _________________________________________________________________ Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage  4 plans to choose from! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:46:17 +0100 From: "Paul Mepschen" Subject: Re: john edwards njc He Bob, Randy and others -- I agree with a lot most of you have to say, but I also disagree with a lot of things. For one thing, of course the supreme court appointees are important, I'll be the last to differ. But on the other hand, I thought it was quite a backlash when even radicals in the women's movement said: 'vote against Bush, for he will appoint pro-life judges.' They were right, but we have to remember that women didn't get the right to choose because some judge was kind enough to give it to them, but because they (and many men as well) struggled for it. The history of our achievements is a history of struggle, not of official politics! Not one president ever spoke out for real changes for lesbian women and gay men. Things changed however, but that's because people struggled for it, organized, claimed the streets. I have a lot of respect for everyone who says: Bush out now. I understand. But I don't think it's sensible to only focus on that. If American progressives keep voting for people far to the right, you hold yourselves hostage. You will never be able to build a viable, progressive political alternative. Because, believe me, Kerry and Edwards are not gonna make the changes you long for. They are gonna keep the 'war on terror' going, and will also stay in Iraq (I bet my life!). They are certainly not gonna direct policy towards ending poverty in America or anything like it -- they are big business candidates like Bush is, they simply represent a more liberal faction of big business. And Bob, of course Bush is a huge moron, and CLinton was much more sophisticated. But that didn't change the fact that his foreign policy was directed toward American hegemony. Once more -- Kerry and Edwards (and that other Clinton Hillary) supported the war about which you, Bob, now say: "I don't think the parents of the children that have come back in pieces or in bodybags would agree that there is no difference." I know I come across as a radical. And I am. But I think I make sense... : - ) Paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:55:27 -0500 From: "Richard Flynn" Subject: RE: Songs for a funeral! I first heard Peter, Paul, & Mary's version. I remembered that name, Laura Nyro, and checked out her work & became a lifelong devotee. Paradoxically, the BS&T version always got on my nerves. But it's a greast song. Written when she was still a teenager, but I know what you mean about a mature understanding of it. (I have one 23-year-old child to carry on.) Richard - -----Original Message----- From: owner-joni@jmdl.com [mailto:owner-joni@jmdl.com]On Behalf Of SCJoniGuy@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:37 AM To: joni@smoe.org Subject: Re: Songs for a funeral! I really just want one song at my funeral, and it's not even a Joni - imagine that! Laura Nyro's "And When I Die", which I always loved (like most of you I guess, I was intro'd to it by Blood Sweat & Tears), But now that I have that "one child born to carry on" it really means a lot to me. Since I intend to be cremated, I guess you could play Joni's "Smokin'"! :~) Bob NP: Shelby Lynne, "All Of A Sudden You Disappeared" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:54:32 EST From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: john edwards njc **But I think I make sense... Oh you do, and I agree (and sadly so) with most of what you say regarding the political direction of our country. There are some good things happening but its outside the beltway, more often than not. Our system has become too corrupt to function the way it should. It's like traveling and realizing you're so lost that you have to go back home & start again, because "you can't get there from here." All that being true, anybody the Dems prop up is a better choice than Bush. Anybody. As for Iraq, Wolfewitz has had his agenda there since 1988, but until Bush has not a mope that would buy into it. Thanks for your thoughts. Bob NP: Ani, "In Or Out" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:46:09 +0000 From: colin Subject: puppy update njc They have amde it to 7 days. 4 are now gainign weight well, looking plump. The little girl that has fought so hard for life looks as if she is giving up. She ahs gained a little, 10 gms, but is skinny. SBhe ahs always been eager and strong and guzzled on the bottle. She has now refused the last two feeds. Seems she has grown tired of the fight. i think somthing is stopping the poor thing getting any growth out of her food. Mum has finally produced milk tho not enough. Perhaps in another couple of days she will have more. She has still done her job of washing and cuddling. without that, even with bottle feeding, it is hard to keep puppies alive. they need the comfort and contact of their mum. I need to get htese to 3 weeks and start rtehm on solids. I won't be able to breathe till they get to 4 weeks really. the smallest is 4 ozs, the next is 5.5ozs and the 3 biggest are 6ozs. 60 ozs is average BIRTH weight, so these are really tiny. The other litter at 1 week weigh close to 16ozs. It's hard to see this little one giving up but nature knows what it is doing. - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:05:36 -0500 From: vince Subject: in november njc To me, to be honest, you do not make sense. Paul Mepschen wrote: > >I know I come across as a radical. And I am. But I think I make sense... >: - ) > >Paul > > Sorry. I do not not mean to offend. I reject the concept that Kerry and Edwards or any of the Democratic candidates were far to the right or even to the right. Lieberman (who I had little use for) might be conservative on many things where I am not, but he was not and never was some one from the right. And Kerry's and Edwards' records are not similar to Bush's. No way. I am a genuine leftist, been arrested for civil disobedience (the United States of America against Me was a fun case), am really a socialist at heart. I yield to no one in being a radical. I belong to the IWW just to be a card carrying radical. People here have been reading my posts since 1998. I think most would agree if there is a leftist position to take, I will take it. Vehemently. I also live in the real world. I am the gay earring wearing (both ears) chair of our our county Democratic party. And due to some circumstances not of my doing I have had my time in the local, regional, state, and national media (links to salon.com were posted here I think). And I used it to good political advantage. Lets all get off our leftist high horses and put down our radical signs (let the freak flag fly though) and get real. The court appointments are life and death. I don't care that Kerry and Edwards do not support "gay marriage." I don't care at all that some see some Clinton-esque "New Democrat" thing at work with them. Fine! Excellent! Right on! (And Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act and he will get flayed for it in this campaign. Edwards was not in the Senate then. Sure Clinton pandered when he signed it. We all sell out here and there.) We all sell out here and there. None of us live so pure that we can demand purity from a candidate who we need to get elected. Getting elected. Where is, for example, gay marriage coming from? Not from the executive or legislative branches, to be sure. It is a civil rights issue for a minority. And where does that come from? FROM THE COURTS. The reason there is a constitutional amendment proposed is because anyone in the law field - from Justice Scalia down to any law student - knows that the 14th amendment to the Constitution will bring about gay marriage. Unless he 14th amendment is trumped by a new amendment, it prevails. Kerry and Edwards are not "for" gay marriage. It doesn't matter. They are opposed to the constitutional amendment, will campaign against it as they already have, and that is what builds the constituency we need. Given that the courts will rule here, who do you want making those appointments? If one really supports gay rights, IF ONE REALLY REALLY SUPPORTS GAY RIGHTS, you know this election is too crucial to sit it out or give Bush an assist by voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee. Justice O'Connor has made it clear she wants to retire but she couldn't because of her vote in Bush v Gore. Justice Stevens is in his 80s and hanging on until a Democrat is elected. Justice Ginsburg has had cancer. The person who gets sworn in January will appoint 2 if not 3 members to the Supreme Court in 2005. The person who gets sworn in January will appoint 2 if not 3 members to the Supreme Court in 2005. The person who gets sworn in January will appoint 2 if not 3 members to the Supreme Court in 2005. And Bush has made it his practice to appoint people to the judiciary in the 40s so they will be a long, long time. And if Souter, Breyer, Kennedy get sick or die, that could give the next president up to 6 nominations to make. 6 of 9... 7 of 9 if Rehnquist decides 30+ years is enough, and what do you think the odds are the Bush would name Scalia as Chief Justice? What part about that doesn't anyone get? After the current Court threw out the sodomy laws and paved the way for the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, do you think Bush and his people will fail to vet a potential nominee on the 14th amendment issue? The sodomy decision paved the way for the marriage issue to be settled, as Justice Scalia pointed out - and he was right. Kerry and Edwards are our allies. They will do what the damned right wing Clinton did - appoint the type of justices and judges we need like Breyer and Ginsburg. In short: speaking as a gay man, anyone who fails to vote for the Democratic nominee by not voting or by voting for Nader, that person is my enemy. You are my enemy and the enemy of gay rights in America. Keep the eye on the prize. Doesn't matter about "gay marriage." It matters what the court is going to say and what matters is who appoints. It matters what the Court will rule when the federal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act come before it. You pick who decides: A Bush court? Vote for Nader then. Because a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush BECAUSE IN THE REAL WORLD THE PERSON WHO WINS NOMINATES THE NEW COURT. Nader cannot win. The Democrat can lose. Be holy and pure and moral and cast a third party vote and stay far, far away from me when a Bush court over rules the 14th amendment on gay issues. How can Kerry who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act be attacked for not being enough for gay rights? Does your candidate have to be perfect? Only Senator Feingold voted against the Patriot Act. So some people I truly respect like Senators Levin, Bayh, Byrd, Milukski, Sarbannes voted wrong. On something important. So voting for Nader solves that how? I am sick unto death of people saying that there is no difference between the parties. One party has blocked Bush's nominations in the Senate and the way the one party has held together has meant that no one on the Supreme Court dared resign since 2001 because everyone can see the pitched battle that will happen. One party does anything for civil rights, labor, the environment. Tell me the parties are the same and I will know you are parroting George Wallace. If Gore appoints an attorney general, we have no Ashcroft. Kerry is running on replacing the attorney general. The Republicans will keep him. What part of that does anyone miss? Go down policy issue after policy issue. There are real differences. Very real. And being real: sure Dennis Kucinich says the right things. He believes the right thing. Now get over the conspiracy fantasies. Do those who say that he won't get the nomination because of the party bosses or whatever have a clue? Have you met him? He was in my town the day before the caucus on a major jobs issue and the rally that Kucinich was jam packed. The nest day was the caucus and the same people who cheered him wildly on Friday voted for Kerry on Saturday. I know because I ran the caucus and I have the ballots and I have looked at every one and I know who was at the rally. Kerry got 54% of our county vote, Kucinich got 11%. (Edwards got 17% of the vote, including mine.) Don't believe me, go to salon.com and search my name for two articles on 2-7 and 2-8 or 2-9. I was at the caucus, I know why people voted. Kucinich, mayor of Cleveland when it when bankrupt, is a great guy and he is goofy and weird as hell and he is totally unelectable not because of his views and not his looks but because of his personality and his record. The people out here in a state that has lost 120,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 3 years including 2,700 in my town of 8,000 (do the math, think about the devastation on our local economy) turned out in record numbers to vote for Kerry. Many acknowledge Kerry voted wrong on NAFTA when it was in the Senate, but they also know Kerry has been very direct in that NAFTA must be changed and Kerry knows what the issues are in that change, at least in the eyes of the people in my county who are losing their jobs for whom this is not an idle issue. Anyone wants to vote for Nader, please come to one of our county meetings and sit with 100s of people who are losing their jobs and look them in the eye and tell them that you are voting for Nader and that there is no difference between the parties, that Kerry/Edwards or Bush doesn't matter. Come and look them in the eyes. We are living with this here. We know every fault of Kerry and Edwards and all of those who ran. But this is the time to look at the bigger picture. Will the Democratic nominee be perfect? No. Is Nader perfect? Hell no. Can Nader win? No. Who can lose, Bush or the Democratic nominee? And our very imperfect Democratic party in this state - the Democrats in our state Senate announced today they will block a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. No Nader supporter is in real life blocking that amendment, it is us "no different than Republicans" Democrats who are blocking it. Gees, give me a break on this. In this small western Michigan town a bunch of factory workers and farmers elected a gay man as their county chair. They did battle to oppose anti choice and anti gay legislation. In this all white community they are holding out against the petition drive to end affirmative action (upheld by the Supreme Court and you want Bush making the next appointments?) And these are the people you are saying are no different than Republicans? Bullshit is all I can say. You want perfection and you Nader is it? Hell, Joni Mitchell punched her maid and released "Smoking Try Another" and DED. Sometimes you look at the big picture and overlook the less important details because there is something more important going on. Sometimes you look at the big picture and overlook the less important details because there is something more important going on. Sometimes you look at the big picture and overlook the less important details because there is something more important going on. It will be Bush or Kerry/Edwards. There are no other choices that are real. It is not purity and it is not morality that this election is about, it is about who in real, life will make the decisions that effect us. Kerry and Edwards despite their imperfections listen to us. Bush does not. Kerry and Edwards listen to us. I have never been this passionate about an election. I may stay friends with someone who sits this election out or votes for Nader, but I reserve the right to not like you very much and consider that when we needed you, you voted for the enemy. The real Republicans who vote for Bush? I will always respect them. Hey, that is where they are at. At least they have the discernment to get past the holier-than-thou cliche bullshit about no difference between the parties and know that from their perspective they want you to vote for Nader because they know who it hurts. Vince who remembers very well that many on the far left wanted Reagan to win in 1980 because they thought after 4 years of Reagan, America would be ready for revolution - instead we got 8 years of Reagan and 4+4 and maybe 4 more years of Bushes. When I need to see the dream, I look to the radical left, who are good at dreams and really bad on reality, on making those dreams real. Bless them for calling us to look at the dream becuase it keeps up looking the right way but as far as paving the road to the right way, not very helpful. When I make what I can of the dream to be the reality in the lives of real people in this time, I look to reality to make it happen, piece by piece, but women's suffrage, child labor laws, abolition, choice, gay rights, civil rights, workers rights, environmental laws, were once beyond imagining and what we have gained has come through our imperfect two party system. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2004 #90 **************************** ------- 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)